Opinion
15573-22W
09-26-2022
EDWARD MARTIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 8, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. On September 15, 2022, petitioner filed a Notice of No Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.
On September 23, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent states in that motion that petitioner does not object to the granting of that motion. In respondent's motion, respondent asserts that, based upon the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the ruling in Li is not yet final as the petitioner in Li has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
On the other hand, in Jacobson v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 68, 70 (2017), the Court held that a whistleblower case may be dismissed upon motion by the petitioner. As it appears that petitioner may wish to voluntarily dismiss this case, the Court will provide petitioner the opportunity to file his own motion to dismiss.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, if petitioner wishes to voluntarily dismiss this case, petitioner shall, on or before October 18, 2022, file an appropriate motion to dismiss.