Magee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Full title: QUINCY MAGEE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Court: United States Tax Court

Date published: Jul 7, 2022

No. 5377-21 (U.S.T.C. Jul. 7, 2022)

Opinion

5377-21

07-07-2022

QUINCY MAGEE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

ORDER

Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

On July 27, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in this case alleging that no notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioner for tax year 2018 that would permit petitioner to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. On July 27, 2021, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

On December 2, 2021, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction granting respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground that no notice of determination concerning collection action had been issued to petitioner for tax year 2018 that would permit him to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. On the same day that the Court issued its Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order and a First Amended Petition. On December 5, 2021, petitioner filed a Supplement to his amended petition. Petitioner has not offered any additional information or documents that would show that respondent issued a notice of determination that would permit him to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). As fully explained in the Court's Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction served December 2, 2021, petitioner has failed to identify or provide any IRS notice of determination upon which jurisdiction in this case could be based.

Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. See Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 513-514 (2011) (imposing a section 6673 penalty for tax protester arguments). Considering the allegations in this case, petitioner's position herein is frivolous and groundless. Although the Court will not impose a penalty on petitioner in this case, he is admonished that the Court will strongly consider imposing such a penalty should he return to the Court and advance similar arguments in the future.

Upon due consideration and for cause, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.