Opinion
3691-22L
11-04-2024
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. 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 ordered the parties to work to compile the administrative record, and (with a very few exceptions) they have agreed to its contents.
We spoke with them today about a briefing schedule. All agreed that it should be
ORDERED that on or before December 4, 2024 respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment and brief in support of that motion. It is also
ORDERED that on or before January 31, 2025 petitioners shall file their brief. They should entitle it "Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Respondent's Motion." It is also
ORDERED that respondent may file on or before February 28, 2025 a brief responding to petitioners' motion.