TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Samater & Ashaka H. Farah Abdikarim
Docket Number: 23112-06S
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 11/24/2008
Pages: 5

T .C . Summary Opinion 2008-147 " UNITED STATES TAX COUR T SAMATER ABDIKARIM AND ASHAKA H . FARAH ABDIKARIM, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 23112-06S . Filed November 24, 2008 . Steve M . Williard , for petitioners . Ashley P . Vaughan , for respondent . VASQUEZ, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was'fi;led . Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court , 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . SERVED NOV 2 4,2008 and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any othe r case . Background This case is before the Court on respondent's motion t o dismiss .for lack of prosecution (respondent's motion) . By notice of deficiency, respondent determined a deficiency of $5,404 with respect to petitioners' 2005 Federal income tax . On November 13, 2006, petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by timely filing a petition . By notice dated July 3, 2007, the Court set this case for trial at the Court's Houston, Texas, :session beginning December 3, 2007. The notice specifically stated : "YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU . " On December 3, 2007, the Court held a hearing on petitioners' motion for continuance-of trial . Petitioners, via counsel, proffered that : (1) They would be out of the country during December 2007 on account of their employment ; (2) this was the first motion for continuance of trial petitioners had sought ; and (3) the motion for continuance of trial was not made for the purposes of delay .. Respondent did not object to petitioners' motion for continuance of trial . That same day, the Court granted the motion for continuance of trial . 3 - By notice dated Jariuary .9, 2008, the-Court set this case for trial at the Court's Houston," Texas, session beginning June -9, 2008 . The notice specifically stated : . "YOUR'FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND'ENTRY OF-DECISION AGAINST YOU ." On June 9, 2008, respondent filed respondent's motion and- -the Court held a hearing on respondent's motion . In respondent's motion, respondent averred'(among'other things) that : (1) Since the continuance petitioners have not contacted respondent, provided any additional information to respondent, or taken any action to .move their case forward ; (2) during the week of May 19, 2008 ., petitioners' counsel-stated that he had not heard from his clients and did not know whether they would appear for trial ; and , (3) . all the material allegations - of fact set forth in the petition in support of the assignments of error have been denied by respondent ; no issues have been raised upon which the burden of proof is upon , respondent ; respondent has not conceded any error assigned in the petition ; and no evidence has been adduced in support of the assignments oflerror raised in the petition . At the hearing, petitioners' counsel stated that his clients ha d been unavailable to him .(i .e ., they have not had contact) fo r about a year . Petitioners' counsel was informed that petitioner s left the country to take a job in India or Pakistan . Petitioners had left their counsel no-f-or-wad ng addres,s Petitioners' 4 counsel has sentcertified .letters topetitioners that have come back to him as returned or undeliverable . Petitioners'-counse l, did not object to the granting of respondent's motion . Petitioners' counsel stated he had done everything he could to locate his clients but has been unable to- . locate or contact them ., Petitioners .' counsel attempted to contact petitioners .by mail to; advise them he was going,to withdraw and that this case would be dismissed . This letter wa s returned to petitioners' counsel . , Discussion The Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a taxpayer for his failure properly to prosecute or to comply wit h the-Rules-of this Court . Rule 123(b) . Rule 123(b)-generally . applies in situations where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof . As .a_general rule,, the taxpayer bears the burden o f proving the Commissioner's deficiency determinations incorrect- . Rule 142(a) ; Welch =v .. Helverincr , 290 U .S . 111, 115 , ( 1933) credible evidence and meets certain other prerequisites, th e Commissioner shall bear the burden of proof with respect to factual issues relating to the liability of the taxpayer for a tax imposed under subtitle A or B of the Internal Revenue Code . Petitioners failed to appear in person, and no evidence wa s introduce it . y counsel Theref-orb, weconclu-de" that the burden of proof regarding the deficiency is not placed on respondent pursuant to section 7491(a) . Accordingly, we 5 - sustain respondent's deficiency determination . To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order of dismissal and decision will be entered .