-2-
their petition that their underlying tax liability for those
years was different from that shown as due in respondent’s
records, respondent alleged in his answer that this Court was
without jurisdiction to determine petitioners’ underlying tax
liability for any of those years because petitioners had the
opportunity to dispute the liability in their previous bankruptcy
case.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Gisella Sabath
(decedent) died. Thereafter, Thomas J. Sabath (petitioner in the
singular) and respondent moved the Court to dismiss this case,
insofar as it pertains to decedent, for lack of prosecution.2
Petitioner and respondent also filed with the Court a stipulation
asking that we enter a decision that includes a statement as to
the amount of petitioner’s unpaid income tax for each of the
subject years. We ordered petitioner and respondent to show
cause why the Court may enter a decision against petitioner that
includes a finding of his underlying tax liability. We referred
them to Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69 (2005), where we
1(...continued)
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code.
2 In this motion, petitioner and respondent have represented
to the Court that no one is currently authorized to act on behalf
of decedent’s estate, that decedent had three “heirs at law”, and
that the names and addresses of those heirs were as stated in the
motion. Pursuant to Nordstrom v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 30
(1968), we shall notify those heirs of this action before
deciding the motion to dismiss as to decedent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011