TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel Diesti
Docket Number: 28119-11L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/14/2013
Pages: 8

- UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DANIEL DIESTI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 28119-11. ) ) ) ORDE R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy ofthe pages ofthe transcript ofthe trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Miami, Florida,, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral f'mdings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 14, 2013 SER\!ED JAN 15 2013 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke November 3 2 3 4 29, 2012 Daniel Diesti v. Commissioner Docket No. 28119-11L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 7 8 the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 9 not be relied upon a precedent in any other case. 10 This opinion is rendered pursuant to Tax Court Rules 11 of Practice and Procedure 152 and Internal Revenue 12 Code Section 7459 (b) . Hereinafter section references 13 will be to the Internal Revenue Code and rule 14 references will be to the Tax Court rules of practice 15 16 and procedure. The Court has jurisdiction over this case 17 pursuant to Section 6330 (d) which allows the Court to 18 review determinations made by the Office of Appeals 19 of the Internal Revenue Service following a timely 20 21 22 request for a hearing involving collection action. The present collection action involves a request by Respondent to file notices of Federal Tax 23 Lien regarding Petitioner's income tax liabilities 24 for the years 2000 through 2003. The total 25 liabilities listed at the time of trial in (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 4 1 Respondent's pre-trial memorandum were $32,676. 2 3 At the time he filed a petition in this case the Petitioner was a resident of Florida. The 4 Court's opinion in this case is specifically focused 5 on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of 6 prosecution. Respondent has previously filed a 7 motion for partial summary judgment and Petitioner 8 was given an opportunity to respond to that prior 9 motion for partial summary judgment . Petitioner did 10 not respond to that motion. 11 We will reference the assertions made by 12 Respondent in the motion for lack of prosecution and 13 in the motion for partial summary judgment as 14 uncontested matters for purposes of our disposition 15 of Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of 16 prosecution. 17 18 The Court has the authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 123(b) 19 which provides as follows: 20 For failure of a Petitioner properly to 21 prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order 22 of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems 23 sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time 24 and enter a decision against the Petitioner. 25 The Petitioner did not file Federal Income (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 5 1 Tax Returns for the years 2000 through 2003 and 2 Respondent prepared substitute returns for those 3 years. Based upon those substitute returns 4 Respondent assessed income tax liabilities against 5 6 7 the Petitioner for the years in question. The only matters raised by the Petitioner in his opposition to Respondent's attempt to file 8 notices of Federal Tax Liens for the years in 9 question was that he did not believe he owed the 10 11 income tax liabilities for those years. Under certain circumstances a Petitioner 12 may challenge the existence or amount of the 13 underlying tax liabilities in a case brought pursuant 14 to Section 6330. However, a taxpayer is precluded 15 from challenging the underlying tax liabilities if 16 the taxpayer has been given a prior opportunity to 17 dispute those liabilities. Section 6330 (c) (2) (b), 18 Petitioner had a prior opportunity to dispute the 19 liabilities for the years 2000 through 2002. 20 21 22 In September 2005, Respondent issued a final notice of intent to levy to the Petitioner for the years 2000 through 2002. Petitioner filed a 23 request for a hearing regarding those years and in 24 February 2007 Respondent's appeals office issued a 25 notice of determination sustaining the final notice (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 1 of intent to levy. 6 2 3 Petitioner filed a petition with the Court on March 19, 2007, and the case was docketed as 4 Docket Number 6453-07S. Petitioner failed to appear 5 at trial when that case was set for trial in November 6 2007, and on December 20, 2007 this Court entered an 7 order of dismissal and decision granting Respondent's 8 oral motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. 9 Therefore Petitioner is precluded from challenging 10 the underlying tax liabilities for the years 2000 11 through 2002 . See Beery v. Commis sioner TC memo 2003-38. 12 13 The year 2003 was not included in the prior 14 proceeding, however Petitioner has failed to argue 15 any specific circumstances which would support his 16 assertion that he did not owe the tax liability for 2003. 17 18 Respondent has asserted without objection 19 by Petitioner that Petitioner's wages from the 20 Florida Power and Light Company for 2003 generate the 21 income tax liability in question. And Respondent has 22 asserted additions to tax under Section 23 6651(a) (1) (a) (2) resulting from Petitioner's failure 24 to file an income tax return·for 2003. 25 This case was regularly called for trial at (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 7 1 2 the trial session of this Court on November 26, 2012 at Miami, Florida. Petitioner had been given prior 3 notice of this trial session by the Court and had 4 been contacted numerous times by the Respondent in an 5 effort to obtain Petitioner's 6 7 8 9 cooperation in preparing the case for trial. Petitioner failed to cooperate or follow up on contacts by Respondent. And Petitioner did not appear when the case was called for trial on November 10 26, 2012. Respondent was represented by counsel when 11 Respondent's counsel did appear and announced that 12 Respondent was ready for trial. 13 Respondent has denied all of Petitioner's 14 material allegations have e-r-æel in Respondent's 15 answer to the amended petition. And Petitioner bears 16 the burden of proof with respect to all the issues 17 before the Court in the present case pursuant to Rule 142(a). 18 19 Petitioner did not offer any objections to 20 Respondent ' s motion for partial summary judgment nor 21 did Petitioner file any pre-trial memorandum with the 22 Court prior to the time when this case was called for 23 trial. In sum, Petitioner has submitted no 24 information in support of his position while the case 25 was docketed other than the petition and amended (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 8 1 petition. 2 As previously stated, Petitioner was 3 notified on June 22, 2012 that this case was set for 4 5 6 7 8 9 trial in Miami. Respondent filed a motion for partial summary judgment previously referred to on September 27, 2012. The Court ordered the Petitioner to respond to that motion in an order dated October 2, 2012. Petitioner was directed to respond by October 22, 2012. Petitioner failed to respond. 10 Petitioner also failed to respond to correspondence 11 sent by Respondent on October 17th and November 5th 12 of 2012. 13 Respondent's motion asserts that Petitioner 14 has not furnished Respondent with any relevant 15 16 documents or testimony relative to the present case. The notice of determination upon which 17 Petitioner filed a petition to this Court asserts 18 that Petitioner failed to cooperate with the IRS 19 settlement officer by providing information which 20 would have given the Petitioner an opportunity to 21 enter into an installment agreement or some other 22 collection compromise. Rather Petitioner merely 23 asserted that he did not believe he owed the tax 24 25 liabilities. Given Petitioner's failure to appear or (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Daniel Diesti 11-29-2012 9 1 otherwise cooperate in the preparation of this case 2 3 for trial, and given the underlying facts of this case, the Court determines that it is appropriate to 4 dismiss this case for failure of the Petitioner to 5 properly prosecute the case and a decision will be 6 entered for the Respondent for all the years in 7 question. 8 9 Respondent's motion for partial summary judgment will be denied as moot given the Court's 10 determination relative to Respondent's motion to 11 dismiss the case. This concluded the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon at 10:31 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012