Opinion
24980-22
10-26-2023
STEVEN L. SEARCY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Tamara W. Ashford, Judge.
This case was calendared for trial at the Session of the Court commencing on September 26, 2023, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; the trial session was conducted remotely. Prior to the trial session, on August 7, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. By Order served on the parties on August 8, 2023, the Court ordered petitioner to (1) contact the chambers of the undersigned Judge as soon as possible for the purpose of scheduling a conference call to discuss respondent's motion and the status of this case and (2) show cause in writing, on or before September 6, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Petitioner did not respond to either respondent's August 7, 2023, motion or the Court's August 8, 2023, Order. However, when the case was called from the calendar, petitioner appeared. Counsel for respondent also appeared, and the parties were heard on the motion and the status of this case. By Order served on the parties on September 27, 2023, the undersigned Judge continued the case, took respondent's August 7, 2023, motion under advisement, retained jurisdiction of the case, and ordered the parties to submit to the Court an agreed stipulated decision document or file status reports on or before October 26, 2023.
On October 20, 2023, respondent file a Motion for Entry of Decision, requesting that the Court enter a decision pursuant to the parties' agreement and in accordance with the proposed decision document attached to the motion that (1) there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the 2020 taxable year and (2) there is no penalty due from petitioner under I.R.C. section 6662(a) for the 2020 taxable year. In the motion, respondent states that on October 3, 2023, he called petitioner and informed him that he was prepared to concede the case, but that he would need to execute a decision document to that effect; petitioner thanked him and agreed to accept the decision document via email, and the decision document was emailed to him the same day. Respondent also states that having not received the signed decision document from petitioner, on October 16, 17, and 18, 2023, he attempted to contact him twice by telephone to inquire as to the status of the decision document, but the calls went unanswered and he was unable to leave a voicemail as the voicemail box had not been set up; respondent also followed up with petitioner via email. According to respondent, as of the time of the filing of the motion, he has neither heard back from petitioner nor received the signed decision document from him. Upon due consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, served on the parties on August 8, 2023, is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed August 7, 2023, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision, filed October 20, 2023, is granted. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the 2020 taxable year. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is no penalty due from petitioner under I.R.C. section 6662(a) for the 2020 taxable year.