Opinion
20894-19 6791-20 10830-20 17749-21 17771-21
11-03-2023
NOEL M. PARDUCCI & KENNETH L. PARDUCCI, ET AL., Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch Judge.
On October 24, 2023, Mr. Simpson filed what he characterized as a Motion for Witness Appearance at Trial. In it, Mr. Simpson requests permission for three witnesses to testify remotely. We will deny Mr. Simpson's motion without prejudice.
In his motion, Mr. Simpson has not indicated whether he provided notice of his motion to the other parties or whether they had any objections. Rule 50 states that a "motion shall show that prior notice thereof has been given to each other party or counsel for each other party and shall state whether there is any objection to the motion." The Rule specifies that "[i]f a motion does not include such a statement, the Court will assume that there is an objection to the motion." We must assume there is an objection to the motion.
Furthermore, except as to one witness, Mr. Simpson has not provided an explanation as to why the witnesses should be permitted to testify remotely. And Mr. Simpson has not provided any indication as to whether the witnesses have the necessary equipment to appear remotely.
As noted, we deny this motion without prejudice. If re-filing his motion, in addition to explaining why the witness should be permitted to appear remotely, Mr. Simpson should affirmatively state whether each witness has access to a computer with a camera capable of audio-video communication. (For reference, Mr. Simpson may want to review the form available at https://ustaxcourt.gov/resources/ forms/Motion_to_Proceed_Remotely.pdf. While this form is intended for requests that a trial be held remotely, as distinguished from a witness, the form provides insight into the information that is helpful to the Court in deciding whether to permit remote testimony.) Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Simpson's Motion for Witness Appearance at Trial is denied.