Opinion
13154-23S
09-18-2023
MERCEDES SILVA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 10, 2023, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioner seeks review of a notice of deficiency dated June 22, 2023, and issued with respect to her federal income tax for the taxable year 2021. On September 15, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss.
In the deficiency context, once a taxpayer has filed a petition with the Tax Court, the taxpayer cannot withdraw that petition. Settles v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 372, 374 (2012); Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519 (1974). When the Tax Court dismisses a deficiency case for a reason other than lack of jurisdiction, we generally are required by I.R.C. section 7459(d) to enter a decision for the Commissioner for the amount of tax determined against the taxpayer in the notice of deficiency. Settles, 138 T.C. at 374; Estate of Ming, 62 T.C. at 522. Rule 123(d) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure requires that a decision entered pursuant to a dismissal on a ground other than lack of jurisdiction operate as an adjudication on the merits of the taxpayer's case.
As noted above, petitioner has filed a timely Petition for redetermination of a deficiency. Respondent's answer is due on or before October 17, 2023. In her Motion to Dismiss, petitioner does not state the reason that she seeks dismissal of this case, stating only that "good cause exists" to grant the Motion "[f]or the reasons set forth in the documents filed in support of [it]." However, no such documents have been filed in support. In view of the foregoing, we will deny petitioner's Motion to Dismiss.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Dismiss is denied.