Opinion
13024-20 15372-20
04-26-2022
ALBERTO AROESTE & ESTELA AROESTE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega Judge
On November 9, 2020, petitioner Alberto Aroeste filed a Petition to commence the case at Docket No. 13024-20 and petitioner Estela Aroeste filed a separate Petition to commence the case at Docket No. 15372-20. The petitions in both cases were filed in response to a joint notice of deficiency issued to petitioners Mr. Aroeste and Mrs. Aroeste (collectively petitioners) for their 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years.
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.
On March 10, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Consolidate Docket Numbers 13024-20, 15372-20. In that motion, respondent requests that the Court consolidate these cases for the purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion. In support of his motion, respondent represents: (1) that petitioners are husband and wife, (2) that these cases are based on the same notice of deficiency and present the same issues, and (3) that the same evidence and testimony will be introduced in both cases. Respondent further represents that the only factual difference between these cases is that petitioner Mrs. Aroeste became a United States citizen in or around the 2011 taxable year, while petitioner Mr. Aroeste did not. Respondent asserts that, while this factual difference could result in a difference in disposition for each spouse, it does not necessitate duplicating what will likely be nearly identical trials. Finally, respondent represents that petitioners are represented by the same counsel in both cases.
On April 5, 2022, petitioner Mrs. Aroeste filed a Notice of Objection to Motion to Consolidate Docket Numbers 13024-20, 15372-20 in the case at Docket No. 15372-20 and, on April 14, 2022, petitioner Mr. Aroeste filed an Objection to Motion to Consolidate Docket Numbers 13024-20, 15372-20 in the case at Docket No. 13024-20. Petitioners acknowledge that these cases share a common question of law and of fact, regarding whether respondent issued the contested notice of deficiency prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations under section 6501(a) for the assessment and collection of additional income for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years. However, apart from that issue, petitioners argue that these cases do not involve common questions of law or fact and it would therefore be inappropriate to consolidate the two cases. Petitioners assert that Mr. Aroeste's country of residence for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years is at issue in the case at Docket No. 13024-20, but not at issue in the case at Docket No. 15372-20. Petitioners further assert that Mr. Aroeste and Mrs. Aroeste maintain adverse positions on the issues regarding Mr. Aroeste's ownership of the SLA Trust and the Caldwell Corporation and whether an omission of income should be attributed to Mrs. Aroeste. Thus, petitioners assert that each case requires distinct evidence and would require the Court to focus its attention on two totally different factual issues.
Rule 141(a) provides that the Court may consolidate one or more cases that involve a "common question of law or fact * * * to avoid unnecessary costs, delay, or duplication." Such a consolidation of cases promotes judicial economy and saves substantial time and expense for the parties. See Bergreen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-423, 70 T.C.M. (CCH) 566 (1995). These cases here involve common questions of law and fact, and we find that consolidation will promote judicial economy and will avoid unnecessary costs, delay, and duplication. Consolidation of these cases is therefore appropriate. While petitioner references certain differences between these cases, we do not believe that any of these differences will confuse or prejudice the facts, evidence, or legal issues as petitioner asserts. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's motion to consolidate these cases for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Consolidate Docket Numbers 13024-20, 15372-20 filed March 10, 2022, is granted and the cases at Docket Nos. 13024-20 and 15372-20, are consolidated for the purpose of trial, briefing, and opinion.