Opinion
8461-19SL
01-21-2022
MARYA D. ZOLINE & JAY S. ZOLINE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Joseph W. Nega, Judge
This collection due process case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to petitioner, Jay S. Zoline, and respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution as to petitioner, Marya D. Zoline, both filed April 14, 2020.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, U.S.C., in effect for the years in issue, all regulation references are to Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Lack of Jurisdiction
Petitioners filed a joint Petition in this case and attached thereto a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Sections 6320 or 6330, dated April 19, 2019, addressed only to petitioner Marya D. Zoline. In his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, respondent represents that, after a diligent search of his records, he was unable to locate any evidence indicating that a Notice of Determination was mailed to petitioner Jay S. Zoline with respect to tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Respondent further indicates that petitioner Jay S. Zoline does not object to the granting of this motion.
Because there is no indication that respondent issued to petitioner Jay S. Zoline any Notice of Determination or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we will grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. See § 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b).
Lack of Prosecution
In his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed April 14, 2020, respondent represents that petitioner Marya D. Zoline died on December, 26, 2019, and attached to his motion a copy of death certificate for Marya D. Zoline. Respondent also represents that Marya D. Zoline died intestate and her assets at death were de minimus. Accordingly, her estate will not be probated, and no duly authorized representative has been appointed to act on behalf of the estate. Respondent further represents that petitioner Jay S. Zoline is Marya D. Zoline's sole ascertainable heir. Respondent further indicates that petitioner Jay S. Zoline does not object to the granting of this motion.
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the taxpayer for a failure properly to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Rules of this Court or any order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems sufficient. See Rule 123(b). We will grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 14, 2020, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed April 14, 2020, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent's determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Sections 6320 or 6330, dated April 19, 2019, upon which this case is based, is sustained, and respondent may proceed with the collection actions as determined in the Notice of Determination for tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008.