DocketNumber: Docket Nos. 7869-79, 17681-79, 17708-79.
Filed Date: 4/28/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAWSON,
Petitioners | Dkt. No. | Year | Deficiency |
Richard G. & | |||
Marjorie J. | |||
Pershing | 7869-79 | 1975 | $ 5,171.03 |
Richard G. | |||
Pershing | 17681-79 | 1976 | 2,368.12 |
Marjorie J. | |||
Pershing | 17708-79 | 1976 | 2,368.12 |
Addition to Tax | |||
§ 6651(a) | § 6653(a) | § 6654 Richard G. & | |
Marjorie J. | |||
Pershing | $ 258.55 | ||
Richard G. | |||
Pershing | $ 567.03 | 118.41 | $ 83.44 |
Marjorie J. | |||
Pershing | 567.03 | 118.41 | 83.44 |
The adjustments made in the joint notice of deficiency mailed to the petitioners on March 13, 1979, with respect to the year 1975, and the separate notices of deficiencies mailed to them on October 5, 1979, with respect to the year 1976, relate to unreported taxable income; allocation of community income; disallowance of business expenses; disallowance of moving expenses; disallowance of itemized deductions; disallowance of four dependency exemptions; liability for self-employment tax; and liability for additions to tax under sections 6651(a), 6653(a) and 6654. Timely petitions were filed with the Court in all three cases.
Petitioners were legal residents of Santa Fe, New Mexico, when they filed their petitions in these cases.
Notices setting the cases for trial at Albuquerque, New Mexico, on March 30, 1981, were mailed to petitioners1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 532">*534 on December 24, 1980, informing them to be present and prepared to try their cases.
On March 4, 1981, the Court issued on Order granting respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and to Impose Sanctions filed in each case. Petitioners failed to comply with the Order, as required, on March 20, 1981, and they failed to show cause on March 30, 1981, why sanctions should not be imposed upon them by the Court in accordance with
On March 27, 1981, the petitioners filed in each case a "Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction," stating as follows:
1. That this Court does have jurisdiction over the parties involved.
2. That this Court has no jurisdiction over questions of law and cannot render the relief sought.
a. The issues involved in the above captioned matters are substantive issues of law and not disputes of fact.
b. That until the issues of law have been judicially determined, there can be no fact to dispute.
3. That Petitioners have taken the necessary steps to initiate litigation in the United States District Court in an action for refund.
4. That Petitioners decline to make further prosecution1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 532">*535 for reasons stated above.
When the cases were called for trial on March 30, 1981, the petitioners were present and argued in support of their motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent opposed the motions. For reasons stated in the record the Court denied the petitioners' motions.
The contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction of these cases is without merit. Where, as here, a taxpayer receives a notice of income tax deficiencies and files a timely petition with the United States Tax Court, he gives the Court exclusive jurisdiction. Section 6512(a). The mere filing of the petition in the Tax Court is enough to deprive a United States District Court of jurisdiction for years as to which the petition was filed. See
It is now a settled principle that a taxpayer may not unilaterally oust the Tax Court from jurisdiction which, once invoked, remains unimpaired until it decides the controversy. See
See also
On appeal Bowser attacks the constitutional authority of the Tax Court to adjudicate his tax liability. 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 532">*537 The constitutionality of the Tax Court has been explicitly sustained in a number of decisions.
Accordingly, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction over the disposition of these cases.
After denying their motions, the Court asked the petitioners if they intended to offer any evidence to show errors in the adjustments made by respondent in the notices of deficiencies. They declined, and thus failed to produce any evidence. Whereupon respondent's counsel orally moved to dismiss the cases for the petitioners' failure to properly prosecute.
Petitioners have no right to a jury trial in the Tax Court, and the denial thereof does not violate the
It is clear that respondent's deficiency determinations were not arbitrary, and they did not violate petitioner's
The deficiency determinations are presumptively correct, and petitioners have the burden of proving that the deficiencies are erroneous.
Since petitioners declined to present any evidence to support the assignments of errors alleged in their petitioners, we will grant respondent's oral motion to dismiss each case for lack of prosecution.
We also sustain respondent's determination on the ground that the petitioners, although offered the opportunity to do so, did not present any evidence on the substantive issues, and therefore they have failed to carry their burden of proof.
Emma R. Dorl v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1974 )
Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n. ( 1929 )
Main-Hammond Land Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1952 )
Williams v. United States ( 1933 )
United States v. Estate of Kenneth L. Shepard, Milo J. ... ( 1963 )
rosser-b-melton-jr-v-jerome-kurtz-commissioner-of-internal-revenue ( 1978 )
willmut-gas-oil-company-v-eugene-fly-former-collector-of-internal ( 1963 )
edward-martin-and-patricia-martin-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue ( 1966 )
John W. Amos v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1965 )
united-states-v-monte-l-wolf-of-the-estate-of-harry-j-wolf-deceased ( 1956 )