Opinion
14631-22
09-05-2023
RYAN CHARLES MINNIG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Patrick J. Urda Judge
On May 2, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing petitioner Ryan Charles Minnig to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of prosecution and enter a decision in the amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency for taxable year 2017. Mr. Minnig failed to appear at our trial session in Denver despite being given multiple opportunities (both in-person and by Zoomgov) to do so. He has filed a response, and we will ask the Commissioner to reply.
By way of background, Mr. Minnig has a long history of pressing tax-defier arguments in this Court, including in his petition in this case. After receiving multiple warnings that the prospect of hefty I.R.C. section 6673 penalties loomed ever larger, Mr. Minnig represented that he would not continue to pursue such arguments. During pre-trial conversations with this Court, however, he was unable to point to any non-frivolous issue that he wished to contest.
Mr. Minnig did not appear when his case was called on April 24, 2023, the first day of our Denver, Colorado trial session. The Court set the matter for recall the next day and apprised Mr. Minnig of this fact. He did not appear then either. After our recall had concluded, Mr. Minnig responded to an email from the Court, explaining that he believed that the parties had an agreement to submit the case under Rule 122.
The Court set this case for a third recall on April 27, 2023, via Zoomgov. Mr. Minnig again did not appear, and the Commissioner rejected any suggestion that there had been an agreement to submit this case under Rule 122. Harboring deep suspicions that Mr. Minnig was acting for purposes of delay, we ordered him to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In his response, Mr. Minnig argues that this Court is unable to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution. Mr. Minnig explains that the Commissioner determined a deficiency based on unreported income, which comes with the burden to show a minimal evidentiary foundation linking Mr. Minning to the unreported income. Mr. Minnig likewise notes that the Commissioner bears the burden with respect to penalties as well. He contends that the record does not include sufficient information for us to determine that the Commissioner satisfied these burdens and that dismissal thus is not appropriate.
We will allow the Commissioner to reply to Mr. Minnig's contentions. If he so chooses, the Commissioner may include a declaration with exhibits on either of these points. Depending on the nature of the Commissioner's reply, the Court will then determine whether to permit Mr. Minnig the opportunity to file a sur-reply. We note for Mr. Minnig's benefit that I.R.C. section 6673 authorizes the imposition of penalties where it appears that, inter alia, proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before September 19, 2023, the Commissioner shall file a reply to Mr. Minnig's response to Order to Show Cause.