Opinion
9422-20
10-06-2023
DR. QUINTON B. RICHMOND, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Richard T. Morrison Judge
On May 4, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 32).
On May 30, 2023, this case was called from the calendar of the Court's May 30, 2023 Tampa, Florida Trial Session. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Counsel for respondent appeared and advised the Court that petitioner passed away.
On June 6, 2023, the Court ordered respondent to file a report setting forth, with respect to the deceased petitioner, the names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers of any heirs-at-law, whether administration of an estate has been opened, and whether any person has been appointed as the executor, personal representative, or fiduciary for such estate (Doc. 37). It also ordered respondent to provide a copy of petitioner's death certificate.
On August 7, 2023, respondent filed a Status Report advising the Court that:
1. On June 12, 2023, petitioner's pro bono Counsel, Mitchell Horowitz, who filed a Limited Entry of Appearance for petitioner during the Court's March 28, 2022 trial session in Tampa, Florida, shared the contact information of Mr. Todd Metz. Metz previously accompanied petitioner to the Court's March 28, 2022 Trial Session.
2. Respondent contacted Metz to obtain information about petitioner's heirs-at law. Metz shared a contact telephone number for petitioner' adult son, Larry Richmond.
3. Respondent contacted Larry Richmond via the telephone, left voicemails which included information about the Court's June 6, 2023 Order, and requested returned telephone calls. Larry Richmond did not returned respondent's telephone calls.
4. Based on respondent's diligent search, respondent is unaware of any additional heirs-at-law, whether administration of an estate has been opened, or whether any person has been appointed as the executor, personal representative, or fiduciary for such estate.
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner for failure to properly prosecute his case, failure to comply with the Rules of this Court or any order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems sufficient. Rule 123(b); Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45, 48-49 (4th Cir. 1996); Stearman v. Commissioner, 436 F.3d 533, 535-37 (5th Cir. 2006), aff'g, T.C. Memo. 2005-39; Edelson v. Commissioner, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1987), aff'g, T.C. Memo. 1986-223. When a petitioner dies, the Court generally will order that a representative or successor be substituted as the proper party. Rule 63(a). If no representative of the decedent comes forward to prosecute the decedent's case before this Court, the procedural means for bringing the case to a close is a motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute the case. See Nordstrom v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 30, 32 (1968).
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Court has been informed that respondent is unaware of a representative or fiduciary willing to act on behalf of petitioner's Estate under Florida law. Consequently, the Court will dismiss this case for lack of prosecution.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, as supplemented by respondent's August 7, 2023 Status Report, is granted. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2018.