Opinion
2620-22
07-19-2022
LISHA FAN & KAI QU, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Petitioner Lisha Fan filed a petition to commence the instant case on January 20, 2022, on behalf of herself and her spouse, Kai Qu. On June 30, 2022, petitioner Fan filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which includes a request that the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a request for a jury trial, and a request for an award of punitive damages.
As an initial matter, the United States Tax Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction with only bench trials, and neither a request for punitive damages nor a request for a jury trial is appropriate in this Court. Additionally, under the circumstances of this case, the Court cannot transfer this matter to another Court.
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation. See FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). In a summary judgment motion, the moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Sunstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 121(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner Fan has not met that burden; the facts in this case remain in dispute, and summary judgment is not appropriate at this time.
Because petitioner Qu did not sign the petition, he was directed to file a ratification of petition. Instead, the Court received a response from petitioner Fan explaining that petitioner Qu is in China and that she was planning to represent them both. Even if they file jointly, one spouse may not represent the other spouse in this Court. See Rule 60, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Simply being out of the country does not permit petitioner Qu to be represented by his spouse under the Court's Rules.
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the time within which petitioner Kai Qu is directed to file a ratification of petition is extended to September 18, 2022. Failure to comply with this Order may result in his dismissal from the case or other action as the Court deems appropriate. If he is dismissed, the case would proceed with respect to petitioner Fan alone. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to the copy of this Order served on petitioners a form which petitioner Qu may use to file a ratification of petition. It is further
ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Petitioners are reminded that documents in a language other than English should be accompanied by a certified translation.
RATIFICATION OF PETITION
____, have read the Ratification of Petition filed with the Court on___and do hereby ratify and affirm the fling of aid document by afaxing my signature hereto.