Opinion
36721-21
03-25-2024
MICROSEMI CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro Judge.
The case at Docket No. 36721-21 is currently calendared for trial during the Court's October 21, 2024, San Francisco, California, special trial session. On March 11, 2024, the case at Docket No. 19571-23, was assigned to the undersigned judge.
On March 5, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion to Consolidate Docket Numbers 36721-21 and 19571-23, as well as a Motion to Continue. On March 13, 2024, respondent filed responses to both Motions. Petitioner subsequently replied.
On March 21, 2024, the Court held a conference call with the parties to discuss, among other things, petitioner's pending Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Continue. In view of respondent's representations made during the call and petitioner's representation that it will not be ready to try the Tangible Property Allocation issue (as the parties have previously defined that term) in October, the Court would be inclined to continue trial of that issue for an appropriate time.
Given the continuance the Court is contemplating, the Court would benefit from knowing respondent's views on the following:
(1) Should trial of the Tangible Property Allocation issue be continued to May 2025 (as petitioner proposes) or is some other time more suitable in respondent's view given the needs of the case?
(2) Assuming that trial of the Tangible Property Allocation issue is continued, would it be more efficient to proceed to trial on that issue only for the years 2007 to 2012 or should this case be consolidated with the case at Docket No. 19571-23 so that the Tangible Property Allocation issue for 2013 to 2015 is tried at the same time? It seems to the Court that consolidation might delay modestly the resolution of the issue for the years 2007-2012, but would expedite considerably the resolution of the issue for the years 2013-2015.
(3) Assuming that trial of the Tangible Property Allocation issue is continued, would it be beneficial to bifurcate the trial, with the first portion of the trial taking place during the Court's October 21, 2024, San Francisco, California, special trial session and focusing on the PCT issue (as the parties have previously defined that term) and, if it not settled, the subpart F issue (as the parties have previously defined that term), and the second part of the trial taking place as noted above, or would respondent prefer continuing the case in toto on all issues?
(4) Assuming that trial is bifurcated, what is respondent's estimate of the trial time necessary for the PCT issue and the subpart F issue?
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that, on or before April 8, 2024, respondent shall file a response to this Order setting forth his views on the questions outlined above.