Opinion
3691-22L
08-31-2023
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.
We spoke with the parties today and learned they may have been able to substantially reduce the proposed deficiency through audit reconsideration. Respondent reasonably asks for some time to have computations done to see what specific amount the IRS claims after the partial concession. Petitioner understandably wants to see that number before agreeing to any settlement.
The Court stressed that if the case doesn't settle on the basis of a reduced deficiency, it may raise some fairly complicated procedural questions. In the meantime, however, it is
ORDERED that on or before October 17, 2023 respondent shall file a status report describing the parties' progress toward settlement.