Opinion
9178-21L
06-11-2024
SHELLY V. JACKSON & ERICK L. JACKSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro Judge
On March 9, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8) along with a Declaration of William J. Gregg in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 9). On March 15, 2022, the Court held a conference call with the parties to discuss the status of the case and respondent's pending Motion. By Order served March 17, 2022, among other things, respondent's Motion was held in abeyance to permit the parties to reach a resolution. On April 13, 2022, respondent filed a Supplement to Declaration of William J. Gregg in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). Since then, respondent has filed multiple status reports. But the most recent status report indicates that the parties are no longer making progress toward resolving this case. The Court therefore intends to act on respondent's Motion and no longer hold that Motion in abeyance.
Respondent's Motion asserts that no trial is necessary in this case because no relevant facts remain in dispute. The Motion contends that, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the case should be decided in respondent's favor. The Court will order petitioners to file a response to respondent's Motion. If petitioners disagree with any facts set out in paragraphs 1-30 of respondent's Motion, then their response should point out the specific facts in dispute. Petitioners' response should state, by reference to the relevant numbered paragraph in respondent's Motion, any assertion with which they disagree, should explain the reason for their disagreement, and should cite whatever evidence supports their position. If petitioners disagree with respondent's argument as to the law, then their response should also set out their position on the disputed legal issues. Q&As that the Court has prepared on the subject "What is a motion for summary judgment? How should I respond to one?" are available at the Court's website and are printed on the page attached to this Order. If petitioners are not sure how to proceed, they should promptly initiate a telephone conference with the Court and respondent by placing a call to the Chambers Administrator of the undersigned judge at (202) 521-0760.
Petitioners should note that Tax Court Rule 121(d) provides: "If the nonmovant party [i.e., petitioners.] does not so respond [to a motion for summary judgment], a decision may be entered against that party." Upon due consideration, it is hereby
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that, no later than July 10, 2024, petitioners shall file with the Court and serve on respondent a response to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further
ORDERED that, no later than July 24, 2024, respondent shall file with the Court a reply to petitioner's response (or, if petitioners have failed to file and serve a response, then respondent shall file a status report).