TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James A. Widtfeldt
Docket Number: 15907-10
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/13/2011
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JAMES A. WIDTFELDT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. CZ ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15907-10 ) ) ) ) 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 the pages of transmit the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of April 28, 2011, containing her oral rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on findings of fact and opinion In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order of dismissal and decision will be entered granting respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 13, 2011 SERVED May 16 2011 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa April 28, 2011 James A. Widtfeldt v. Commissioner Docket No. 15907-10 - THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner appeared pro se, and Doug Polsky appeared on behalf of Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record reflects that Petitioner resides in and owns property in Holt County, Nebraska at the time he filed the petition. Petitioner is the son of Albert and Gusteva 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Widtfeldt. He is well-educated. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT 21 22 23 24 25 and a law degree. In 1987 Petitioner returned to Holt County to help his aging parents with approximately 8,000 acres of farmland and approximately 40 rental units. His father died in 1996 and his mother died in 2006. The exact dates of death are HeritageiReporting 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 in the record. This is a tax dispute regarding the Federal gift and estate tax consequences of the farmland, rental units and other substantial property in Holt County. Title to the property appears clo ded because of Petitioner's attempts at estate planning techdiques. The funding of various trusts and relevant deeds involving the farmland and rental units in Holt County creates more questions than answers. Petitioner disputes the tax the IRS determined was due. Respondent determined that Petitioner's mother, Gusteva, made gifts as of the tax year ending December 31, 2004, resulting in a $ 05,141 gift tax deficiency, a dd $68,656.73 late gift tax filing addition under section 6651(a) (1) and a $76,285.25 late gift tax payment addition under section 6651(a) (2). Respondent also determined a $170,954 estate tax deficiency against the estate of Petitioner's mother (the estate) and also determined that the estate was liable for a $34,191 accuracy-related penalty for filing an inaccurate Federal estate tax return. The Court understands that Petitioner disputes that any tax is due. This is the only thing that the Court understands from what Petitioner has submitted in this case. Petitioner raises num rous nonsensical arguments. The Court seriously questions Petitioner's mental capacity. We encouraged Petitioner early on that he needed 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 to work with Respondent to resolve this case or to prepare it for trial. We reminded Petitioner that he needed to stay focused and make arguments regarding the asserted Federal gift and estate taxes Respondent determined in the deficiency notice. We also warned Petitioner in an Order dated April 4, 2011, that the Court would entertain a motion from Respondent to dismiss if Petitioner failed to make relevant arguments or provide relevant information. Instead of heeding the Court's warning and working with Respondent to resolve this case, Petitioner submitted numerous and voluminous papers. None of the documents complied with the Court's Rules. Without exception, the papers Petitioner thrust upon the Court (on an almost daily basis) required several legal and administrative personnel at the Court to read and try to understand how, if anything, the papers had any relevance to the gift and estate taxes at issue. The Court decided to file the documents as various statements or motions of Petitioner rather than return them to him unfiled. The Court wanted any appellate court to see the type of documents and the irrelevant arguments Petitioner has submitted in this case. The Court denied each and every motion by Petitioner. Each motion by Petitioner lacked merit, including motions to require the Court to be tested for Lyme's Disease and motions to recuse the judge because she had the same surname as Petitioner's 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 6 neighbor. This case was scheduled for trial at the Court's trial session in Omaha, Nebraska on April 26, 2011. Petitioner was not present at calendar call. Petitioner was present, however, when the Court recalled the case. At recall, Respondent appeared and announced he was ready for trial. Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute. Respondent's motion identifies Petitioner''s failure to properly prosecute this case. The Court shall grant Respondent's motion. OPINION We begin with the fundamental principle of tax litigation that the Commissioner's determinations in the deficiency notice are presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden to establish those determinations are incorrect. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The Court, like every court, has the inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 540 (1992). We look to the manner in which Petitioner conducted himself in this case to determine whether to dilsmiss for failure to prosecute. See Mathes v. Commissioner, 788 F.2d 33, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1986). We do not look to the substance of his claims. Id. His claims make no sense. Petitioner made similar irrelevant 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 claims in the Federal District Court of Nebraska. Widtfeldt v. United States, 106 AFTR 2d 6727 (D. Neb. 2010). There, as here, the Court found it difficult to decipher his 7 claims. . The record (reflects that Petitioner spent a great deal of time inundating this Court with irrelevant information. There is information about his disbarment from practicing law. There is information about causes of death and sicknesses of his parents, his sister, some of his clients, neighbors and others. Petitioner accuses the IRS, this Court and other governmental entities of numerous bad acts. We warned Petitioner that we would entertain a motion from Respondent to dismiss this case if Petitioner failed to raise relevant issues. Petitioner did not heed the Court's warnings. Petitioner needed to be escorted from the courtroom by the U.S. Marshals Service in Omaha, Nebraska, when he persisted in making irrelevant statements and assertions. Petitioner is a disturbed individual. The Court hopes that he gets medical treatment for his physical and mental illness. We find that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's determinations in the deficiency notice are incorrect. We shall grant Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I I 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 8 for Respondent and an appropriate order of dismissal will be issued granting Respondent's motion. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888