Opinion
920-21S
02-02-2023
MARIE T. VENTO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge.
On January 25, 2023, Ms. Vento filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that she is entitled to judgment in her favor on all issues since the Commissioner accepted her 2017 Form 1040 return for processing and issued her a refund plus statutory interest. Thus, there is no dispute for the Court to hear in this case. This motion did not provide the Commissioner's views on the motion.
On January 30, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Entry of Decision. This motion asked the Court to enter a decision reflecting no deficiency in income tax or additions to tax, pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and (a)(2), for taxable year 2017. Next day, Ms. Vento filed an objection to the Commissioner's motion on the basis that (1) the notice of deficiency (notice) was invalid because she filed her 2017 return prior to the issuance of the notice, (2) the Commissioner failed to withdraw the notice, and (3) there is no issue for the Court to decide. Also, on January 31, 2023, Ms. Vento filed a Motion to Strike Respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision and to Disqualify the Commissioner's Counsel. The basis for the Motion to Strike is that Commissioner's counsel erred in filing the Motion for Entry of Decision and attaching a proposed stipulated decision to the motion.
The Court held a conference call with the parties on February 1, 2023. During this call, Ms. Vento and the Commissioner both agreed that no deficiency exists, no additions to tax are warranted, and there is no dispute as to whether Ms. Vento received a proper overpayment for 2017. However, Ms. Vento and her counsel insisted that the parties execute IRS Form 866, Agreement as to Final Determination of Tax Liability and attach the executed form to the proposed stipulated decision in addition to other proposed language to which the Commissioner objects.
The Court noted that Ms. Vento's counsel and spouse failed to comply with the Standing Pretrial Order and late filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the motion is denied. The Court will also deny Ms. Vento's Motion to Strike and to Disqualify Counsel. Neither Ms. Vento nor her counsel has provided any legal basis for the Court to strike any filing of respondent or to disqualify his counsel. See Rules 24, 52 and 201, Tax Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon due consideration of the parties' motions and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 25, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Strike, filed January 31, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision, filed January 30, 2023, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there is no deficiency in income tax due from, nor overpayment due to, petitioner for the taxable year 2017;
That there is no addition to tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2017, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1); and
That there is no addition to tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2017, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(a)(2).