TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark Gerard Saban
Docket Number: 13688-11
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/22/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D . C. MARK GERARD SABAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 13688-11 O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith the trial of the above case before Special Trial the pages of the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at¡Chicago, 2012, containing his oral at the conclusion of trial. findings of Illinois, on February 1, fact and opinion rendered In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal and decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D . C. February 22, 2012 gggv50 FEB 2 3 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo Mark Gerard Saban v. Commissioner Docket No. 13688-11 February 1, 2012 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion) in this case. Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Except as provided in Rule 152(b), this bench opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted, filed August 25, 2011. Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion was filed September 15, 2011. By Order dated November 8, 2011, respondent's motion was assigned for disposition in accordance with section 7443A(3) and Rule 182, and set·for hearing in Chicago, Illinois on January 30, 2012. The case was recalled from the calendar for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 hearing as scheduled. Kathryn E. Kelly appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Petitioner, who is self-represented, appeared and was heard. The undisputed facts relied upon by respondent in support of his motion are easily summarized. In a notice of deficiency dated April 25, 2011, a portion of which is attached to the petition (notice), respondent determined a $585 deficiency in petitioner's 2008 Federal income tax. The deficiency results from petitioner's failure to include certain wage and interest income in the income reported on his 2008 Federal income tax return. In paragraph five of the amended petition, filed July 18, 2011, petitioner states, "It is not the 2008 determination that I disagree with." Elsewhere in the amended petition, petitioner references the year 1999 and describes a series of events that have no apparent relevance to the deficiency here in dispute. On August 11, 2011,.the Court received a document from petitioner and even though the points intended to be made by the statements contained in that document are less than clear, in order to ensure a complete record, the document was filed as an amendment to petition. Respondent's motion was filed shortly after the amendment to petition was filed. In support of his Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 motion, respondent relied heavily upon the language in the petition quoted above. After taking into account the petition, the amended petition, the amendment to petition, and petitioner's objection to respondent's motion, respondent further points out that none of the documents contain any statements that can reasonably be construed as a challenge to the adjustment giving rise to the deficiency determined in the notice. As it turned out, at the hearing petitioner acknowledged that he did not dispute the deficiency determined in the notice. Because petitioner is self-represented, the allegations made in his pleadings and his objection to respondent's motion have bee liberally construed. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Furthermore, we recognize that dismissing the case as requested in respondent's motion is a harsh sanction for his failure properly to plead. But giving him the benefit of every doubt, as he is entitled to at this stage of the proceedings, see Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 1995), we are satisfied that petitioner's pleading raises no justiciable issue and that respondent's motion is well-made. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order of dismissal and decision will be entered. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded. ) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888