ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH

E.D. Pennsylvania

ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH

DecidedFebruary 10, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-04111

StatusUnknown

This text of ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH (ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH, (E.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY ATKINSON, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. : No. 21-4111 : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE : PHILADELPHIA BRANCH, : : Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

Kenney, J. February 10, 2023

Defendant Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia Branch (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the remaining claims of Plaintiff Gary Atkinson’s (“Plaintiff”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 27. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and all claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate Order will follow. Plaintiff Gary Atkinson filed a complaint on September 14, 2021, seeking payment of $3,200 for CARES Act Economic Impact Payments (EIPs). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that he filed a Form 1040 on which he claimed EIP 1 ($1,200) and EIP 2 ($600) for tax year 2020, and EIP 3 ($1,400) for tax year 2021, and that the IRS failed to process these amounts. ECF No. 1. On August 9, 2022, this court granted Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to tax year 2021 in the amount of $1,400 (EIP 3). ECF No. 21. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2022. Plaintiff has not filed a response to this Motion. When a plaintiff proceeds pro se and does not respond to a motion to dismiss, a merits analysis is appropriate in determining whether to grant the motion. See Gary v. Pennsylvania Hum. Rels. Comm’n, 497 F. App'x 223 (3d Cir. 2012); see also Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir.1991). Here, Defendant avers that Defendant issued to Plaintiff the payment that Plaintiff sought for tax year 2020. ECF No. 27-1 at 1. Defendant has attached receipt of this payment. ECF No. 27-2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s suit is now moot.

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is granted and this suit is dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Chad F. Kenney __________________________ CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY ATKINSON, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. : No. 21-4111 : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE : PHILADELPHIA BRANCH, : : Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

Kenney, J. February 10, 2023

Defendant Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia Branch (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the remaining claims of Plaintiff Gary Atkinson’s (“Plaintiff”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 27. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and all claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate Order will follow. Plaintiff Gary Atkinson filed a complaint on September 14, 2021, seeking payment of $3,200 for CARES Act Economic Impact Payments (EIPs). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that he filed a Form 1040 on which he claimed EIP 1 ($1,200) and EIP 2 ($600) for tax year 2020, and EIP 3 ($1,400) for tax year 2021, and that the IRS failed to process these amounts. ECF No. 1. On August 9, 2022, this court granted Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to tax year 2021 in the amount of $1,400 (EIP 3). ECF No. 21. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2022. Plaintiff has not filed a response to this Motion. When a plaintiff proceeds pro se and does not respond to a motion to dismiss, a merits analysis is appropriate in determining whether to grant the motion. See Gary v. Pennsylvania Hum. Rels. Comm’n, 497 F. App'x 223 (3d Cir. 2012); see also Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir.1991). Here, Defendant avers that Defendant issued to Plaintiff the payment that Plaintiff sought for tax year 2020. ECF No. 27-1 at 1. Defendant has attached receipt of this payment. ECF No. 27-2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s suit is now moot.

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is granted and this suit is dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Chad F. Kenney __________________________ CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-internal-revenue-service-philadelphia-branch-paed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack