Opinion
6544-23
06-21-2023
BETTY J. SPENCER & STEVE CHAPMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On June 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Close on Ground of Duplication. Therein, respondent requests that this case be closed on the ground that it is a duplicate of the case filed at Docket No. 6024-13S. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the Motion.
On April 30, 2023, petitioners electronically filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioners have checked the box indicating that they seek review of a notice of deficiency, listing the taxable year 2010 as the period for which the notice was issued. In the space provided for the date(s) the notice(s) was/were issued, petitioners have listed three dates: "04/24/2023; 10/25/2021; [and] 10/21/2013." Among other things, petitioners assert in the Petition that they have fully paid their income tax liability for the taxable year 2010, but that the "IRS continues to send notices of deficiency and notifications of intent to levy despite the debts being paid." No notice of deficiency, nor any other notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the Petition.
In his Motion to Close on Ground of Duplication, respondent notes that, by notice of deficiency dated January 8, 2013, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' federal income tax for the taxable year 2010, and that petitioner Betty J. Spencer (but not petitioner Steve Chapman) thereafter filed a timely petition for redetermination, assigned Docket No. 6024-13S, with respect to that notice. A decision was entered in the case at Docket No. 6024-13S on January 23, 2017. That decision is now final. I.R.C. § 7481(b).
If, as respondent asserts, the Petition in the case at Docket No. 6544-23 is seeking review of the same notice of deficiency upon which the case at Docket No. 6024-13S was based, then that notice would not provide a basis for petitioners to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in this action. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, rather than a motion to close on the ground of duplication, would be an appropriate filing at this juncture. However, as noted above, the Petition at Docket No. 6544-23 is not entirely clear as to the basis on which petitioners seek to invoke this Court's jurisdiction: It provides multiple dates for the purported notice(s) of deficiency but also references notices of intent to levy, suggesting petitioners may be seeking to dispute a notice of determination concerning collection action (provided any such notice was issued).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Close on Ground of Duplication is denied. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before July 24, 2023, respondent may file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.