Today frequent guest blogger Bob Kamman takes us through a day in the life of a Tax Court judge, as viewed through the non-designated orders that occupy much of the Court’s day-to-day time. Christine
Much can be learned from the Designated Orders selected by Tax Court judges as noteworthy among the hundreds of orders issued each day. But sometimes we may learn just as much from those that are not designated. For examples, let’s shadow Judge David Gustafson for one day, as he works through his in-box to move cases along.
These are all lessons from May 2, 2019. They include:
- A taxpayer (Augustine) hopes to get help from a Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic.
- A taxpayer (Pendse) wants a trial later this month because she will be out of the country for more than a year.
- Taxpayers (Emanouil) whose co-counsel wants to withdraw, but forgets to sign the motion.
- A taxpayer (Miruru) whose case was dismissed with tax deficiency upheld after failure to appear at trial and to respond to an IRS motion.
- A taxpayer (Baba) gets a second chance from IRS Appeals but has not confirmed he wants it.
- Taxpayers (Reuter and Stovall) have not returned proposed decision documents to IRS after a settlement seems to have been reached.
- A partnership (Cross Refined Coal) in whose case IRS has filed a motion to compel.
- A taxpayer (Insinga) in a 2013 whistleblower case, whose latest filing needs to be sealed without redactions.
- Taxpayers (Houchin) whose 2013 case will be continued again, as they and IRS requested, but not on Judge Gustafson’s calendar. (The docket shows a bankruptcy filing.)
- Taxpayers in two cases (Lugo, and Abdu-Shahid) in which IRS Counsel misfiled documents.
Darline Augustine, Docket 12248-18
Pro Se, New York
The Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 7) in this “collection due process” (“CDP”) case. We ordered petitioner Darline Augustine to file a response by March 1, 2019, and we did our best to explain the nature of the IRS’s motion and what she should state in a response. (See Doc. 9.)
Ms. Augustine requested more time to submit her response (see Doc. 13), so we gave her until April 15, 2019 (see Doc. 14). On that date she filed a one sentence letter (Doc. 15) that did not respond substantively to the motion. By order of April 22, 2019 (Doc. 17), we allowed her to file a supplemental response by no later than May 6, 2019. On April 29, 2019, we received from Ms. Augustine another letter (Doc. 18), which informed us that she is getting the help of a Low Income Tax Clinic, and which states: “With regard to the reply to the summary judgment, I will have to get assistance from a low income legal service. I am not an attorney and legal language is quite opaque to me.” No attorney from an LITC has filed an entry of appearance in this case.
Ms. Augustine’s letters have asserted that she wants to appear before the Tax Court. Trials are conducted, however, to resolve disputes of fact. If there are no material facts that are disputed, then there is no need for a trial. The Commissioner’s motion purports to show that no trial is needed in this case because (the motion says) the undisputed facts show that the IRS is entitled to prevail. To preserve her opportunity for a trial, Ms. Augustine must show why we should not grant the Commissioner’s motion. We will give her one more opportunity to do so. It is
ORDERED that, no later than June 3, 2019, Ms. Augustine shall file any supplemental response to the Commissioner’s motion that she wishes to file. If she intends to obtain the assistance of an LITC, then she will need to obtain it in time to meet that deadline. In the absence of the entry of an appearance by an attorney representing Ms. Augustine, we would not expect to grant her any further extension of this deadline. It is further
ORDERED that, no later than June 24, 2019, the Commissioner shall file a reply to Ms. Augustine’s supplemental response, if she files one; or, if she does not file a supplemental response, then the Commissioner shall file a status report so stating.
Shona Pendse, Docket 25665-17
(Pro Se, Boston before taxpayer relocated)
Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion to calendar this case for trial this month. We will deny the motion.
This case was scheduled to be tried at a Boston session of this Court on April 1, 2019, but at the joint request of the parties, it was continued. The place of trial was changed to Washington, D.C., and the case was thereafter scheduled to be tried at a trial session beginning September 16, 2019. Petitioner wants a more prompt trial, and she says that she must be out of the country from June 2019 through August 2020. She therefore requested that the case be set for trial at a special trial session in Washington beginning May 21, 2019, at which the undersigned judge will coincidentally be presiding. Respondent objects. Counsel states that he received information from petitioner in April that prompted an inquiry by which he learned of a related refund case that is pending in U.S. district court, that involves a different taxpayer, and that is being handled by the U.S. Department of Justice. Counsel states that it is necessary to coordinate the two cases and that he cannot be ready for trial in this case in May 2019. Petitioner does not dispute the relatedness of the cases but maintains that respondent should have known about the related case already and should now be ready to proceed.
Even if we were otherwise inclined to grant petitioner’s motion, it might not be practical to try to fit this case into the special trial session beginning May 21, 2019. A special trial session is set based upon the anticipated situation and needs of the case being scheduled, and in this instance the other case set for that session is likely to use all of the available time in that session. Moreover, respondent’s counsel’s expressed need to coordinate this case with the refund case is plausible, and while perfect coordination of information between Chief Counsel and the various units of the IRS–and between Chief Counsel and the Department of Justice–might bring efficiencies, it would do so at a sometimes great cost, so we do not fault Chief Counsel nor his client agency for counsel’s unawareness of the related case before petitioner disclosed it to him.
Because we will deny the motion to calendar, this case remains on the calendar for the regular trial session in Washington, D.C., beginning September 16, 2019. However, we do not overlook petitioner’s scheduling difficulty with that trial session, and this order is without prejudice to any motion petitioner might make to continue this case from that trial session. We would consider any such motion on its merits. It is
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to calendar is denied.
Peter C. & Pascale Emanouil, Docket 5089-17
(2-Day Trial in Boston, October 2018)
On April 25, 2019, an unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel of record was filed on behalf of Nicholas F. Casolaro. The motion states that co-counsel Richard M. Stone and Peter D. Anderson will continue as counsel for petitioners in this case. That motion, however, was not signed by Mr. Casolaro in compliance with Tax Court Rule 24(c), which requires that counsel seeking to withdraw his appearance must file a motion with the Court requesting leave to do so. It is therefore
ORDERED that, no later than May 7, 2019, counsel for petitioners shall file an amendment to the unopposed motion to withdraw bearing the signature of Mr. Casolaro in compliance with Rule 24(c).
Mbugua J. Miruru, Docket 25168-17
(New Hampshire, Pro Se)
When this case was called from the calendar for the Court’s March 11, 2019, Boston, Massachusetts, trial session, there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner Mbugua J. Miruru. Counsel for the Commissioner appeared and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. In that motion, the Commissioner moves the Court to enter a decision with respect to Mr. Miruru in the amount for the tax year 2015 set forth therein. By order dated March 11, 2019 (served March 18, 2019), the Court directed Mr. Miruru to file a response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss on or before April 10, 2019. As of this date, the Court has received no response from Mr. Miruru. It is therefore
ORDERED that in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order of Dismissal and Decision on Mr. Miruru at the additional address (in Bristol, New Hampshire) that appears on the certificate of service attached to the Commissioner’s motion. It is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of prosecution. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner Mbugua J. Miruru for the tax year 2015 in the amount of $4,538.
Abu Baba, Docket 13186-18
(Virginia, Pro Se)
On April 26, 2019, the Commissioner filed two motions: (1) a motion for continuance [i.e., for a postponement] of the trial of this case, and (2) a motion for remand, in which it asks the Court to remand the case to the IRS’s Office of Appeals for further consideration. A continuance and remand would be welcome to many petitioners in a case such as this one, but the motions state that the Commissioner does not know whether petitioner Abu Baba objects to the motions. It is therefore
ORDERED that, no later than May 14, 2019, Mr. Baba shall file with the Court and serve on the Commissioner a response to the Commissioner’s two motions filed April 26, 2019.
Janet Ann Reuter & David Stovall, Docket 15641-17
(New York, Pro Se)
On May 1, 2019, the Commissioner filed a motion for entry of decision. The motion alleges that the parties have reached a basis of settlement and that counsel for the Commissioner sent to petitioners a proposed decision document effectuating that settlement, but indicates that petitioners have failed to return the decision document to counsel for the Commissioner. It is therefore
ORDERED that, if petitioners objects to the Commissioner’s motion for entry of decision, then on or before May 15, 2019, petitioners shall file with the Court and serve on the Commissioner a response to the motion, explaining why that motion should not be granted and a decision entered in this case.
Cross Refined Coal, LLC, Docket 19502-17
(Counsel for Both Parties in Chicago; Boston Trial Request)
On April 26, 2019, respondent filed a motion to compel (Doc. 50). It is
ORDERED that petitioner shall file a response by May 10, 2019, and that respondent shall file a reply by May 23, 2019.
Robert J. & Linda C. Houchin, Docket 27654-13
(Nevada; Counsel for Both Parties and Trial in Los Angeles)
In accordance with the parties’ joint recommendation in their status report filed April 29, 2019, it is
ORDERED that the undersigned judge no longer retains jurisdiction over this case and that this case is continued generally.
Joseph A. Insinga, Docket. 9011-13W
(New Jersey; Washington DC Trial)
(Petitioner Counsel in Memphis; IRS Counsel in Detroit)
On April 26, 2019, petitioner filed a first amended reference list of redacted information (Doc. # 258). It is therefore
ORDERED petitioner’s first amended reference list of redacted information (Doc. 258), is sealed. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remove from the Court’s public record the first amended reference list of redacted information (Doc. 258), and that these documents shall be retained by the Court in a sealed file which shall not be inspected by any person or entity except by an Order of the Court.
Wanda M. Lugo, Docket 15028-18
(New York; Pro Se)
On May 1, 2019, the Commissioner mis-filed in this case a motion for extension of time (Doc. 10) that was obviously intended to be filed in another case. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion filed May 1, 2019 (Doc. 10), is stricken from the Court’s record in this case and shall not be viewable as part of this case.
Abdu-Shahid May, Docket 11654-18
(New York; Pro Se)
On May 1, 2019, the Commissioner mis-filed in this case a motion for extension of time (Doc. 12) that was obviously intended to be filed in another case. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion filed May 1, 2019 (Doc. 12), is stricken from the Court’s record in this case and shall not be viewable as part of this case.
What sort of day was it? “A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… all things are as they were then, and you were there.” (If you were not a television viewer before 1972, you may not recognize that quotation from Walter Cronkite.) As this review demonstrates, a Tax Court judge in just one day may make a wide range of decisions –- for individuals and businesses disputing large amounts of tax and small ones; in collection due process matters; and even in whistleblower cases. Most of this work will not be found in published opinions and designated orders. What all of the cases have in common, though, is that each is the most important one before the Court, for the petitioner (and counsel, if any) involved.