Opinion
12471-22
02-06-2023
CONSTELLIS GROUP, INC., N.K.A. CONSTELLIS, INC. PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson, Judge.
This case was set for trial at a Washington, D.C., session of the Tax Court beginning May 8, 2022. The Commissioner has filed a motion for a continuance (the first such motion filed in this case, which is unopposed by petitioner), explaining that he "needs additional time to gather the pertinent documents in this case to complete discovery and prepare for trial" and that he "believes that the case is susceptible to settlement by the parties, and that a continuance would preserve the Court's time and resources." We will grant a continuance. However, the Commissioner also asks that the judge signing this order "retain the case, setting it for a special trial session", because the Commissioner "believes that, if this case needs to be tried, a pretrial schedule will assist the parties in preparing the case for trial". We will not schedule a special trial session at this very early stage of the case's development. As the motion indicates, the case may settle. And if the case is to be tried, then it is likely that it should be tried as part of a regular trial session (not a special session). If so, then the judge's retaining jurisdiction now might actually delay the trial. We will instead continue the case generally, so that it can be put on an upcoming trial calendar (presumably in the Fall of 2023). When this case is again scheduled for trial, the Court will issue its standing pretrial order ("SPTO")--usually issued 4 or 5 months before the trial session--that will be equivalent to the SPTO issued previously (Doc. 10). The parties can consult that recent SPTO to reasonably anticipate the pretrial schedule for an upcoming session. It is
ORDERED that the motion for continuance (Doc. 10) is granted in that the case is continued and is stricken from the calendar of the session beginning May 8, 2023; but the judge signing this order shall not retain jurisdiction over this case. Rather, the case will be returned to the general docket, to be scheduled for trial in due course.