Opinion
6527-18
07-10-2023
THOMAS W. LANGLOIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Patrick J. Urda, Judge.
This deficiency case was tried remotely via ZoomGov on April 13, April 22, and April 27, 2022, and ultimately was submitted on the last of those dates during the Court's New York, New York remote proceeding. In his posttrial seriatim answering brief, petitioner Thomas W. Langlois implies that this Court erred in denying his motion for continuance [Doc. 272 at 4], which he filed the day before trial and which was premised on his inability to prosecute his case because of the effects of certain unidentified medication. [Doc. 246 at 3.]
"Doc." references are to the docket entries filed in this case as numbered by the Clerk of this Court, using the .pdf pagination. Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Court will treat Mr. Langlois' contention as an untimely motion for reconsideration, which we will entertain because of his pro se status. We will deny the motion for reconsideration but permit Mr. Langlois a limited opportunity to identify material errors from his testimony on the first day of trial (April 13, 2022, during the Honolulu, Hawaii remote trial session) that might justify reopening the record to correct them.
Background
Mr. Langlois' challenges the IRS's determination of a deficiency of $27,820 and a penalty under section 6662(a) of $5,564 with respect to his 2015 tax year. [Doc. 1 at 3.] The case turns on the substantiation of certain business expense deductions, as well as Mr. Langlois' entitlement to claim losses from Forbearance Power Line Construction, LLC, and from Hair Station Express, LLC. [Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 268 at 35-36.]
Procedural context (i.e., dates and time periods) is necessary to rule on the motion for reconsideration pending before us. Mr. Langlois filed his petition in April 2018 [Doc. 1], and we initially set the case for trial at our Chicago session of March 25, 2019[Doc. 4]. On February 13, 2019, we granted a continuance of this date because of complications stemming from the 2019 federal government shutdown [Doc. 8], rescheduling the trial for November 4, 2019 [Doc. 9].
Over the next three years, Mr. Langlois repeatedly sought continuances of trial dates and failed to provide documentation to the Commissioner's counsel as requested (and as contemplated in our standing pretrial orders). Mr. Langlois first filed a motion for continuance on October 15, 2019, asserting that (1) he had a previously scheduled vacation during the week of trial and (2) the Commissioner's counsel had assured him "9 months ago" that the case would be settled before that trial. [Doc. 13 at 2.] Although the Commissioner objected to this relief [Doc. 15], we nonetheless granted Mr. Langlois' motion [Doc. 20] and set the case for trial on May 18, 2020 [Doc. 31].
Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the striking of the May 2020 trial date. [Doc. 33.] As we determined the best way to proceed in this and other cases, we asked the parties to continue discussions and information exchange, and to provide regular status reports. In November 2020, Mr. Langlois reported that he had been unable to obtain documentation because he had been ill during October of that year. [Doc. 38 at 2.] For his part, the Commissioner catalogued a long litany of telephone calls, letters, emails, and conferences with Mr. Langlois and the Court reflecting the Commissioner's long-standing efforts to obtain documentation (both before and during the pandemic) and Mr. Langlois' failure to provide anything of substance. [Doc. 39 at 4-6.]
Another seven months passed. On May 6, 2021, we set this case for a remote trial on December 14, 2021. [Doc. 42.] Despite the additional time, Mr. Langlois again sought a continuance in September 2021, which we granted despite the Commissioner's opposition. [Doc. 45.] On October 13, 2021, we set this case for trial in Chicago, Illinois during the Court's March 14, 2022, special trial session. [Doc. 46]
In the lead-up to trial, Mr. Langlois pressed the Court for a continuance during pretrial conference calls with the Court on February 15 and 17, 2022. [Doc. 49.] He offered, among other justifications, that he needed additional time to provide the Commissioner with documentation that he had just received and that he had scheduled a crucial carpal tunnel surgery that could be affected by his travel to Chicago (given then-prevailing governmental restrictions relating to COVID-19). For the third time, we granted him a continuance, setting the case for a remote trial session beginning March 30, 2022. [Id.]
Mr. Langlois thereafter filed by means of our electronic filing system a raft of proposed trial exhibits. [Docs. 51-136, 140-79.] Faced with a mountain of exhibits organized neither by rhyme nor reason, the Court continued the trial until April 13, 2012 (during its to its next remote trial session) so that the parties could attempt to bring order to the chaos. [Doc. 184.]
On April 12, 2022, the day before trial was scheduled to start, Mr. Langlois filed a motion for continuance. [Doc. 246.] He explained that, after surgery, he was "homebound and [had] physical therapy at home post-surgery." [Id. at 3.] Mr. Langlois also wrote that he had "need[ed] to take medication that [kept him] from making sound decisions." [Id.] He attached a two-line note from a Connecticut doctor which stated his "medical opinion that [Mr. Langlois was] unable to attend [an] IRS hearing while under physician care to prevent stress peri-operatively and decision making while on medications." [Id. at 4.]
The Court heard argument on the motion at the beginning of trial on April 13, 2022. [Doc. 268 at 6-8.] Mr. Langlois stated at that time that he had undergone a knee replacement surgery (at some point) during the week before trial [id. at 7], which he had not before disclosed to the Court. He did not identify or explain the nature of the medication he was taking, except to say that he "may seem a little off" and that he might need breaks to "get up, walk around, whatever." [Id. at 6] The Court denied the motion without prejudice, should Mr. Langlois' condition suggest a continuance should be granted. [Id. at 6-8.]
After observing Mr. Langlois' mental and physical condition during this first day of trial, the Court denied the motion for continuance. [Doc. 253.] The trial continued for two additional days during the following weeks-April 22 and April 27, 2022. [Docs. 257, 263, 268-70.] During the first day of trial, Mr. Langlois called an employee of his former CPA to question her about his own efforts to obtain supporting documentation [Doc. 268 at 43-47] and testified himself, with his testimony continuing into the second day of trial nine days later [id. at 48-202; Doc. 269 at 26- 166].
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 161. "Generally, reconsideration under Rule 161 is intended to correct substantial errors of fact or law and allow the introduction of newly discovered evidence that the moving party could not have introduced, by the exercise of due diligence, in the prior proceeding." Turner v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 306, 307 (2012), supplementing T.C. Memo. 2011-209, supplemented by 151 T.C. 160 (2018), appeal dismissed voluntarily, No. 19-12075-CC, 2020 WL 2934794 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020). The Court has discretion to grant a motion for reconsideration, but, as a general matter we will not do so absent a showing of "unusual circumstances or substantial error." Id.; Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998), supplementing 110 T.C. 172 (1998).
"Reconsideration is not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving party." Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42. "The Court tries all issues raised in a case in one proceeding to promote orderly litigation and to further judicial economy by discouraging piecemeal and protracted litigation." Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-414, 1996 WL 523123, at *l, aff'd, 116 F.3d 1476 (5th Cir. 1997).
As an initial matter, Mr. Langlois offers neither fact nor argument demonstrating a substantial error in our ruling. He instead repeats that his assertion that he was taking medication, supported by a doctor's note, compelled a continuance. We have previously considered this precise scenario and concluded that no continuance was appropriate based on our observation of the taxpayer. Bergman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-256, LEXIS 375 at *33-*34 (rejecting a continuance premised on a taxpayer taking medication and further supported by a doctor's note stating it was "unwise" for him to litigate).
So too here. We considered Mr. Langlois' motion for another continuance on the first day of trial. Neither he nor the doctor's note identified the medication he was taking or explained how the medication would impair his ability to present his case. We therefore decided to proceed with trial, taking a wait-and-see approach to gauge whether the unidentified medication in fact interfered. From our observation, informed by years of pretrial work and discussions with the parties, it did not. In fact, his trial presentation was consistent over the three separate days of trial that spanned three separate weeks, as well as consistent with the approach he took when filing his pretrial exhibits before his surgeries.
Nor does Mr. Langlois show unusual circumstances pertaining to the Court's denial of his motion for a continuance. Over the preceding three years, Mr. Langlois requested multiple continuances shortly before trials, including a continuance of the March 2022 trial date based, in part, on his carpal tunnel surgery. Mr. Langlois had ample opportunity to apprise the Court as to the knee surgery, which had been on the books for three years according to his posttrial brief [Doc. 272 at 4]. Combined with his repeated failures to provide the documentation at the heart of his case, Mr. Langlois' motion for continuance on the eve of trial raised more than a whiff of dogs ingesting homework. See Rule 133 (tardy motions for continuance "ordinarily will be deemed dilatory and will be denied unless the ground therefor arose during that period or there was good reason for not making the motion sooner").
In short, Mr. Langlois fails to satisfy the high standard for reconsideration of our ruling denying his motion for continuance. We nonetheless will permit Mr. Langlois to identify within 14 days any specific material mistakes relating to his testimony on April 13, 2022, during the Court's Honolulu, Hawaii remote trial session. Should the Court agree that Mr. Langlois mistakenly introduced error on a material issue, the Court will determine whether to grant a limited reopening of the record to correct such material error.
For cause, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Langlois' motion for reconsideration, as raised in his answering brief, is hereby denied. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before July 24, 2023, Mr. Langlois shall show cause in writing why the Court should reopen the record in this case to allow Mr. Langlois to further testify and submit additional evidence with respect to his testimony on April 13, 2022, by identifying specific material errors in that testimony.