Opinion
9643-21
04-06-2022
CONNIE JEAN WELLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge
On March 11, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, explaining there was no statutory notice of deficiency, notice of determination or other document or filing by Petitioner Connie Jean Wells or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that would confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. On March 18, 2022 the Court ordered a response from Ms. Wells and set respondent's motion for hearing on April 4, 2022. On April 1, 2022, the Court received from Ms. Wells, through an email to the Court's Chambers, a document that the Court will file as Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In the response, Ms. Wells made numerous frivolous arguments against respondent's motion that are somewhat difficult to discern.
On April 4, 2022, this case was called from the calendar for the Trial Session of the Court at Denver, Colorado for hearing on respondent's March 11, 2022, motion to dismiss. Counsel for respondent and petitioner appeared and were heard. At the hearing Ms. Wells agreed that her case should be dismissed. The Court notes that the record for this case does not contain a copy of or indication that any statutory notice of deficiency was sent to Ms. Wells with respect to her taxable years 1970-2020, inclusive (as authorized by I.R.C. § 6212 and required by I.R.C. § 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court), nor does the record contain any other determination by respondent with respect to those years that would confer jurisdiction upon this Court, nor does the record contain any indication that Ms. Wells filed any document with the IRS that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. As such, respondent's motion will be granted.
Furthermore, at the hearing, Ms. Wells was counseled that under I.R.C. § 6673, this Court could impose a penalty of up to $25,000 for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions in her filings with the Court; and while we will not do so at this time, this Court or other courts could well decide that penalties are appropriate in the future should she continue making such arguments before the respective tribunals. 1 Premises considered, and for cause more fully appearing in the transcript of the proceedings, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed March 11, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed. 2