Opinion
27453-21
08-15-2024
CHA Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge.
This R&D credit case was on the Court's June 12, 2023 trial calendar for Buffalo, New York. We continued it because the parties agreed that it would probably need a special session and months of pretrial preparation. We spoke with them again today about how to move the case forward. Both now agree it makes sense to move to summary-judgment practice on what has proven to be a complex issue of R&D credit law - perhaps made more complicated by whatever effect on deference to the relevant regulations recent Supreme Court caselaw has had. They also agreed that there won't be a factual dispute, because the 12 contracts in their sample have been stipulated as authentic and complete, as well as representative of those in the case as a whole.
With this understanding, it is
ORDERED that the special trial session of this case set for a 2-week trial starting at 10:00 a.m., on Monday, September 16, 2024 in the Center Courtroom at the United States Tax Court, 4002nd Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20217 is cancelled. It is also
ORDERED that jurisdiction is retained by the undersigned. It is also ORDERED that the following schedule will govern the summary-judgment motions in this case:
September 16, 2024 - Respondent summary-judgment motion due.
October 16, 2024 - Petitioner's response to respondent's motion and its own summary-judgment motion due.
November 18, 2024 - Respondent's reply in support of his motion and response to petitioner's motion.
December 18, 2024 - Petitioner's reply in support of its motion.
The Court asks the parties to be clear about whether they are simply arguing about the meaning of the relevant regulation as applied to the contracts discussed in these motions, or whether the problems created by Loper Bright will be present. If those problems are, the parties may wish to address:
• the presence or absence or applicability of "statutory stare decisis;"
• the effect of specific grants of regulatory authority to the Secretary on whatever deference is now owed to tax regulations; and
• what deference is owed to the relevant regulation at issue in these motions; i.e., what Skidmore deference looks like here.
If the parties agree that their motions are confined to the meaning of the relevant regulation as applied to the contracts discussed in the motions, the Court will be highly likely to apply the ordinary party-presentation rule.