Opinion
4810-23
04-05-2024
JACK DONALD SUPINGER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
David Gustafson Judge
This case was set for trial at the Tax Court's session in Columbia, South Carolina, beginning April 8, 2024. On April 2, 2024, petitioner Jack Donald Supinger filed a motion (Doc. 31) to dismiss his own case. The Commissioner filed a response (Doc. 33), indicating (at page 2, 3d para.) that he does not object to dismissal on the terms we will order here. We will grant the motion and, pursuant to section 7459(d), will enter decision in favor of the Commissioner.
Background
Prior cases
This case is Mr. Supinger's third case in the Tax Court. His first case was No. 10957-20, concerning the year 2017, was tried before the judge signing this order. It resulted in a bench opinion (No. 10957-20, Doc. 40), in which we held that Mr. Supinger made frivolous arguments and that he had proceeded in bad faith. We imposed on him under section 6673(a) a penalty of $5,000 for maintaining frivolous positions.
Mr. Supinger's second case is No. 13680-22, concerning the year 2018. That case was tried before another judge and has not yet been decided.
Previous proceedings in this case
In this case, Mr. Supinger's third, he filed a petition challenging a notice of deficiency (Doc. 5, Ex. A) that the IRS issued for 2019, in which it determined a tax deficiency of $12,551 and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,094.20 under section 6662(a). His petition in this case once again made frivolous contentions. During the pendency of this case we have had occasion to issue orders warning Mr. Supinger that he risked another and greater penalty under section 6673(a) for maintaining positions that are frivolous and to urge him to confine himself to non-frivolous contentions. (See Doc. 20, order denying his motion to proceed remotely; Doc. 25, order denying his motion for summary judgment; and Doc. 28, order responding to information in the Commissioner's pretrial memorandum.) In the third of those orders, responding to the Commissioner's reference (Doc. 27 at 4) to a possible motion by Mr. Supinger to dismiss his own case, we stated:
We advise Mr. Supinger that ... under section 7459(d), "a decision of the Tax Court dismissing the proceeding shall be considered as its decision that the deficiency is the amount determined by the Secretary". That is, petitioner cannot avoid a determination of his liability by requesting dismissal of the case. [Doc. 28 at 1.]
Mr. Supinger's motion
On April 2, 2024, Mr. Supinger filed his motion, asking us to "dismiss this case with or without prejudice" (Doc. 31). The motion includes the following statements:
2. ... [P]etitioner has had time to reflect on his current thoughts and beliefs on the issue at hand.
3. Petitioner has since experienced a radical change of mind and realizes his errors.
4. Petitioner has no further interest in arguing his past beliefs before this court, nor will he continue to do so.
5. Petitioner hereby promises not to bring any further petitions before this court, and to cease any further frivolous arguments....
8. Petitioner brings this motion in good faith and apologizes to all involved for bringing forth any frivolous claims and/or arguments before this court.
9. Petitioner hereby rescinds all frivolous arguments that he has made in the past.
Discussion
Mr. Supinger offers no evidence or argument against the IRS's determination. Rather, he asks us to dismiss his case--aware, from our prior explanation (Doc. 28 at 1), that dismissal of the case results in the sustaining of the IRS's determination--and he submits to dismissal "with ... prejudice". We take at face value his disclaimer of frivolous arguments and his promise to cease making them; and in this case we give no further consideration to the penalty under section 6673(a). It is therefore
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to dismiss is granted, and that this case is dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, pursuant to section 7459(d), it is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that, as is set forth in the statutory notice of deficiency dated December 7, 2022, there is due from petitioner for the taxable year 2019 a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $12,551, and an accuracy related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $2,094.20.