Opinion
23305-18
09-23-2022
RALPH M. OTTUSO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Elizabeth A. Copeland, Judge
The trial in this case was held on July 11, 2022, at the Court's Remote Special Trial Session where Washington, D.C. was listed as the place of trial. This case was then submitted on July 11, 2022, with the stipulation that the record was to be held open until July 25, 2022, in order to receive into the record evidence which was agreed upon at trial.
On July 24, 2022, the parties filed with the Court a joint Second Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts. That submission contained exhibits 16-J (previously incorrectly labeled in the First Stipulation of Facts) and 25-P (a receipt presented as evidence during trial by petitioner and admitted into evidence). With the filing of this Second Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts, the record in this case is now closed.
Since the conclusion of the trial in this case on July 11, 2022, the Court has received nine substantive emails from petitioner, six containing additional proposed evidentiary documents. Petitioner, and petitioner's Certified Public Accountant, have previously been warned that all evidentiary materials needed to be submitted prior to trial and any such documents were to be first shared with respondent's counsel.
Regardless, any documents or filings for the Court to consider must either be electronically filed through the Court's DAWSON electronic filing system or mailed in a properly addressed and stamped envelope to:
United States Tax Court 400 Second Street N.W. Washington, DC 20217
While the first email was sent to the Court on the date of trial (July 11, 2022) and contained the aforementioned exhibit 25-P, the remaining emails were after the date of trial. On July 22, 2022, the Court and respondent's counsel received five emails from petitioner, containing thirteen documents in total. These documents had not been presented as evidence at trial, nor were they properly filed with the Court as stated above. On July 25, 2022, the Court received an email from petitioner requesting a plenary hearing and two additional emails were received about the plenary hearing. Petitioner cited several reasons for this request, all of which would be considered additional evidence after the conclusion of trial.
Only in exceptional circumstances will the Court reopen the record after trial to accept new evidence. This is because such evidence can be prejudicial to the other party (here respondent or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) if not presented at trial. See e.g., Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1977-1. "[S]ince the evidence was not presented at trial it was not given under oath and the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine petitioner with respect to it." Id.
Overall, once the record in a case has been closed, the Court will not reopen the record unless newly proposed evidence "is material to the issues involved" and "would change the outcome of the case." Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 286-287 (2000) (citing Coleman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1989-248). The Court will not reopen the record where the newly-proposed evidence is "merely cumulative" or duplicative of the evidence submitted at trial. Id.
Furthermore, any such evidence needs to be accompanied by a motion to reopen the record and needs be lodged with the Court in the proper manner, which means mailing it to the Court via an authorized postal service or filing it electronically in the Court's DAWSON document management system. Email is NOT a proper mechanism for filing motions with the Court nor submitting documents.
Finally, as the Tax Court does not generally hold plenary hearings, and such a hearing (often referred to as a "trial before a trial") is not appropriate in a case in which the trial has already occurred, as here. The Court is unsure whether Mr. Ottuso wants a new trial or simply a reopening of the record to receive in new evidence.
After due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the record in this case is now closed. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner refrain from emailing the Court's Chambers and follow the Courts rules for motions and document submissions. Those rules can be found at: https://ustaxcourt.gov/rules.html.