- 4 -
things, informed her that petitioners had until July 14, 1999, to
petition this Court to redetermine respondent’s determination.
The employee also provided Ms. Tahim with the telephone number of
this Court’s petition section.
On July 14, 1999, 90 days after respondent mailed to
petitioners the notices of deficiency, petitioners filed a
lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Does 1 through
40 (collectively, the defendants) in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, generally challenging
respondent’s determination. On September 29, 1999, the
defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice to
petitioners’ paying the tax and filing a proper refund action,
asserting primarily that the District Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. Following the District Court’s filing of
petitioners’ opposition to the defendant’s motion,5 the District
Court, on October 25, 1999, filed a stipulation of the parties
there stating that the court “may dismiss * * * [petitioners’]
Complaint and action on the sole ground that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to * * *
[petitioners] filing a subsequent suit in a court of competent
5 Petitioners agreed in their opposition that the District
Court lacked jurisdiction, but they went to great lengths to
maintain that the court should dismiss the case without rendering
judgment on the merits of the case. Petitioners’ opposition
states that they do not want the court’s dismissal to be given
res judicata effect in any further proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011