Attorney-at-Law

“A HOTLY BURNING QUESTION WHAT HAS SWEPT THE CONTINENT” – REDUX

In Uncategorized on 08/03/2023 at 18:34

No, once again it’s nothing about tin whistles or foghorns; for that, see Lonnie Donegan’s 1959 cover of the 1924 Billy Rose, Ernest Breuer, and Marty Bloom chewing gum canzone.

Once again, Tax Court needs to unleash a full-dress T. C. because ex-Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley omitted from his last updating of Tax Court Rules of Procedure and Practice the equivalent of FRCP 41, allowing a petitioner to dismiss non-6213 deficiency petitions.

We all know that, in a Section 6213 deficiency case, once Tax Court has jurisdiction dismissal must simultaneously result in entry of decision for IRS in the full amount of the SNOD, per Section 7459(d).

Ex-Ch J Mighty Mo has the full list of Tax Court cases where a voluntary dismissal of the petition is permitted without entry of decision in Joseph E. Abe, DDS, Inc., 161 T. C. 1, filed 8/3/23, at p. 3.

“In nondeficiency cases filed pursuant to Code sections other than section 6213, this Court has previously granted taxpayers’ motions to dismiss or withdraw petitions. See generally Stein v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 167 (2021) (administrative costs pursuant to section 7430(f)(2)); Mainstay, 156 T.C. at 100 (failure to abate interest pursuant to section 6404(h)); Jacobson v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 68 (2017) (whistleblower awards pursuant to section 7623(b)(4)); Davidson v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 273 (2015) (innocent spouse determinations pursuant to section 6015(e)); Wagner v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 330 (2002) (collection actions pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)). Section 6213 was not applicable to these nondeficiency cases and therefore section 7459(d) did not mandate entry of decisions in the Commissioner’s favor upon the dismissals. See, e.g., Stein, 156 T.C. at 169.”

Joseph D. Abe, DDS, is a CA corp which petitioned a revocation of its pension plan qualification per Section 7476, seeking a declaration that the plan was OK. Now they want to dismiss their petition. No background facts are given, so we are left unenlightened as to why they petitioned and why they want to dismiss.

Regardless, ex-Ch J Mighty Mo, seeing IRS doesn’t object to dismissal, tosses the petition.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.