Opinion
3980-21
01-31-2023
RODNEY R. BALLEW, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
Now before the Court is the Commissioner's motion for entry of decision (Doc. 15). We will order petitioner Rodney R. Ballew to file a response.
This case was scheduled for trial at the Court's trial session in St. Louis, beginning October 24, 2022. However, a status report (Doc. 9) filed September 27, 2022, indicated that the Commissioner was conceding the case, and that the parties expect to file a proposed stipulated decision. We therefore ordered that the case be stricken from the calendar of the trial session, that the case will not be called at that session, and that the parties file a proposed stipulated decision or another appropriate filing by November 21, 2022. Mr. Ballew made no filing, but the Commissioner filed a status report (Doc. 11) stating that on September 22, 2022, he had sent to Mr. Ballew a proposed stipulated decision; and that Mr. Ballew stated by telephone but that he had signed and returned the document; but that the Commissioner never received it. We then issued an order (Doc. 12) directing the parties to
file a proposed stipulated decision by December 30, 2022, or another appropriate filing, such as a motion for entry of decision. Petitioner should expect that if he does not comply with this order, then the Court will enter decision in accord with the Commissioner's proposal.
We have received nothing from Mr. Ballew (that is, he did not comply with our order). On December 30, 2022, the Commissioner filed a status report stating that on December 1 he had sent Mr. Ballew another copy of the proposed stipulated decision but that he had not received a signed document from Mr. Ballew. On January 3, 2022, we issued an order (Doc. 14) stating that, "[i]f the facts are as the Commissioner alleges, then it is incumbent on Mr. Ballew to promptly provide the signed document" and ordering--
that, no later than January 30, 2023, the parties shall file a stipulated decision document or another appropriate filing. We point out that, if it is true that parties to a Tax Court case have reached a settlement, but one party (here, allegedly Mr. Ballew) is failing to sign the decision document, then one possible approach is for the other party (the Commissioner) to file a motion for entry of decision that shows the existence of the settlement and the correctness of the proposed decision amount. If the Commissioner were to file such a motion, we could order Mr. Ballew to respond, and we could then determine whether the proposed decision is appropriate.
The Commissioner has now filed a motion for entry of decision, proposing zero tax deficiency, zero penalty, and zero overpayment. It is
ORDERED that, no later than February 24, 2023, Mr. Ballew shall file a response to the motion for entry of decision.