United States

“ Rather than responding to the court’s order, on February 4, 2013, Hovind filed a “motion to withdraw as counsel,” signed by himself rather than his attorney, asserting that he had previously instructed his counsel to withdraw from the case and to pass all documents in the case to Hovind; that the attorney had not done so; and that the court should send “any notices to the address” he set forth. (Doc. 36.) ”

“ Finding “a portion” of Hovind’s revised submission to be sufficient to constitute a reply to the affirmative allegations in the Commissioner’s answer, the Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s Rule 37 (c) motion. (Doc. 11.) It noted, however, that “the record in this case is replete with patently frivolous and groundless arguments by petitioner, acting by and through his counsel,” and admonished Hovind and his counsel that, if they continued to advance arguments that were frivolous or primarily for delay, it would consider imposing penalties on them pursuant to I.R.C. § 6673 (a) (1) and (2) . ”

“ Hovind does not claim that he did not receive the motion for entry of decision or otherwise explain why he did not file any response to it. We note that he received the Tax Court’s order and decision (Doc. 38) promptly, as he filed his notice of appeal (Doc. 39) just fifteen days after the decision was entered and sent to him.
2. Hovind also argues that he is not liable for the tax set forth in the notice of deficiency and sustained by the Tax Court because he is a “minister” of CSE and thus not liable for tax under various provisions of the Code. (Br. 1-3.) ”

“ This notice of deficiency is the taxpayer’s “ticket to the Tax Court.” L.V. Castle, 465 F.3d at 1247 (internal quotes omitted) . If a taxpayer timely files a petition with the Tax Court, that court has jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of the deficiency and any asserted additions to the tax. I.R.C. § 6214 (a) .
The Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency is presumptively correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of showing that it is erroneous. ”

“ It alleged that he had attempted to impede the administration of the tax laws by, inter alia, destroying records and paying his employees in cash and labeling them “missionaries” rather than employees so as to avoid payroll tax requirements. ”

“ Commissioner, 872 F.2d 380-81 (11th Cir. 1989) ; Tax Ct. R. 142 (a) (burden of proof on the petitioner except as provided by statute or determined by the court) . The Commissioner is not permitted to make an assessment or pursue any collection activity with respect to the deficiency “until the decision of the Tax Court has become final.” I.R.C. § 6213 (a) .
-20-
Courts have inherent power to dismiss an action or enter a default judgment to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the integrity of their orders. Roadway Express, Inc. ”

“ Footnotes
↑ “Doc.” references are to the documents in the record of this case as numbered by the clerk of the Tax Court and transmitted to this Court.↑ The additions to the tax asserted against Hovind were for fraudulent failure to file returns (I.R.C. § 6651 (f) ) , failure to pay tax (I.R.C. § 6651 (a) (2) ) , and failure to pay estimated tax (I.R.C. § 6654) .↑ Tax Ct. R. 131 (b) provides for the issuance of a pretrial order or other instructions for trial preparation and states that “ [u] nexcused failure to comply with any such order may subject a party or a party’s counsel to sanctions.” ”

“ Van Dornan, Shelley T., attorney, Internal Revenue Service
Wilkins, William J., Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service
Ziegler, Laurence D., attorney, Internal Revenue Service
-i-
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 28-1 (c) and Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a) , counsel for the Commissioner respectfully inform this Court that they believe that oral argument would not be helpful to the Court, because the facts and law are adequately set forth in this brief. ”