Opinion
2386-17
07-11-2022
LUIS A. CASTRO & JUDI A. CHAVEZ-CASTRO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
L. Paige Marvel, Judge
On November 4, 2019, this case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. The sole issue for decision is whether respondent complied with the written supervisory approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1) when asserting accuracy-related penalties against petitioners for the 2011 through 2014 tax years.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On March 25, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Laidlaw's Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 29 F.4th 1066 (9th Cir. 2022), rev'g and remanding 154 T.C. 68 (2020), and issues addressed in that opinion may affect this case. The parties have stipulated that petitioners resided in California at the time the petition was filed, so appeal of this case likely lies in the Ninth Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1)(A); see also Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Accordingly, supplemental briefing is warranted. It is therefore, ORDERED that on or before August 31, 2022, the parties shall file supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, of Laidlaw's Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 29 F.4th 1066 (9th Cir. 2022) on this case.