Opinion
12982-20
06-06-2022
SYDNEY ANN CHANEY THOMAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
EMIN TORO JUDGE
This innocent spouse case was tried on April 4, 2022, during the Court's San Francisco, California, trial session. By Order served April 26, 2022, Exhibits 6-J, 13-R, 29-P, 31-P, 32-P, and 33-P were each admitted into evidence without prejudice to the parties' ability to file motions to strike on or before May 23, 2022. The Order further directed that if either party files a motion to strike, any motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support or opposition must be filed on or before June 13, 2022.
On May 31, 2022, counsel Megan L. Brackney filed an Entry of Appearance on behalf of petitioner.
On June 1, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order. The motion notes that "[t]he undersigned counsel was only recently engaged, on a pro bono basis, to represent Petitioner" and that "[p]reviously, Petitioner was representing herself." The motion further notes that "[t]he evidentiary issues to which Petitioner wishes to respond are complex and novel." The motion requests that petitioner be permitted to file a response to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order no later than July 1, 2022. The motion explains that "the requested extension will afford Petitioner's counsel the opportunity to review the trial transcript and the exhibits at issue." The motion advises that "[t]he Commissioner does not consent to this request because the deadline for a response has already passed."
The Court's April 26, 2022, Order noted "the novelty and complexity of certain of the relevant issues" that it addressed. The Order also observed that "Ms. Thomas's presentation on these issues may benefit from the assistance of counsel (pro bono or otherwise)." In view of the foregoing and the recent appointment of pro bono counsel, the Court believes it to be in the interest of justice to permit petitioner to file a response to the April 26, 2022, Order on or before July 1, 2022. To the extent respondent believes it may suffer prejudice as a result of the foregoing, respondent is invited to advise the Court of steps that might be taken (including extending other deadlines) to alleviate that prejudice.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order is granted in that the time for filing any motions to strike established by the April 26, 2022, Order is extended from May 23, 2022, to July 1, 2022. It is further
ORDERED that, if either party files a motion to strike, the time for filing any motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support or opposition is extended from June 13, 2022, to July 22, 2022. It is further
ORDERED that in all other respects, the Court's Order served April 26, 2022, shall remain in full force and effect.