Opinion
14517-20L
03-01-2022
Vanya K. McTaggart Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson, Judge.
This case was scheduled for trial at the Tax Court's New York City trial session beginning March 28, 2022 (see Docs. 7-8); but the Commissioner filed a motion (Doc. 9) for summary judgment, and we ordered petitioner to file a response (see Doc. 11) and set the motion for a hearing at that March 28 session (see Doc. 13). Counsel entered an appearance for petitioner (Doc. 14) and filed a motion (Doc. 15) requesting an extension of "three to four weeks" of the time in which petitioner is to file a response to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and requesting that the case be continued "generally". The motion states that the motion "is consented to by counsel for the respondent". It is
ORDERED that the motion for a continuance is denied in part, in that it is not continued "generally" (which would return the case to the general docket, leaving pending the unresolved motion for summary judgment and depriving the judge signing this order of the authority to rule on that motion); but it is further
ORDERED that the motion for a continuance is granted in part, in that this case is stricken from the calendar of the upcoming trial session beginning March 28, 2022, and will not be called at that session, but that the judge signing this order retains jurisdiction over this case; and it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's request for an extension of time is granted, in that no later than April 1, 2022, petitioner shall file a response to the motion for summary judgment. It is further
ORDERED that no later than April 29, 2022, the Commissioner shall file a reply to petitioner's response to the motion for summary judgment. It is further
ORDERED that, no later than March 8, 2022, petitioner's counsel shall initiate a telephone conference with respondent's counsel, for the purpose of beginning a discussion of the possibility of settling this case in whole or in part. If that call does not result in a prompt settlement but both parties agree that there is a serious prospect of settling the case, and if they agree that a revision of the briefing schedule set in this order would facilitate settlement discussions, then the Court would entertain a joint motion to revise the briefing schedule set here.