Dollarhide v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Full title: FRANK W. & MICHELLE D. DOLLARHIDE, et al., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court: United States Tax Court

Date published: Jan 21, 2022

No. 23113-12 (U.S.T.C. Jan. 21, 2022)

Opinion

23113-12 23139-12 21366-14

01-21-2022

FRANK W. & MICHELLE D. DOLLARHIDE, et al., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Mark V. Holmes Judge

ORDER

Mark V. Holmes Judge

The three decisions in these cases were all appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In docket number 23113-12 the parties had agreed to a stipulation that settled all issues but not to a specific deficiency. This Court granted respondent's motion for entry of decision and calculated the deficiency. Petitioners appealed this decision, which the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings because it held that it was an abuse of discretion to grant a motion for entry of decision on a stipulation of settled issues in the absence of an agreement on a bottom-line stipulation that resolved the amount of the deficiency. On remand the parties have agreed on the language of a decision to be entered in that case.

In docket number 23139-12, respondent conceded that petitioner owed no deficiency or penalty. Petitioner appealed anyway. The Ninth Circuit did not mention this decision in its opinion.

In docket number 21366-14, petitioners agreed to a stipulation that resolved all issues but not to a specific deficiency because they disagreed with the decision in docket 23113-12. We granted respondent's motion for entry of decision in accord with the stipulation. Petitioners appealed the decision. The Ninth Circuit did not mention this decision in its opinion. The parties have agreed to a new decision in this case. This has created a procedural muddle. We spoke with the parties on January 20, 2022; no one had an easy answer to the question of whether this Court can alter a final decision that was not expressly affirmed, reversed, or vacated by the Ninth Circuit.

It is therefore

ORDERED that on or before February 22, 2022 respondent file a status report describing how he can administratively wrap these cases up (perhaps with an administrative abatement of the assessment in docket number 21366-14) or file an appropriate motion to vacate or revise any of the decisions in these cases.