Opinion
4220-19
04-22-2024
PAUL D. STROHM, DECEASED, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge
This case was originally calendared for trial at the October 2, 2023, Trial Session of the Court in Kansas City, Missouri. By Order of the Court dated September 27, 2023, this case was continued and jurisdiction was retained by this Division of the Court.
On February 14, 2024, respondent filed with the Court a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Respondent informed the Court that petitioner passed away after the Petition in this case was filed, and that there is no representative or fiduciary authorized to act on behalf of the Estate of Paul D Strohm, deceased. Respondent informed the Court that he spoke to decedent's surviving issues about the motion, reduced deficiencies, and penalties. Respondent also informed the Court that he conceded a portion of the adjustments initially set forth in the notice of deficiency.
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against a taxpayer for failure properly to 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. Tax Court Rule 123(b); Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45, 48-48 (4th Cir. 1996); 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. Tax Court Rule 63(a). In the event that no representative of a decedent comes forward to prosecute the decedent's case before this Court, the procedural means for bringing the case to a close is dismissal for lack of prosecution. See Nordstrom, 50 T.C. 30, 32 (1968); Catlett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-102; Wyler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-285.
We conclude, in accordance with the representations in respondent's motion, that there is no fiduciary or other representative currently authorized to act on behalf of the estate of the decedent. Petitioner's heir-at-laws have been given notice of this case and do not object to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, and petitioner's counsel do not object to the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Accordingly, the Court will grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that in addition to regular service on the parties, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Scott J. Strohm, Brian J. Strohm, and Nicholas J. Strohm at the mailing address listed for them in paragraph 7 of respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed with the Court on February 14, 2024, is granted in that this case is dismissed, and it is
ORDERED AND DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for taxable year 2013 in the amount of $65,249.00, and a penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for taxable year 2013 in the amount of $13,049.80;
That there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for taxable year 2014 in the amount of $35,066.00, and a penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for taxable year 2014 in the amount of $7,013.20;
That there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for taxable year 2015 in the amount of $2,335.00, and there is no penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for taxable year 2015; and, That there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for taxable year 2016, and there is no penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for taxable year 2016.