Opinion
21425-19
03-25-2022
NNABUGWU C. EZE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber, Judge
This case is set for remote trial at a time and date certain of Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time, during the Court's March 28, 2022, Los Angeles, California, trial session. On February 11, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f). On February 15, 2022, we granted respondent's Motion and ordered petitioner to show cause, by March 18, 2022, why the facts and evidence set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation should not be deemed established.
On February 25, 2022, petitioner, who currently lives in Maryland, filed a Motion to Proceed Remotely, without indicating whether respondent objected. By Order served February 28, 2022, we asked respondent to respond to petitioner's Motion. We noted that if, respondent objected to a remote trial, an alternative might be to change the venue to Baltimore. Respondent timely responded to petitioner's Motion. He represented that he had subpoenaed several witnesses and that a remote trial, as petitioner had requested, would be convenient for them. He urged that this case, which had already been continued twice, "should not be postponed further," as would be required if the place of trial were changed. On March 8, 2022, we granted petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely.
On March 15, 2022, we held a conference call with the parties to discuss respondent's Rule 91(f) Motion, to which petitioner had responded on March 8. On the basis of the parties' representations, we advised that we would discharge the Order to Show Cause with the expectation that the parties would file a joint stipulation of facts before trial. We accordingly discharged our Order to Show Cause on March 16, 2022.
On March 18, 2022, the Court received a letter in which petitioner requests reconsideration of our March 16 Order discharging the Order to Show Cause.
Petitioner asks that we "revoke our order to compel stipulation until all arguments are addressed." We will deny this request as moot. Our March 16 Order granted petitioner the relief he requests by discharging the Order to Show Cause.
In the letter petitioner also requests that the trial be moved to Baltimore. We will deny that request. Changing the place of trial would require another continuance, which respondent opposes. Respondent has subpoenaed witnesses for the March 29 remote trial, and continuing the trial at this late date would be unfair to him. Petitioner's request is untimely: The standing pre-trial order informed petitioner that a motion for continuance must be filed at least 31 days before the date of trial. See Tax Court Rule 133. Petitioner did not move for a continuance 31 days before trial. He filed a Motion to Proceed Remotely, and we granted his Motion. And even if petitioner had made a timely request for a continuance, he has supplied no justification for deferring trial of this case. See Tax Court Rule 133 ("Continuances will be granted only in exceptional circumstances.").
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Letter Dated March 16, 2022, filed at docket entry 42, is recharacterized as petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Petitioner is reminded that this case is set for remote trial at a time and date certain of Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time, during the Court's March 28, 2022, Los Angeles, California, trial session. Petitioner is advised that failure to appear for trial may result in a default judgment or dismissal of his case. See Tax Court Rule 123.