Opinion
3648-21
04-22-2022
DANNY M. WELLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On June 30, 2021, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2010 through 2020, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's tax years 2010 through 2020, including any determination pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
Subsequently, on July 4, 2021, petitioner filed a notice of objection to the motion to dismiss. More than an additional 50 documents have also been filed by petitioner in this proceeding. In these materials, petitioner did not deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion regarding lack of a pertinent notice or determination, nor did petitioner suggest the existence of any relevant notice or determination. To the contrary, petitioner proffered oft-rejected political or conspiracy theories and challenges to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the context of income tax returns and related assessments. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court sees no need to catalog petitioner's arguments and painstakingly address them. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit". Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Upon due consideration, taking into account representations contained in the petition, objection, and other materials filed by petitioner, and for the reasons set forth in respondent's motion, it is, ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground stated in respondent's motion.