Opinion
18904-22
10-06-2022
KRISTINE M. PERRY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On October 3, 2022, the Court received a set of documents from petitioner and filed them on the same date as a Letter by Petitioner. The first among those documents is a copy of the Court's Order served August 26, 2022, designating Louisville, Kentucky, as the place of trial in this case. On the copy of the Order, petitioner has handwritten: "I do not need tax court; response letter was mailed to that address by mistake. Thank you."
Based on a review of the record, it appears that the "response letter" referenced by petitioner is the Petition filed to commence this case on August 17, 2022. That Petition was timely filed in response to a Notice of Deficiency dated August 1, 2022, determining a deficiency and an I.R.C. section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year 2020.
In a deficiency case where this Court has jurisdiction, as here, the Court is generally required to enter a decision specifying the amount of the deficiency, if any, for the taxable year at issue. See I.R.C. § 7459(d); Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519 (1974); see also Davidson v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 273, 274 (2015) ("[I]n deficiency cases brought pursuant to [I.R.C.] section 6213 a taxpayer may not withdraw a petition in order to avoid a decision."); Settles v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 372, 374 (2012) ("In the deficiency context, once a taxpayer has filed a petition with the Tax Court, the taxpayer cannot withdraw that petition."). Moreover, Rule 123(d) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that a decision rendered in consequence of a dismissal (other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Because this case is based on a notice of deficiency, the Court is required under the aforementioned authorities to enter a decision and, accordingly, the Petition may not be withdrawn or dismissed by petitioner. Moreover, the Court notes that, if we were to dismiss this case, we would be required to enter a decision against petitioner for the full amounts of the deficiency and penalty determined in the Notice of Deficiency upon which the case is based.
Nevertheless, if the Letter by Petitioner filed on October 3, 2022, is indicative of petitioner's preference to resolve this dispute without a trial, the Court notes that, after the Internal Revenue Service files an answer in this case, petitioner may contact the IRS's attorney to confer and exchange documents and information. The name of that attorney and his or her contact information will be provided in the answer. If the parties thereafter reach a settlement agreement, they may then submit a proposed decision document reflecting that agreement for the Court's consideration.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the above-referenced Letter is recharacterized as petitioner's Motion to Withdraw. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Withdraw is denied.