TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ronnie Mickens & Gloria Jean Mickens
Docket Number: 18326-21
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/24/2023
Pages: 6

RONNIE MICKENS & GLORIA JEAN MICKENS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Petitioners v. United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 Docket No. 18326-21. ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to the Commissioner a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in this case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tallahassee, Florida containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal and decision will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Served 02/24/23 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke February 9, 2023 Ronnie Mickens & Gloria Jean Mickens v. Commissioner of 3 Internal Revenue Docket No. 18326-21 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter, references to sections are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period in issue and Rule references are to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Tax Court. This case is before the Court on Respondent's oral Motion to Dismiss under Rule 53. This case was set for trial in a Notice of Trial, which was sent to the Petitioners on October 7th, 2022. The trial was set to JRG commence today, on February 9th, 2023 in Tallahassee, Florida. It appears that Petitioners were well aware of this notice, as they filed numerous documents with this Court over the last several weeks, and Petitioners had a telephone call with Respondent's counsel this morning 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 where they indicated they had no intention to appear at the trial of this case, despite being notified that the case would be called for trial in Tallahassee. 4 JRG JRG Petitioners received a Notice of Deficiency in income tax from the Respondent for the year 2017 in the amount of $15,384. This notice also had an associated penalty under section 6662(a), which Respondent has now conceded. The Notice of Deficiency was dated February 25th, 2021. The last day on which Petitioners could timely file a petition in this Court pursuant to section 6213(a), which would trigger this Court's jurisdiction to review Respondent's proposed deficiency, was on May 26th, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2021. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petitioners did, in fact, file a petition on May 24th, 2021, which was timely and which did, in fact, trigger our jurisdiction pursuant to section 6212 and section 6213. Therefore, we do have jurisdiction over this case. Petitioners argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction. Their arguments are not based upon the statutory requirements nor any other technical basis. The Court has denied their Motion to Dismiss this case JRG for lack of jurisdiction, which was filed on December 27th, 2022, and was denied on December 29th, 2022. Petitioners then filed a Motion to Reconsider the motion relative to jurisdiction on January 24th, 2023, which motion was also denied on January 31st, 2023. For 5 JRG the reasons stated, the Court does have jurisdiction over this case based upon the statutory requirements as explained above. In their papers, which were filed pre-trial, Petitioners also argue various nontechnical and nonfactual bases to attack Respondent's determination and this JRG Court's jurisdiction. They do not address, in any serious way, the adjustments in the Notice of Deficiency, other than to say they were cheated by a contractor. They don't establish the basis on which such an argument could be sustained as a theft loss. Nor do they seriously attempt to substantiate any of the amounts in dispute in the Notice of Deficiency in any of their Pre-Trial papers. Regardless, they failed to appear today with knowledge that this case would be called for trial. We note that the term "theft" used in the Internal Revenue Code relative to a theft loss, under section 165, is not limited to larceny, embezzlement, and robbery, but may include criminal taking of another's property, including the crime of false pretenses. Gerstell v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 161 (1966). However, the factual existence of a theft deductible under the Internal Revenue Code depends on the law of the state where the alleged loss occurred, and 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 normally to be entitled to a theft loss, a taxpayer must 6 establish that there is a criminal element to the appropriation. Edwards v. Bromberg, 232 F.2d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1956). The taxpayer has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a theft occurred pursuant to Hartley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-317. Petitioners made no attempt to make such an argument in their Pre-Trial papers and failed to appear or produce any evidence prior to trial. Obviously, Petitioners did not intend to pursue a technical argument in this Court, but rather, argue without any basis that JRG the Court lacks jurisdiction. Given Petitioners' statement to Respondent's counsel that they would not appear and the fact that they did not attempt to be here when their case was called for trial, we determine that their case should be dismissed for failure to properly prosecute and we sustain Respondent's deficiency in income tax, although, Petitioners prevail relative to the addition to tax pursuant to Respondent's concession. JRG JRG A Decision in accord with this opinion will be rendered and the case will be dismissed for Petitioners' intentional failure to prosecute the case on the merits. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. 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 (Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the above-entitled 7 matter was concluded.) 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