Opinion
9170-23
05-10-2024
SHIRAJ UDDIN & RUKSHANA AKTER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
COURTNEY D. JONES JUDGE.
This case is on the calendar of the Court's May 20, 2024, trial session in New York City, New York. This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) and Motion for Continuance (Doc. 20). For the reasons set forth herein, we will deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and grant in part the Motion for Continuance.
Background
Petitioners Shiraj Uddin and Rukshana Akter commenced this case disputing a Notice of Deficiency dated November 22, 2022, for taxable year 2019. According to the Notice of Deficiency, the last day to file a petition with this Court was February 21, 2023. Petitioners lived in New Jersey when the Notice of Deficiency was issued and when they filed the Petition.
The Petition in this case was filed on May 31, 2023, with a postmark date of May 25, 2023. The First Amended Petition was filed on June 21, 2023, with a postmark date of June 14, 2023. On August 22, 2023, respondent filed an Answer, setting forth material allegations of fact regarding the timeliness of the Petition. In relevant part, the Answer alleged that the Petition was filed outside the statutory period prescribed by section 6213(a) for a taxpayer to seek redetermination of a notice of deficiency in this Court.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (Code), in effect at all relevant times and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Petitioners did not file a reply to the material allegations. Thus, on November 15, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Entry of Order that Undenied Allegations be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to Rule 37(c). By Order served November 17, 2023, the Court afforded petitioners an opportunity to file the delinquent reply to respondent's Answer to Petition, as Amended, on or before December 15, 2023. No reply was filed. Accordingly, by Order dated January 16, 2024, we granted respondent's November 17, 2023, Motion and Ordered that the material allegations set forth in respondent's Answer are deemed admitted. (Doc. 11).
On April 11, 2023, respondent filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asserting that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in light of the deemed admissions. On May 7, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 19). They allege that the IRS sent correspondence to the incorrect mailing address, despite having notice of the new address, and they did not receive the Notice of Deficiency in a timely manner.
On May 7, 2024, respondent filed the Motion for Continuance. (Doc. 20). Therein, respondent states that he "anticipates that a ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings would be dispositive of the entire case and that a trial would not be needed" if it is granted. In the alternative, respondent avers that petitioners have not had an opportunity to work with the Independent Office of Appeals and, therefore, trial would be premature. Thus, respondent requests that the Court remove this case from the trial session and restore the case to the general docket.
Discussion
Rule 120(a) permits any party, after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, to move for judgment on the pleadings, which is based solely on the allegations and information contained in the pleadings and not any outside matters. Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 537 (2000). The movant must show that the pleadings do not raise a genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id.
Absent stipulation to the contrary, an appeal of this case will lie in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1). Accordingly, we follow the law of that circuit. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). The Third Circuit has held that the 90-day deadline to petition for redetermination of a tax deficiency is a nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling. Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196, 205 (3d Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed, No. 23-1037 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2024).
Respondent does not address equitable tolling in the Answer or the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Because this case is appealable to the Third Circuit, we query whether petitioners are entitled to relief due to equitable tolling, even if the Petition was untimely. Id. Moreover, in the Opposition, petitioners have set forth facts which-if true-would be relevant to an analysis regarding equitable tolling. Id. at 203 (noting that the equitable tolling doctrine pauses a statute of limitations "when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action") (citation omitted). Accordingly, respondent has failed to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14), filed April 11, 2024, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Continuance (Doc. 20), filed May 7, 2024, is granted in part, and denied in part. This case is hereby stricken from the trial session of the Court scheduled to commence in New York City, New York on May 20, 2024. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before July 9, 2024, and every 60 days thereafter, the parties shall file status reports (jointly, if possible; otherwise separately) to inform the Court of the then present status of this case, including preparations for trial and recommended schedule for further proceedings. It is further
ORDERED that jurisdiction of this case is retained by the undersigned.