Opinion
15638-21L
04-06-2022
SHADMAN OMMATMOHAMMADI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Cary Douglas Pugh, Judge
This case is currently set for trial at the Court's May 2, 2022, San Francisco, California trial session. On March 3, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and on March 7, 2022, we directed petitioner to file a response by April 4, 2022. On March 31, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, along with multiple supporting documents, and a Motion to Proceed Remotely. On April 3, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment, and a Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to respondent's motion for summary judgment.
Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, along with the supporting documents, seek continuance of this case so that he can obtain legal counsel. Petitioner states that he is "legally entitled to legal representation from Low Income Tax Clinic and Taxpayer Advocate Services" and that he has "no legal counsel to represent" him. Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to respond to respondent's motion for summary judgment seeks an extension on the same ground.
Petitioner is permitted to have the assistance of counsel. See Rule 24, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. However, petitioner is not entitled to court-appointed counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an indigent defendant in a criminal case may be entitled to court-appointed counsel where "if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty." See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 26-27 (1981). However, petitioner's physical liberty is not in jeopardy in this tax case, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has no applicability to a taxpayer who initiates a deficiency action in the U.S. Tax Court. See Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 85-86 (1975), aff'd without published opinion, 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977).
Because this is the first request for continuance, and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Continuance, filed March 31, 2022, is granted, and this case is stricken from the Court's May 2, 2022, San Francisco, California trial session and continued, and jurisdiction is retained by this Division of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time, filed April 3, 2022, is granted in that, the time in which petitioner shall file an objection to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 3, 2022, is extended to June 6, 2022. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before May 6, 2022, respondent shall file a response to petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely, filed March 31, 2022.