Opinion
33384-21
10-26-2022
MARIA D. CARDENAS MEZA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Upon further review of the record in the above-docketed matter, the Court notes that the Petition, filed October 21, 2021, has not been properly executed, insofar as it has not been signed by petitioner or by a practitioner admitted to practice before this Court. However, on October 20, 2022, the parties filed a Proposed Stipulated Decision, resolving the underlying tax liability that is the subject of this proceeding. Insofar as the Court's procedures require a stipulated decision to bear the original signature of the taxpayer, provided at minimum to the filing party as a high-resolution digital image and so maintained by the filing party, petitioner's intentions to file and prosecute the case in this forum have been adequately verified.
Additionally, the Court notes that the preamble of the Proposed Stipulated Decision is improper under the circumstances and should instead read in relevant part: "Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in this case."
In view of the foregoing, to give effect to the agreement of the parties in this case, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the parties' Proposed Stipulated Decision is recharacterized as the parties' Settlement Stipulation. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED: That there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2018 and that there is no overpayment in income tax due to petitioner for tax year 2018; and
That there is no penalty due from petitioner for tax year 2018, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6662(a).