Opinion
3691-22L
05-31-2023
GUNASUNDRAN PILLAY & KALAIVANI GOVENDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes Judge
This 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, they may still try to do so bureaucratically through an IRS process called audit reconsideration.
We instructed the parties to move ahead with both compilation of the administrative record and audit reconsideration. Respondent recently reported that he has compiled a proposed administrative record. Petitioners do not agree, and the prospects for audit reconsideration remain quite unclear. To keep the case moving, it is
ORDERED that on or before July 17, 2023 respondent shall move for summary judgment on the basis of the administrative record or file a report stating why he doesn't wish to.