Opinion
12215-22
09-10-2024
KIM MARIE PICKNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
MARK V. HOLMES JUDGE
This case was on the Court's May 20, 2024 St. Paul, Minnesota trial calendar. Ms. Pickner did not appear. This was not the first time in the course of this litigation that Ms. Pickner did not move ahead with her case in a normal fashion. As respondent described in his motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution filed on April 25, 2024 (and then twice amended) Ms. Pickner:
• agreed to continue the case in 2022 in an attempt to settle it at IRS Appeals but did not respond to Appeals' request for documentation;
• failed to respond to a February 23, 2023 letter again requesting her cooperation in producing records to IRS Appeals;
• did not respond to a December 27, 2023 letter from the IRS that sought her attendance at a pretrial conference and informal discovery of whatever documents she had that supported her case;
• spoke with the IRS on January 16, 2024 and promised to deliver documents in support of her position by January 31, 2024 but did not do so;
• promised the IRS again in a February 8, 2024 phone call that she would finally send her documents "in the next few days," but never did; and
• did not appear for trial.
Respondent did report at calendar call that he had called petitioner's phone number and that petitioner's friend answered and said that Ms. Pickner was in the hospital. Ms. Pickner herself then contacted respondent and informed him that she would likely be released on May 20 or May 21. According to respondent, Ms. Pickner expressed during their telephone conversation that she objected to respondent's motion and did not want to forfeit her case.
We therefore recalled the case on May 22, 2024. Ms. Pickner again did not appear. Respondent told us that he had received an email from Ms. Pickner on May 21, 2024, stating that she might be released from the hospital on May 24, 2024. Hospitalization would certainly have been a good excuse for not being in court.
Instead of granting respondent's motion to dismiss, we therefore issued Ms. Pickner an order to show cause why we shouldn't, and gave her until July 23 to respond. We then waited until September to see if she would respond late. A recent check of the Court's docket shows no response.
In light of this long series of failing to cooperate in informal discovery and appear at conferences or calendar calls, we have to conclude that respondent's motion is well-taken.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Court's May 22, 2024 order to show cause is made absolute. It is also
ORDERED that respondent's second amended motion to dismiss filed on May 6, 2024 is granted and this case is dismissed. It is also
ORDERED that respondent's first amended motion to dismiss is denied as moot. It is also
ORDERED and DECIDED that there due from petitioner for the tax year 2018 a deficiency in income tax of $13,286.00; an addition to tax under IRC section 6651(a)(1) of $2,989.35; an addition to tax under IRC section 6651(a)(2) of $2,524.34; and a penalty under IRC section 6654 of $430.81.