Excerpts below.
James A. Witdfeldt v. Commissioner, Docket No. 15907-10 (U.S.T.C. 5/13/2011) (bench opinion), aff'd, No. 11-3542 (8th Cir. 4/30/2012).
Tax Court wrote:The record reflects that Petitioner resides in and owns property in Holt County, Nebraska at the time he filed the petition.
Petitioner is the son of Albert and Gusteva Widtfeldt. He is well-educated. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT and a law degree.
In 1987 Petitioner returned to Holt County to help his aging parents with approximately 8,000 acres of farmland and approximately 40 rental units. His father died in 1996 and his mother died in 2006. The exact dates of death are in the record.
This is a tax dispute regarding the Federal gift and estate tax consequences of the farmland, rental units and other substantial property in Holt County. Title to the property appears clouded because of Petitioner's attempts at estate planning techniques. The funding of various trusts and relevant deeds involving the farmland and rental units in Holt County creates more questions than answers.
Petitioner disputes the tax the IRS determined was due. Respondent determined that Petitioner's mother, Gusteva, made gifts as of the tax year ending December 31, 2004, resulting in a $305,141 gift tax deficiency, a $68,656.73 late gift tax filing addition under section 6651(a) (1) and a $76,285.25 late gift tax payment addition under section 6651(a) (2). Respondent also determined a $170,954 estate tax deficiency against the estate of Petitioner's mother (the estate) and also determined that the estate was liable for a $34,191 accuracy-related penalty for filing an inaccurate Federal estate tax return.
The Court understands that Petitioner disputes that any tax is due. This is the only thing that the Court understands from what Petitioner has submitted in this case. Petitioner raises numerous nonsensical arguments. The Court seriously questions Petitioner's mental capacity.
We encouraged Petitioner early on that he needed to work with Respondent to resolve this case or to prepare it for trial. We reminded Petitioner that he needed to stay focused and make arguments regarding the asserted Federal gift and estate taxes Respondent determined in the deficiency notice. We also warned Petitioner in an Order dated April 4, 2011, that the Court would entertain a motion from Respondent to dismiss if Petitioner failed to make relevant arguments or provide relevant information.
Instead of heeding the Court's warning and working with Respondent to resolve this case, Petitioner submitted numerous and voluminous papers. None of the documents complied with the Court's Rules. Without exception, the papers Petitioner thrust upon the Court (on an almost daily basis) required several legal and administrative personnel at the Court to read and try to understand how, if anything, the papers had any relevance to the gift and estate taxes at issue. The Court decided to file the documents as various statements or motions of Petitioner rather than return them to him unfiled. The Court wanted any appellate court to see the type of documents and the irrelevant arguments Petitioner has submitted in this case. The Court denied each and every motion by Petitioner. Each motion by Petitioner lacked merit, including motions to require the Court to be tested for Lyme's Disease and motions to recuse the judge because she had the same surname as Petitioner's neighbor.
This case was scheduled for trial at the Court's trial session in Omaha, Nebraska on April 26, 2011. Petitioner was not present at calendar call. Petitioner was present, however, when the Court recalled the case. At recall, Respondent appeared and announced he was ready for trial. Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute. Respondent's motion identifies Petitioner''s failure to properly prosecute this case. The Court shall grant Respondent's motion.
[snip]
The Court, like every court, has the inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 540 (1992). We look to the manner in which Petitioner conducted himself in this case to determine whether to dilsmiss for failure to prosecute. See Mathes v. Commissioner, 788 F.2d 33, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1986). We do not look to the substance of his claims. Id. His claims make no sense. Petitioner made similar irrelevant claims in the Federal District Court of Nebraska. Widtfeldt v. United States, 106 AFTR 2d 6727 (D. Neb. 2010). There, as here, the Court found it difficult to decipher his claims.
The record reflects that Petitioner spent a great deal of time inundating this Court with irrelevant information. There is information about his disbarment from practicing law. There is information about causes of death and sicknesses of his parents, his sister, some of his clients, neighbors and others. Petitioner accuses the IRS, this Court and other governmental entities of numerous bad acts. We warned Petitioner that we would entertain a motion from Respondent to dismiss this case if Petitioner failed to raise relevant issues. Petitioner did not heed the Court's warnings. Petitioner needed to be escorted from the courtroom by the U.S. Marshals Service in Omaha, Nebraska, when he persisted in making irrelevant statements and assertions. Petitioner is a disturbed individual. The Court hopes that he gets medical treatment for his physical and mental illness.
We find that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's determinations in the deficiency notice are incorrect. We shall grant Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute.
. Widtfeldt later filed an additional document labeled "Further Widtfeldt Brief in Response to Defendant Reply Brief." (Filing No. 9.)
