Opinion
19225-21
11-13-2023
RAYMOND W. MARTIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Emin Toro Judge
On September 14, 2023, this case was called from the Court's Kansas City, Missouri, remote trial session for a Status Hearing. As discussed during the Status Hearing, the Court gave the parties additional time to file either a status report or a stipulated decision document.
On October 5, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Entry of Decision (Doc. 51). By Order served October 6, 2023, petitioner was directed to file a response to respondent's Motion.
On October 13, 2023, respondent filed a Status Report (Doc. 54) attaching a copy of a letter received from petitioner dated September 29, 2023. Respondent further provides that petitioner requested "additional time to respond to respondent's September 20, 2023, letter" and that "[t]he letter does not explain why additional time is needed, or how long the extension should be." Respondent states "that petitioner has had ample time to consider his options in this matter, and he may respond to the Motion for Entry of Decision if he has an objection."
On October 16, 2023, the Court received from petitioner a Letter dated September 29, 2023 (Doc. 55). On October 25, 2023, petitioner filed a Status Report (Doc. 56). On November 6, 2023, petitioner filed a further Status Report (Doc. 57). Although the title of the November 6 Status Report is clear enough, the contents of the Report are hard to decipher.
As the Court has advised Mr. Martin before, tax clinics generally provide assistance and advice to low-income taxpayers and self-represented litigants who have disputes with the IRS. But these clinics are not part of the IRS or the Tax Court, and the Tax Court does not endorse any particular clinic. Nor does the Court appoint an attorney to represent self-represented taxpayers. So, it has been up to Mr. Martin to engage with one of the clinics if he wishes to. In his filings with the Court, Mr. Martin continues to refer to not having "received the contact information for the Tax Court Appointed attorney" and to the need "to have a Tax Court Appointed attorney to represent the Taxpayer." As both respondent's counsel and the Court have explained to Mr. Martin more than once, in a proceeding before this Court taxpayers do not receive Court-appointed attorneys, so the Court is unable to provide to Mr. Martin information about such an appointed attorney.
Having reviewed Mr. Martin's most recent submissions, we see no reason to delay any further entry of decision in this case.
For the reasons discussed in respondent's Motion, and upon due consideration, we will grant respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision and enter decision in this case as is shown below.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision (Doc. 51) is granted with modifications appearing in the below ORDERED AND DECIDED paragraph. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2018 in the amount of $387.15, and that there is an overpayment in income tax for the taxable year 2018 in the amount of $10,811.39, of which $5,076.68 was paid on March 22, 2021, and for which amount a claim for refund could have been filed under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6511(b)(2) on March 29, 2021, and of which $5,734.71 was paid after the mailing of the notice of deficiency;
That there is no penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for taxable year 2018.