Opinion
15791-23
10-24-2023
PRADEEP KUMAR XPLORER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
By Order served October 18, 2023, this case was closed on the ground of duplication with the case at Docket No. 15790-23. On October 20, 2023, petitioner electronically filed a Motion for Continuance, requesting additional "time to subpoena and upload any other reports," but failing offer any argument as to why this case should not have been closed. By Order served October 23, 2023, the Court denied petitioner's Motion for Continuance.
For the reasons set forth in the Order, the case at Docket No. 15790-23 was in turn closed on the ground of duplication with petitioner's case at Docket No. 9678-23.
Following the filing of his Motion for Continuance, on October 20, 2023, petitioner electronically filed two additional documents in this case, designating them, respectively, as a "Motion for a New Trial," (Docket Index No. 15) and "Motion for International Judicial Assistance" (Docket Index No. 16).
Petitioner's Motion for Internal Judicial Assistance appears to request the Court's assistance in reuniting petitioner with his apparently estranged spouse, stating in full: "I request help so Sindhu wife I filed taxes together 1994-1998 can meet with me interact with me and even reunite with me. I have had no interaction with her past 2007. Please enforce she can call me from her phone to [phone number redacted]."
In his Motion for a New Trial, petitioner again contests the Court's Order served October 18, 2023, closing this case on the ground of duplication. As discussed more fully in that Order, petitioner has filed three separate petitions with this Court, all seeking review of a notice of determination concerning collection action purportedly issued to him for the taxable year 2004. On respondent's motion, petitioner's case at Docket No. 9678-23 was dismissed for lack for jurisdiction following petitioner's failure to provide a copy of the purported notice of determination or any other basis for the Court's jurisdiction. Petitioner's Motion for a New Trial states: "I do not Have [sic] the copy of the IRS letter as this is premeditated long economic offense in which I am left with nothing. I lost the letter your tax court will have easy access to it."
See Docket Nos. 9678-23, 15790-23 & 15791-23.
Petitioner is advised that this Court is separate and independent from the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, petitioner is reminded that, as the taxpayer seeking to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, he bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over his case. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). This includes the burden of producing a copy of the notice of determination concerning collection action purportedly issued to him for the taxable year 2004. Petitioner failed to produce a copy of that purported notice, or to provide any other basis for the Court's jurisdiction, in his case at Docket No. 9678-23, and that case was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
As discussed more fully in the Court's Order served October 18, 2023, petitioner responded to that dismissal by electronically filing this case (and the case at Docket No. 15790-23), stating that he "disagree[d] with [the] closure of [Docket No.] 9678-23," but still failing to produce a copy of the purported notice of determination. The Court filed a copy of the petition from Docket No. 15790-23 as a motion to vacate or revise pursuant to Tax Court Rule 162 in the case at Docket No. 9678 and denied it by order served October 20, 2023. In that order, the Court cautioned petitioner "that future attempts to create additional, duplicative cases related to this matter may result in the revocation of his e-filing privileges."
Upon due consideration of petitioner's Motion for a New Trial and Motion for International Judicial Assistance, the Court finds that the Motions are frivolous and meritless. Accordingly, petitioner is cautioned that in the future any such filings related to this matter-whether in this case or the other cases that he has filed with this Court-may result in the revocation of his e-filing privileges.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for a New Trial is denied. It is further ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for International Judicial Assistance is denied.