Opinion
3691-22L
04-19-2024
GUNASUNDRAN PILLAY & KALAIVANI GOVENDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This collection-due-process case was on the Court's September 12, 2022 San Francisco, California trial calendar. We continued it because the parties had not agreed on the contents of the administrative record and petitioners wanted to challenge the amount of the unpaid tax that the IRS says that they owe. Petitioners' challenge to that amount may be one that they have a legal right to, but that would depend on whether the administrative record shows they did not have a prior opportunity to challenge that liability. And even though they may not have a legal right to have the Court reconsider their tax liability, there is an IRS process called audit reconsideration. We instructed the parties to move ahead with both compilation of the administrative record and audit reconsideration.
This turned into a dead end. Mr. Pillay got some of what he wanted from audit reconsideration, but not enough for him to agree to a settlement. Respondent's previous lawyer put together almost all of the administrative record, but declined to move for summary judgment on what may well be an erroneous view of the law. We spoke with the parties today to discuss how to get things moving. All agreed that it should be
ORDERED that on or before May 17, 2024 respondent shall certify and file the administrative record in this case under Rule 93(a). It is expected that Mr. Pillay will not agree to that certification, so it is also
ORDERED that on or before July 17, 2024 petitioners will file their objections. He should call this filing "Petitioners' Rule 93(b) Motion to Complete or Supplement the Administrative Record." In their filing, petitioners should note their objections in plain language, such as "Petitioners object to the document at page xxx because . . . ."
As discussed with the parties, the Court expects that this case will be able to be decided through summary judgment motions, and they should expect a follow-up phone call when the administrative record is complete to discuss the timing and format of those motions.