Opinion
15340-16
03-15-2023
INDU RAWAT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
Our opinion of February 7, 2023 (Doc. 79, issued as T.C. Memo. 2023-14), granted in part and denied in part petitioner's motion for summary judgment, leaving the Inventory Gain issue unresolved as to sourcing questions (see Doc. 79 at 20). Pursuant to that opinion, we issued an order (Doc. 80) directing the parties to "propos[e] a schedule for further proceedings in this case." In a status report filed March 10, 2023 (Doc. 81, ¶ 3), they reported anticipated partial agreement:
The parties are currently in the process of preparing a third stipulation of settled issues to resolve the remaining issues in the case. Accordingly, it does not appear that a trial will be necessary. Once the stipulation of settled issues has been filed with the Court, the parties plan to prepare and file an appealable proposed decision document and supporting computation pursuant to Tax Court Rule 155 with the Court.
However, they reported a lack of agreement as to how we should proceed. The Commissioner believes we should "hold the entry of decision in abeyance pending a final decision in the Innovation Ventures case" (No. 5741-19). Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner, however, "opposes the current renewed request for abeyance and wishes to proceed to a final decision in this case." Id. ¶ 5. It is
ORDERED that, no later than April 17, 2023, the parties (a) shall file the third stipulation of settled issues described in their recent status report and (b) shall file either (i) the proposed decision document described in their recent status report, or (ii) a joint status report (or, if that is not expedient, then separate reports) providing a schedule for further proceedings, presumably directed toward the submission of that proposed decision document. If the parties' current disagreement persists, then the Court expects to resolve it either by entertaining from respondent a motion to stay (which petitioner will presumably oppose) or by entertaining from petitioner a motion for entry of decision (which respondent will presumably oppose). If the parties perceive a better way forward, then they can propose it to the Court.