Opinion
28351-21
08-11-2022
ALEKSANDR SHALNEV & LYUBOV SHALNEV, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This case is on the Court's September 12, 2022 trial calendar for San Francisco, California. Petitioners moved for a continuance on August 1, 2022 because the case was nowhere near ready for trial. Respondent doesn't object, because the first obstacle he's encountered is retrieving the IRS files for petitioners and for petitioners' business, a company named Modern Technology Resources, Inc. And it turns out this case is very similar to Golovin v. Commissioner, brought by Mr. Shalnev's business partner and suffering from the same problems with missing files.
The problem is in part traceable to IRS recordkeeping. The IRS starts an administrative file for each of its audits; here that led to separate files for its audits of the individual business owners and their jointly owned corporation. A main reason for the audit of Mr. Golovin seems to have been his habit of meeting the corporation's cash requirements by using his personal funds and then squaring up later when the company had money. Figuring out the tax consequences of this practice can be complicated, yet the administrative file for the corporation has not made its way to the IRS lawyers working on either case. And the results in Mr. Golovin's case will affect this case too.
The solution, as we discussed with the parties, has to be coordination. The IRS's lawyers for their part now know of the related case. They promised to work to share the administrative file for the corporation when it arrives. It is therefore reasonable that it be
ORDERED that petitioners' August 1, 2022 motion for a continuance is granted in that this case is stricken from the Court's September 12, 2022 trial calendar for San Francisco, California. It is also
ORDERED that this division of the Court retains jurisdiction over this case. It is also
ORDERED that on or before October 3, 2022 respondent will file a status report that describes his progress in retrieving and reviewing the relevant administrative files and discussing them with Mr. Shalnev as part of informal discovery, as well as the parties' views on whether this case and Mr. Golovin's should be consolidated.