Opinion
30633-21S
01-25-2022
Boyd J. Landry & Joyful L. Johns Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
Petitioners elected to have this case conducted under the Court's small tax case procedures. On January 21, 2022, petitioners electronically filed two documents as Motion for Leave to File Reply to Answer (Doc. Index #6 and #7). The two documents themselves bear the title Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Petitioner's Reply and appear to be duplicative. Rule173(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, applicable to small Tax Court cases, provides in relevant part that "[a] reply to the answer shall not be filed unless the Court otherwise directs."
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Reply to Answer, filed January 21, 2022, at Doc. Index #7 is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Reply to Answer, filed January 21, 2022, at Doc. Index #6 is recharacterized as a Motion for Extension of Time. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time is denied as petitioners are not required in this small Tax Court case to file a reply to respondent's answer.