Opinion
9088-22L
06-16-2023
CHRISTOPHER-ALAN HAUSER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Travis A. Greaves Judge
On February 1, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that the petition was filed 82 days after the notice of determination was sent to petitioner. On February 14, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was set for hearing during the Court's April 3, 2023, Knoxville, Tennessee, trial session.
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, unnecessary, and time-consuming trials. See FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). We may grant summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). Furthermore, we construe the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to decide whether summary judgment is appropriate. See Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993). The nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Rule 121(d); Bond, 100 T.C. at 36. In a case regarding a collection due process hearing, a petition seeking review of a notice of determination may be filed after the 30-day deadline if petitioner can show that equitable tolling should apply. See Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S.Ct. 1493, 1501 (2022) (holding that the untimely filing of a petition in a collection due process case is not a jurisdictional defect and may be subject to equitable tolling).
Petitioner has come forward with credible evidence indicating that a staff member of this Court incorrectly advised him that he had 90 days to file his petition. Viewing this fact in the light most favorable to petitioner, there is sufficient evidence to equitably toll the filing deadline.
It is therefore, ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 1, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that jurisdiction is no longer retained by the undersigned. It is further
ORDERED that this case is returned to the general docket for trial or other disposition.