Page images
PDF
EPUB

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217

DELEGATION ORDER NO. 44

To: THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES OF THE COURT

Pursuant to section 7443A, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Rules 180-183, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and until further notice, it is

ORDERED that a Special Trial Judge is authorized:

(1) To make the decision of the Court in any of the following proceedings that may be assigned for trial or other disposition:

(a) any declaratory judgment proceeding; (b) any proceeding under section 7463;

(c) any proceeding where neither the amount of the deficiency placed in dispute (within the meaning of section 7463) nor the amount of any claimed overpayment exceeds $50,000; and

(d) any proceeding under section 6320 or 6330; and (2) to sign the name of the Chief Judge on:

(a) any decision to be entered by stipulation of the parties and

(b) any decision to be entered in a proceeding under rules similar to section 7463.

This order supersedes Delegation Order No. 42, dated June 1, 2004.

JOHN O. COLVIN

Chief Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

June 1, 2006

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217

DELEGATION ORDER NO. 45

To: THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGES OF THE COURT

Pursuant to section 7443A, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Rules 180–183, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and until further notice, it is

ORDERED that a Special Trial Judge is authorized:

(1) Motions in Declaratory Judgment Proceedings; Proceedings Under Section 7463; Proceedings Described in Section 7443A(b)(3); and Proceedings Under Section 6320 or 6330. To make the decision of the Court and issue any appropriate order disposing of any motion whether or not dispositive of

the case.

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

(2) Motions in Proceedings Under Rules Similar to Section 7463.

(a) Action Not Dispositive. – To make any appropriate order disposing of the motion.

(b) Action Dispositive of Case. To hear any motion and to sign the name of the Chief Judge on the necessary order or decision.

(3) Motions in All Other Cases.

(a) Action Not Dispositive of the Case. — To make any appropriate order disposing of the motion.

(b) Action Dispositive of Case.—To hear any motion and prepare for signature of the Chief Judge or other Judge designated by the Chief Judge the necessary order or decision and such necessary opinion or memorandum opinion.

This order supersedes Delegation Order No. 41, dated June 1, 2004.

JOHN O. COLVIN

Chief Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

June 1, 2006

TABLE OF CASES

Page

89 356

261 237

...

Arnett, Dave
Bell, Greg A.
Cavenham Forest Industries, Inc., a Partner Other Than the Tax

Matters Partner ......
Cox, Louis A. and Christine
Exxon Mobil Corporation and Affiliated Companies, f.k.a. Exxon

Corporation and Affiliated Companies
Garwood Irrigation Company
Greene-Thapedi, Llwellyn
Huffman, Dow A. and Sandra E., et al.
Huffman, Neil A. and Ethel M.
Investment Research Associates, Inc.
Manko, Bernhard F. and Cynthia G.
Merlo, Robert J.
NT, Inc. d.b.a. Natures Touch
Ordlock, Lois E. ....
Patterson, James A. and Dorothy A.
Peabody Natural Resources Company, f.k.a. Hanson Natural

36 233

1 322 322 183 195 205 191

Resources Company
People Place Auto Hand Carwash, LLC
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Subsidi-

aries
Swallows Holding, Ltd.
Turner, James D. and Beverly H.
Vines, L.S. ......
Wolford, Douglas M. and Kimberlee H.
Zapara, Michael A. and Gina A.

47 322

261 359

28 96 299 279 322 215

REPORTS

OF THE

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LLWELLYN GREENE-THAPEDI, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER

OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 7940-01L.

Filed January 12, 2006.

In her original petition, P challenged R’s notice of determination sustaining a proposed levy to collect P's 1992 income tax. She contended, among other things, that R had failed to make a timely assessment of her 1992 tax liabilities and had included excessive interest accruals in her 1992 balance due; she sought a refund of certain amounts previously paid with respect to her 1992 account. After the petition was filed, P’s 1992 balance due was eliminated by R's offset of P's 1999 overpayment, pursuant to sec. 6402(a), I.R.C. P amended her petition in the Tax Court, seeking an increased refund. Held, inasmuch as R agrees that there is no unpaid 1992 tax liability upon which a levy could be based and that no further collection action should be taken, P's challenges to the proposed levy are moot. Held, further, this Court lacks jurisdiction in this collection review proceeding to determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes. Held, further, this case will be dismissed as moot.

Llwellyn Greene-Thapedi, pro se.
Robert T. Little and Michael F. O'Donnell, for respondent.

1

« PreviousContinue »