Wells v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Full title: DANNY M. WELLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Court: United States Tax Court

Date published: Sep 20, 2024

No. 12144-24 (U.S.T.C. Sep. 20, 2024)

Opinion

12144-24

09-20-2024

DANNY M. WELLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge

ORDER

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge

By Order served September 18, 2024 (Docket Index No. 11), the Court deemed stricken from the record in this case two electronic filings by petitioner (Docket Index Nos. 9 and 10). Noting that those filings were incomprehensible, frivolous, or both, and further noting the nature and volume of materials that petitioner had electronically filed in his previous case at Docket No. 3648-21, the Court warned petitioner that any future abuses of his eFiling privileges in this case could result in the revocation of those privileges.

Nevertheless, following the issuance of the foregoing Order, petitioner made two additional electronic filings on September 18, 2024 (Docket Index Nos. 12 and 13), which the Court deemed stricken with an Order subsequently served on the same date (Docket Index No. 14). That Order again noted that petitioner's filings were incomprehensible, frivolous, or both, and again warned petitioner that any future abuses of his eFiling privileges in this case could result in the revocation of those privileges.

Despite the Court's warnings, on September 19, 2024, petitioner electronically filed a nearly 40-page miscellany of documents, designating the filing as petitioner's "Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Judgment Should Not Be Entered on the Basis of a Previously Decided Case" (Docket Index No. 15). As with petitioner's previous filings, this "Motion" is incomprehensible, frivolous, or both. Because petitioner has persisted in abusing his eFiling privileges by continuing to submit frivolous, unnecessary, or otherwise procedurally improper filings in this case, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's above-referenced filing at Docket Index No. 15 is deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further

ORDERED that petitioner's eFiling privileges are revoked. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change petitioner's service preference from "electronic" to "paper."