Knaak v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Full title: Frederic William Knaak Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

Court: United States Tax Court

Date published: Jan 26, 2022

No. 11749-20L (U.S.T.C. Jan. 26, 2022)

Opinion

11749-20L

01-26-2022

Frederic William Knaak Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent

Mark V. Holmes Judge

ORDER

Mark V. Holmes Judge

This case is on the March 22, 2022 St. Paul, Minnesota trial calendar. It's based on a notice of determination by the IRS that it should levy on Mr. Knaak's assets to collect his unpaid tax debt. The next step is for the Court to review the IRS's work, which it does through summary-judgment motions. On January 20, 2022 the IRS filed papers in which the IRS lawyer argued that no trial is necessary in this case, because (the IRS says) no relevant facts are in dispute -- everything is in the record that the IRS Appeals Officer already looked at (and which is called the "administrative record"). That motion argues that, on the basis of these undisputed facts, the Court has to rule in the IRS's favor.

The Court wants to hear from Mr. Knaak. He will have to file a response to the IRS's motion. If he disagrees with the facts set out in the IRS's motion -- e.g., there's something in the record that shouldn't be there, or something that is missing from the record that should be there -- then his response should point out the specific facts in dispute. If he disagrees with the IRS's argument as to the law, then his response should also set out his position on the disputed legal issues.

He should label this response "Petitioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment" on the first page so that it gets filed as soon as the Court receives it.

The Court has prepared Q&As on the subject "What is a motion for summary judgment? How should I respond to one?" and these are available at ustaxcourt.gov/taxpayer_info_start.htm#START40

Mr. Knaak should note that Tax Court Rule 121(d) provides, "If the adverse party [i.e., Mr. Knaak] does not so respond [to a motion for summary judgment], then a decision, if appropriate, may be entered against such party" --i.e., against Mr. Knaak.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Mr. Knaak file his cross-motion for summary judgment and response to respondent's motion for summary judgment on or before February 25, 2022. 1