From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chappell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 10, 2022
No. 25309-18S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 10, 2022)

Opinion

25309-18S

08-10-2022

PATRICIA S. CHAPPELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER

Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge

This case was submitted after remote trial on April 19, 2022, and the Court set a due date of July 18, 2022 for the parties' simultaneous opening briefs. Respondent filed his simultaneous opening brief on July 18, 2022, and petitioner filed her simultaneous opening brief on July 19, 2022. On July 20, 2022, respondent moved to strike the entirety of petitioner's opening brief. On July 30, 2022, petitioner filed her response to respondent's motion, objecting to the proposed striking of her opening brief and offering an explanation for the late filing of her opening brief. Respondent's motion to strike alleged that petitioner's opening brief contains numerous documents not admitted into evidence, along with some documents already admitted as exhibits at trial. In particular, petitioner interspersed as attachments to her brief: (1) exhibits or portions of exhibits admitted into evidence; (2) documents purporting to be exhibits; (3) documents not admitted into evidence; and (4) excerpts from documents already in the record.

As a preliminary matter, we note that pro se taxpayers are to be treated leniently and their pleadings and other filings construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 468 (6th Cir. 2011). Second, this is a small tax case where evidentiary rules are relaxed, see I.R.C. § 7463(a), and "any evidence deemed by the Court to have probative value shall be admissible." Rule 174(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Consequently, we exercise our discretion to treat petitioner's submission of July 19, 2022 as her brief summarizing her requested findings of fact and legal authority. Although we will strike some portions of petitioner's brief from the record, as set forth below, we will allow the remaining portions of her brief.

This Court generally will not consider evidence that was not presented at trial and which is submitted for the first time as an attachment to a party's post-trial brief. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-1. "[S]ince the evidence was not presented at trial it was not given under oath and the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine petitioner with respect to it." Id.

Once the record has been closed, as it was in this case on April 19, 2022, the Court will not reopen the record unless evidence newly proposed "is material to the issues involved" and "probably would change the outcome of the case." Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287 (2000) (citing Coleman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-248). The Court will not reopen the record where the newly-proposed material is "merely cumulative" or duplicative of the evidence submitted at trial. Id.

Rule 52 provides that the Court "may order stricken any . . . objectionable matter from briefs, documents, or any other papers or responses filed with the Court." Objectionable matters include matters that are "redundant" or "immaterial." Id. Petitioners to this Court are advised that they may make arguments in their post-trial briefs about incorrect amounts relied upon in respondent's determinations, but they may not offer additional evidence at that point, as the record has been closed. Petitioners desiring to reopen the record must properly file a motion to that effect.

During the instant trial, the Court instructed petitioner that she could, on brief, include charts that would summarize the evidence presented at trial. It appears that petitioner attempted to do so, and to the extent she did, those portions of her brief will be considered. However, any references in the remaining portions of the brief to records not in evidence will be disregarded.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's response to respondent's motion to strike is characterized as both (1) an objection to respondent's motion to strike, and (2) a motion to allow petitioner's simultaneous opening brief to be filed out of time. It is further

ORDERED that petitioner's motion to allow petitioner's simultaneous opening brief to be filed out of time is hereby granted. It is further

ORDERED that respondent's motion to strike, filed July 20, 2022, is hereby granted in part, in that pages 12-27, 29, 31-32, 34-35, 42-44, and 50-73 of petitioner's opening brief will remain with the brief but will have no evidentiary significance and may not be referenced as a basis for findings of fact. (The page numbers used here are those printed by petitioner in the lower right-hand corners of the pages of her opening brief.)


Summaries of

Chappell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 10, 2022
No. 25309-18S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 10, 2022)
Case details for

Chappell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA S. CHAPPELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Aug 10, 2022

Citations

No. 25309-18S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 10, 2022)