Opinion
35472-21S
03-09-2023
DANIEL T. LYNCH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge
On November 14, 2022, the Court entered a Stipulated Decision in this case. On December 13, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs. On December 22, 2022, the Court held a conference call with the parties.
By Order served December 23, 2022, the stipulated decision entered on November 14, 2022, was vacated and set aside, petitioner's motion for reasonable litigation or administrative costs, filed December 13, 2022, was stricken from the Court's record, petitioner was directed, on or before January 13, 2023, to file a motion for reasonable litigation or administrative costs in accordance with Rule 231, and respondent was directed, on or before January 27, 2023, to file a response to petitioner's motion for reasonable litigation or administrative costs.
On January 10, 2023, petitioner's counsel filed a Motion for Reasonable Litigation of Administrative Costs. On January 11, 2023, petitioner's counsel filed a First Amended Motion for Reasonable Litigation of Administrative Cost.
On January 12, 2023, this case was assigned to the undersigned for the sole purpose of disposing of the above-referenced motion. On January 26, 2023, respondent filed a Response to Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs.
By Order served February 7, 2023, the Court directed petitioner, on or before March 9, 2023, to file a reply to respondent's Response to Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs, specifically addressing whether respondent's position was substantially justified and whether the amount of costs claimed by petitioner is reasonable.
On February 21, 2023, petitioner's counsel filed a Response to Response to Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs (Index #26).
On February 23, 2023, petitioner's counsel filed a Response to Answer (Index #27). That same day petitioner's counsel filed a second Response to Answer (Index #28). Also, that same day petitioner's counsel filed a Memorandum in Support of Response to Answer (Index #29), and a second Memorandum in Support of Response to Answer (Index #30).
There are several problems with the documents filed by petitioner's counsel. The response to response should have been titled, "Reply to Response to Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs. With respect to the response to answer (Index #27 and #28) they are duplicate in nature. With respect to the documents titled memorandum in support of response to answer (Index #29 and #30), they are improperly titled. Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Response to Response to Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs filed February 21, 2023, (Index #26) is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Response to Answer filed February 23, 2023, (Index #27) is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Response to Answer filed February 23, 2023, (Index #28) is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Response to Answer filed February 23, 2023, (Index #29) is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Response to Answer filed February 23, 2023, (Index #30) is stricken from the Court's record in this case.