Opinion
12476-23L
04-12-2024
SCOTT A. MITCHELL & PAMELA A. MITCHELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Courtney D. Jones, Judge
In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioners Scott A. Mitchell and Pamela A. Mitchell (collectively, the Mitchells) ask the Court to review determinations and decisions regarding collection actions that were made by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals.
On June 27, 2023, Appeals issued Mr. Mitchell a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRS Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code concerning taxable year 2018. That same day, Appeals issued Ms. Mitchell a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under Internal Revenue Code Sections 6320 and/or 6330 and Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under IRC Section 6015 concerning taxable year 2018. In Ms. Mitchell's notice of determination the IRS denied her request for innocent spouse relief, and in both Mr. and Ms. Mitchells' notices of determination Appeals sustained the filing of federal tax liens to collect unpaid federal income taxes for taxable year 2018. Additionally, on June 27, 2023, Appeals issued the Mitchells a Decision Letter on Equivalent Hearing Under Internal Revenue Code Sections 6320 and/or 6330 (Decision Letter). In the Decision Letter, Appeals sustained the filing of the federal tax liens to collect unpaid federal income taxes for taxable year 2019, stating that it was appropriate at the time of filing, but also noting that the liability had since been satisfied and the lien released.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, regulatory references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On April 11, 2024, the Mitchells filed a Motion to Dismiss wherein they agree to voluntarily dismiss this case contingent upon respondent applying their Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return refund for taxable year 2019 to their outstanding liability for taxable year 2018.
In Wagner v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 330 (2002), the Court held that a lien and/or levy case may be dismissed upon motion by a petitioner where there is no prejudice to respondent. Finding no prejudice to respondent, the Mitchells' Petition can be voluntarily dismissed. Additionally, in Ms. Mitchell's notice of determination, the IRS also issued Ms. Mitchell a determination regarding her request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. In Davidson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 273 (2015), the Court held that a "stand alone" petition for innocent spouse relief, which is a case independent of any deficiency proceeding and maintained pursuant to the Court's jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1), can be dismissed upon a motion by petitioner. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 329 (2000) (stating that a "stand alone" innocent spouse relief case is independent of any deficiency proceeding). Insofar as this case constitutes Ms. Mitchell's challenge to the IRS's determination under section 6015, maintained pursuant to the Court's jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1), we also find this case appropriate for voluntarily dismissal.
Dismissal of this case through voluntary withdrawal of the Petition places the plaintiff "in a legal position as if he had never brought the first suit." Dearth v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 413, 415 (6th Cir. 2008) (first quoting LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 1976); and then citing Kelly v. Great Alt. & Pac. Tea Co., 86 F.2d 296, 297 (4th Cir. 1936)); see also Humphreys v. United States, 272 F.2d 411, 412 (9th Cir. 1959); Davidson, 144 T.C. at 278; Wagner, 118 T.C. at 333-34.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2019 and to Strike Taxable Year 2019 (Doc. 11), filed February 7, 2024, as supplemented on April 12, 2024, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 16), filed February 13, 2024, as supplemented on March 13, 2024 (Doc. 25), is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18), filed February 20, 2024, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33), filed April 11, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed.