Opinion
17811-19
03-16-2022
April Misloski-Mason & Ian Mason Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Mark V. Holmes Judge
This case was on the Court's January 25, 2021 trial calendar for Los Angeles. Petitioners did not appear at calendar call. Respondent did appear and said that IRS Appeals had proposed a settlement to petitioners at an amount lower than that in the notice of deficiency, and that petitioners had accepted the settlement on February 19, 2020. His attempts over the next several months to get a signed stipulated decision from petitioners were, however, unsuccessful. Respondent moved before the calendar call for dismissal for failure to prosecute. We discussed this on the record at calendar call; the only reason respondent's motion wasn't granted was that respondent wanted to supplement his motion to show he had proof he'd met his burden of production.
We took the motion under advisement pending arrival of the supplement to the motion. This supplement, it turns out, had actually already arrived before the calendar call. The Court also had other cases titled Mason v. Commissioner, which this division of the Court then got confused on its outstanding-cases-waiting-for-a-filing list. We apologize to the parties for our mistakes that caused this delay, but now that we've figured it out there is no reason not to finally grant this undisputed motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that respondent's January 11, 2021 motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, as supplemented by his January 25, 2021 supplement to this motion, is granted. It is also
ORDERED and DECIDED that for the 2017 tax year there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioners of $5,163; but that there is no penalty due under I.R.C. § 6662(a).