Opinion
13702-23
05-17-2024
PETER MICHAEL HALL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch, Judge.
This case is set for trial at the Court's June 3, 2024, Los Angeles, California trial session. On May 16, 2024, the Commissioner filed a Status Report informing the Court that an Appeals Officer mailed a decision to Mr. Hall and that Mr. Hall "claimed that he will mail the signed decision documents to Appeals." The Commissioner then requested 60 days within which to submit a Decision or file a further Status Report.
The Court is often lenient in granting extensions such as the one requested by the Commissioner, even when not technically in compliance with the Court's Rules or Standing Pretrial Order. This is not an instance where such lenience is warranted. We will recount the many ways in which the Commissioner's request does not conform to the Court's Rules or its Standing Pretrial Order.
We begin with the relief requested. The Commissioner "requests that the Court order a decision document or further status report be due in 60 days." Generally, a status report is not the place to request the Court to take action. The Court's Standing Pretrial Order contains several references to status reports, and all of them state that they are to "inform" the Court. In contrast, Rule 50 provides, "An application to the Court for an order shall be by motion in writing, which shall state with particularity the grounds therefor and shall set forth the relief or order sought." A request for additional time is a request that the Court issue an Order extending a deadline. Under the normative rules, this should have been a Motion.
Next we turn to the deadline for such a motion. The Standing Pretrial Order states:
3. No later than 31 days before the first day of the trial session:
A. Motion for Continuance. The parties may file any Motions for Continuance (postponement of trial), which the Judge will grant only in exceptional circumstances. See Rule 133. Even joint Motions for Continuance are not automatically granted.(Emphasis in original.) If the intent was to request relief, that request should have been in a Motion for Continuance. And a Motion for Continuance for a June 3, 2024, trial session was due on May 3, 2024, not May 16, when the Commissioner made his "request." Lest we be too critical, the Standing Pretrial Order does contain a separate provision (along with a later deadline) for a case in which a basis for settlement has been reached.
But the later deadline for cases in which a settlement has been reached does not apply in this case. The Court's Standing Pretrial Order describes what must be shown to demonstrate to the Court that a basis for settlement has been reached (and thereby to avail oneself contains a separate, later deadline for a case in which a basis for settlement has been reached). Paragraph 5.A. provides:
A. Settlement. If a basis for settlement has been reached, the Proposed Stipulated Decision must be electronically filed no later than 21 days before the first day of the t rial session. If the parties have reached a basis for settlement and need additional time to file the Proposed Stipulated Decision, they must file a joint Status Report including a summary of the basis of settlement no later than 21 days before the first day of the trial session. A Stipulation of Settled Issues should be filed concurrently, if available. The Status Report must state the reasons for delay in filing the Proposed Stipulated Decision. The Court may issue an Order specifying the date by which the Proposed Stipulated Decision will be due. If a basis for settlement is reached after the trial session begins, the Court will handle any required scheduling on the record.
The joint Status Report must include a summary of the basis of settlement. The Commissioner's separate Status Report includes no such summary. But more importantly, this provision requires a joint Status Report. The Commissioner filed a separate Status Report. The purpose of a joint Status Report setting forth the terms of settlement is that it provides the Court with a written document that the Court potentially could use to bind the parties if necessary. Likewise, a Stipulation of Settled Issues might serve a similar purpose. In this case, we have neither a Stipulation of Settled Issues nor a joint Status Report setting forth the terms of settlement. But let us suppose for the moment that a joint Status Report meeting the requirements of the Standing Pretrial Order was filed and as a result the later deadline applies.
Even if the later deadline for cases in which a settlement has been reached, the Commissioner's "request" was untimely. For cases in which a settlement has been reached, the Standing Pretrial Order sets a deadline for filing the joint Status Report described above. It provides,
5. No later than 21 days before the first day of the trial session: The parties must file one of the following: a Proposed Stipulated Decision, a Pretrial Memorandum, a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, or a Status Report.
A. Settlement. If a basis for settlement has been reached, the Proposed Stipulated Decision must be electronically filed no later than 21 days before the first day of the trial session. If the parties have reached a basis for settlement and need additional time to file the Proposed Stipulated Decision, they must file a joint Status Report including a summary of the basis of settlement no later than 21 days before the first day of the trial session.(Emphasis in original.) In three consecutive sentences, the Standing Pretrial Order states that, for settled cases, the appropriate document must be filed 21 days before the first day of the session. The Commissioner's separate Status Report filed in this case was filed 18 days before the first day of the trial session.
As initially noted, the Court is often lenient in granting extensions such as the one requested by the Commissioner, even when not technically in compliance with the Court's Rules or Standing Pretrial Order. Even with all of the foot-faults described above, the Court may well have granted the Commissioner's request. But another problem is present with the Commissioner's separate Status Report. The Status Report recites that the Commissioner has been unable to ascertain whether Mr. Hall objects to the status report. In other circumstances, the Court might arrange a conference call with the parties or order a response from Mr. Hall. But it is not apparent to the Court that Mr. Hall has any knowledge of the Commissioner's separate Status Report. Rule 21(b)(1)(B) of the Tax Court's Rules of Practice provides:
Unless these Rules provide otherwise or the Court orders otherwise, all other papers required to be served on a party must be served by the party filing the paper. Unless a paper is served through the Court's electronic filing and case management system, the original paper must be filed with a certificate by a party or a party's counsel that service of that paper has been made on the party to be served or the party's counsel.
The Commissioner's separate Status Report does not include a Certificate of Service, and Mr. Hall does not receive electronic service.
We will set this matter for an oral status report at the Court's June 3, 2024, Los Angeles, California trial session. If a proposed stipulated decision is submitted to the Court before that date, this case will be closed in the ordinary course. If such a decision is not submitted, then the Commissioner should be prepared to show documentation that a basis for settlement has been reached. If the parties would like to participate in a conference call with the Court before the scheduled trial session, they may contact the chambers of the undersigned judge at 202-521-0810. In the meantime, for the reasons stated above, it is
ORDERED that this case is set for an oral status report at the call of the calendar at the trial session of the Court commencing June 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., Edward R. Roybal Center & Fed. Bldg., 255 E. Temple Street, Room 1167, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012.