Opinion
14796-14
08-08-2022
VITALY NIKOLAEVICH BATURIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Thomas B. Wells Judge
On June 13, 2022, the Court received a mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this case. The mandate provides that the case was remanded for further action. Specifically, the Court of Appeals writes that “the record is not entirely clear” and that:
the Tax Court should determine what Jefferson Lab gained from having Dr. Baturin on staff. In doing so, the court should consider, for example, the following questions: If not Dr. Baturin, would Jefferson Lab have brought someone else to work on upgrading the detector? Did the projects Dr. Baturin worked on pre- and/or post-date his tenure at Jefferson Lab, or were they dependent on his presence? Did Jefferson Lab retain the rights to the product of Dr. Baturin's research? How much discretion did Dr. Baturin have to direct the day-to-day performance of his work? Cf. Rev. Rul. 80-36, 1980 WL 129605, *1 (outlining relevant considerations to determine whether researchers' income was tax-exempt under U.S.-Japan Income Tax Convention). In short, was there a “substantial quid pro quo” here? * * * [Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U.S. 741, 751 (1969).
The parties are to discuss what further action is necessary, including whether a trial is necessary, and file with the Court a status report. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the parties are directed on or before October 5, 2022, to file with the Court a joint written report as to the then current status of this case.