Opinion
9547-20
12-22-2021
Conrado A. Tolosa, Jr. & Violeta E. Tolosa Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
COURTNEY D. JONES JUDGE
On October 8, 2021, respondent filed a status report to inform the Court that a basis for settlement was reached in this case. A copy of the proposed decision document reflecting the basis for settlement was attached to the status report at Exhibit A. Further, respondent advised that the decision document was mailed to petitioners for their review and signature on September 24, 2021. We know that petitioners have reviewed the decision document because they attempted to file a copy bearing their signatures on October 11, 2021. Subsequently, we were forced to strike the petitioners' October 11, 2021, filings from the record because they were improperly filed and did not conform with the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
By Order dated October 15, 2021, this case was stricken from trial and the parties were excused from appearing at the remote trial session of the Court scheduled to commence on November 1, 2021, for Baltimore, Maryland. Additionally, the Order directed the parties to file a proposed stipulated decision or status report by December 13, 2021. On October 20, 2021, petitioners filed a motion to clarify order. In the motion, petitioners requested confirmation of the above-referenced portions of the October 15, 2021, Order. The Court held the motion in abeyance and as ordered, petitioners did not appear at the remote trial session from which their case was stricken. Accordingly, so much of petitioners' motion seeking to clarify their excusal from the November 1, 2021, trial session for Baltimore, Maryland is moot.
Following, we awaited the filing of a status report or proposed decision document due on or before December 13, 2021. Respondent filed a status report on December 14, 2021, and advised that he has yet to receive the proposed decision document mailed to the petitioners on September 24 and November 29, 2021. As to petitioners' motion to clarify our instructions to file a proposed decision document or status report, we advise petitioners that if they agree with the terms of the settlement reflected in the proposed decision document then they must sign the document and mail it back to respondent, so that respondent can file it with the Court. Should petitioners disagree with the settlement reflected in the proposed decision document, they must inform the Court and respondent in writing (e.g., a status report, or response to this Order). Accordingly, we will direct petitioners to state their position with regards to the purported settlement. For cause, it is
ORDERED that, petitioners' October 20, 2021, Motion to Clarify Order, is granted in that, on or before January 11, 2022, petitioners shall show cause in writing why the Court should not enter a decision reflecting that there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioners for the taxable year 2017, as stated in the proposed decision attached as Exhibit A to respondent's October 8 and December 14, 2021, status reports. The Court has compiled guidance for petitioners (including a list of clinics and pro bono counsel programs) on its website (ustaxcourt.gov) should they need additional assistance with their case.