Opinion
7038-15L
07-01-2022
DOUGLAS M. THOMPSON & LISA MAE THOMPSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This collection due process case is currently before the Court on respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed November 30, 2017 (respondent's motion). Respondent's motion seeks judgment as a matter of law with respect to (1) whether petitioner Douglas M. Thompson can challenge the underlying liability for a civil penalty under section 6707A for the 2007 tax year; (2) whether respondent complied with section 6751(b) when a penalty under section 6707A was assessed against petitioner Douglas M. Thompson for the 2007 tax year; and (3) whether petitioner can challenge the underlying liability for their joint income tax liability for the 2011 tax year.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C, in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
By Order served December 4, 2017, the Court directed petitioners to file a response or objection to respondent's motion. On December 14, 2017, the parties filed a Motion for Extension seeking, inter alia, an enlargement of time for petitioners to file their response or objection to respondent's motion, which the Court granted on December 22, 2017. By Order served January 12, 2018, the Court granted petitioners' Motion for Continuance, filed December 19, 2017, and held in abeyance respondent's motion. On January 22, 2018, petitioners filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings and a Declaration of Joseph A. Diruzzo, III, requesting that the Court stay consideration of respondent's motion until after discovery has been completed. By Order served February 11, 2022, the Court denied as moot petitioners' Motion to Stay Proceedings, filed January 22, 2018, and directed petitioners to file a response to respondent's motion.
On April 11, 2022, petitioners, represented by counsel, filed a Notice of No Objection to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment stating that they have no objection to the granting of respondent's motion. Petitioners further stated that the parties are in the process of negotiating a stipulation of settled issues. [R #57].
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The Court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). By advising the Court that they have no objection to the granting of respondent's motion, petitioners have acknowledged that there is no dispute of any material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the issues set forth therein.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed November 30, 2017, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that on or before August 29, 2022, the parties shall file a joint status report (or separate reports if a joint report is not possible) of the then-present status of this case.