Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) wants out of Tax Court trial!

[Paths of the Sea]

Dr. Dino has filed a motion to have his U.S. Tax Court case dismissed.

See:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... o=10004245

> 11/01/2011 MOTION by petr. to dismiss. (C/S 10-24-11)

Jerold Barringer is still shown as Dr. Dino's counsel.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[AndyK]

Served on the Court 10/24/11

Not yet served on IRS

Usually, that kind of delay means something's wrong -- SERIOUSLY wrong -- with the document.

[Paths of the Sea]

Maybe the IRS service just hasn't posted to the docket record???

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Served on the Court 10/24/11

Not yet served on IRS

Usually, that kind of delay means something's wrong -- SERIOUSLY wrong -- with the document.

I wouldn't assume that.

There very well may be no way to determine the status of service from the court's web site.

Such things are evolving.

[LPC]

Dr. Dino has filed a motion to have his U.S. Tax Court case dismissed.

If he's trying to concede, then fine, who cares.

But if he's trying to avoid res judicata, I say screw him.

[Footnote for newbies/lurkers and not-lawyers: I'm talking about the difference between a dismissal with prejudice and a dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice would bar him from ever arguing the same issues about the same tax liabilities in any other court. A dismissal without prejudice would not prevent him from later filing a refund action or other court action to challenge the same tax liabilities.]

[Paths of the Sea]

I was thinking he may have decided he would be better off spending the rest of his life, or a good portion of it, fighting the Collection Division; maybe even trying bankruptcy again.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[wserra]

Such things are evolving.

Not in Dino-World.

[notorial dissent]

I was thinking he may have decided he would be better off spending the rest of his life, or a good portion of it, fighting the Collection Division; maybe even trying bankruptcy again.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

Let's see, you are ascribing common sense and just sense in general to Dr D? I have to agree, I don't think the likelihood is anywhere near on the high or probable range.

I'm betting more on him repeating all the same nonsense he has already filed since the court "obviously" didn't understand the rectitude of his position and it needs to be repeated for validation.

[Paths of the Sea]

(Dr. Dino doesn't get off so easy. For now, though, his trial is off the calendar and the Court is at odds with Dr. Dino and the Commissioner. - Maury Enthusiast!)

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... o=10004245

> 11/15/2011
>
>> ORDER petr's motion to dismiss is denied.
>>
>> Case is continued.
>>
>> Parties by 12-31-12 file a joint report.

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

Docket No. 4245-10

KENT HOVIND,
Petitioner,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on a petition seeking
redetermination of deficiencies in Federal income tax
and additions to tax under Internal Revenue Code
sections 6651(f), 6651(a) (2), and 6654 for tax years
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

This case is currently calendared for trial at the
March 5, 2012, Jacksonville, Florida Trial
Session of the Court.

On November 1, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
his petition under Rule 53, Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.

Rule 53 states

> "A case may be dismissed for cause upon motion
> of a party or upon the Court's initiative."

Petitioner's motion does not state any causes for
dismissal.

The motion reflects that petitioner understands the
consequences of dismissing his petition.

Respondent does not object to the granting of
petitioner's motion.

The Court disagrees with the parties that the case
can be dismissed without cause.

It is now a settled principle that a taxpayer may
not unilaterally oust the Tax Court from jurisdiction
which, once invoked, remains unimpaired until it
decides the controversy.

Est. of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 521 (1974).

See also Rule 123, Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.

The Court recognizes that petitioner is currently in the
custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and will be
unavailable for trial at the March 5, 2012, Jacksonville,
Florida Trial Session of the Court.

Premises considered, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

It is further

ORDERED that this case is stricken from the March 5, 2012,
Jacksonville, Florida Trial Session of the Court.

It is further ORDERED that, on or before December 31, 2012,
the parties shall file a joint report as to the then present
status of this case.

(Signed) Elizabeth Crewson Paris
Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
November 15, 2011

---------------------------------
---------------------------------

[notorial dissent]

Curiouser and curiouser.

[AndyK]

(Dr. Dino doesn't get off so easy. For now, though, his trial is off the calendar and the Court is at odds with Dr. Dino and the Commissioner. - Maury Enthusiast!)

Minor corrections.

Lacking a copy (so far) as to why DrD was requesting dismissal, analysis on that end must pend.

The Court is not "at odds with Dr. Dino and the Commissioner"

The Court speaks and the other parties do as is spoken. They might grumble, but the Court has the bat, ball, gloves, and gets to write the rule book.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't understand this:

Respondent does not object to the granting of
petitioner's motion.

Am I right in suspecting that the judge is getting fed up with all the filings and moving the case from court to court, and want a set of proposals from both sides and will then set a place and time for a hearing?

[AndyK]

I don't understand this:

Respondent does not object to the granting of
petitioner's motion.

Am I right in suspecting that the judge is getting fed up with all the filings and moving the case from court to court, and want a set of proposals from both sides and will then set a place and time for a hearing?

It is standard procedure in the Tax Court that almost every motion be discussed with the opposing party prior to submitting and officially serving it. The motion will then contain text along the line of "Respondent {or Petitioner} does not object to the granting of
petitioner's motion.", "R or P objects for the following reason" , or "Unable to contact R or P"

The Judge is deferring the trial and requesting status reports at the end of 2012. Some time in 2013, the case will be re-calendared for trial or an Order issued reflecting a settlement.

[ASITStands]

I don't understand this:

Respondent does not object to the granting of
petitioner's motion.

Am I right in suspecting that the judge is getting fed up with all the filings and moving the case from court to court, and want a set of proposals from both sides and will then set a place and time for a hearing?

From the little we have available (i.e., reading Hovind's motion), I'd say that's close.

(1) Jurisdiction was invoked when Petitioner filed a Petition.

(2) The Petition was filed after receipt of what appears to have been a "notice of deficiency," as the Court uses the words, "petition seeking redetermination of deficiencies."

(2) After several continuances, Trial was set for March 5, 2012.

(3) Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss without stating a cause for dismissal.

(4) Respondent did not object to the dismissal, as that would mean the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies would be established as the amounts to be assessed.

(5) Petitioner appears to understand the consequences, as the Court writes, "The motion reflects that petitioner understands the consequences of dismissing his petition."

(6) Judge Paris appears to be overly cautious at this point as to denying litigation.

(7) As far as I know, there's no motion for sanction at this point, but a continuance to Trial might result in such a motion if the Petitioner continues to advance meritless arguments.

I had thought the motion to dismiss might be based on some theory the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction (authority) to make determinations and assessments. It could have been based on any number of Hovind's protester theories, including the lack of revenue districts.

Petitioner would argue the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make determinations and assessments but the Court had jurisdiction to review the issues. It's convoluted.

Anyway, it appears Judge Paris wants to hear Petitioner ("hang himself") a bit more.

[jcolvin2]

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=52537

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

KENT HOVIND,
Petitioner,
v. Docket No. 4245-10.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
O R D E R
This case is before the Court on a petition seeking
redetermination of deficiencies in Federal income tax and
additions to tax under Internal Revenue Code sections 6651(f),
6651(a) (2), and 6654 for tax years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. This case is currently calendared
for trial at the March 5, 2012, Jacksonville, Florida Trial
Session of the Court.

On November 1, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
his petition under Rule 53, Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Rule 53 states "A case may be dismissed for cause
upon motion of a party or upon the Court's initiative."
Petitioner's motion does not state any causes for dismissal.
The motion reflects that petitioner understands the consequences
of dismissing his petition. Respondent does not object to the
granting of petitioner's motion.

The Court disagrees with the parties that the case can be
dismissed without cause. It is now a settled principle that a
taxpayer may not unilaterally oust the Tax Court from
jurisdiction which, once invoked, remains unimpaired until it
decides the controversy. Est. of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
519, 521 (1974). See also Rule 123, Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.

The Court recognizes that petitioner is currently in the
custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and will be
unavailable for trial at the March 5, 2012, Jacksonville,
Florida Trial Session of the Court.

Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to dismiss is DENIED. It
is further
ORDERED that this case is stricken from the March 5, 2012,
Jacksonville, Florida Trial Session of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before December 31, 2012, the parties
shall file a joint report as to the then present status of this
case.
(Signed) Elizabeth Crewson Paris
Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
November 15, 2011

[Dr. Caligari]

Had she granted Hovind's motion to dismiss, the IRS deficiency determinations would have been upheld (hence the IRS's agreement to his motion). The judge's Order is baffling.

[jcolvin2]

Had she granted Hovind's motion to dismiss, the IRS deficiency determinations would have been upheld (hence the IRS's agreement to his motion). The judge's Order is baffling.

The general rule is once the Tax Court's jurisdiction is invoked, the matter has to go to determination. You can't decide in the middle of a case that you would rather be in a different court (perhaps the Court of Federal Claims issued a favorable decision on your issue), escape without a decision, pay the assessed tax, and then file a claim for refund in a more favorable forum. You are stuck in the Tax Court.

[Dr. Caligari]

But a dismissal (for failure to prosecute, or on the Petitioner's motion) operates as an adjudication on the merits (Tax Court Rule 123 (d)), which would bar any subsequent refund suit. So the Court should have granted Hovind's motion to dismiss.

[jcolvin2]

You are correct, and I am sure that is the way that IRS Counsel saw the case, and the reason that the motion to dismiss was not opposed.

I have not read Hovind's motion, but perhaps there was a concern that Hovind would later take the position that the dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds. Alternatively, the Judge may have been concerned that an incarcerated and non-conformist taxpayer did not quite appreciate what he was doing.

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent's wife (Jo) went to trial before the Tax Court earlier this year. Briefs have been filed and the case is submitted for the Court's determination.

I'm wondering if the Court was going to wait until Kent (aka Dr. Dino) went to trial before issuing its opinion in Jo's case. If so, I guess we could have a long wait. Alternatively, if Kent's case is dismissed, it might actually speed up a decision in Jo's case.

If the Court was not "waiting", then maybe they will get around to issuing an opinion in Jo's case sooner rather than later.

Jo had legitimate counsel, from what I can tell, but I know of no reporting on what actually went on at the trial or what is reflected in the briefs filed in her case.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

P.S. There is a related thread on Kent's case and the motion that was posted on November 15.