Opinion
9309-21L
09-09-2024
PAULETTE SHOMO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
This is a "collection due process" ("CDP") case brought under I.R.C. section 6339(d). The amount of petitioner Paulette Shomo's tax liabilities for the years at issue (2016 and 2017) is not in dispute; rather, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") assessed tax liabilities against her only in the amounts that she had reported on her tax returns, but the payor of her income did not withhold sufficient tax to cover those liabilities. The dispute in this case concerns the question whether the IRS's Independent Office of Appeals abused its discretion in denying her a collection alternative that she requested. This order assumes familiarity with our previous orders (in particular, Docs. 31, 34, 42, 47).
Still pending before the Court is the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29), filed February 28, 2024. Despite the detailed instructions in our order of February 29, 2024 (Doc. 31), Ms. Shomo did not file a response in compliance with that order. At her request, and with her assurance that she could and would comply, we ordered her to attend the Tax Court's New York City trial session on June 3, 2024 (see Docs. 34, 38), so that she could get the assistance of volunteers from the low-income tax clinics who would appear at that session. She did not comply. (See Doc. 40.) We ordered that "no later than August 16, 2024, Ms. Shomo shall file a response to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment". (Doc. 47.) She did not do so.
We held a telephone conference with the parties on September 9, 2024, and Ms. Shomo indicated that she still had some uncertainty about how she should respond to the motion. We explained that our previous order (Doc. 31) gave written instructions about how to respond (which she did not follow), that our scheduling this case for a hearing at the June 2024 trial session gave her an opportunity (of which she did not avail herself) to get the help of volunteer lawyers, and that we know of no other help to which we can direct her. We stated that, despite her noncompliance with our previous orders, we will allow one extension of her time to file a response. She agreed to a deadline of September 30, 2024, but we will allow a greater extension and will set a later deadline. It is
ORDERED that, no later than October 11, 2024, Ms. Shomo shall file a response to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29), and that her response shall comply with Tax Court Rule 121 and with the instructions in our order of February 29, 2024 (Doc. 31). It is further
ORDERED that, no later than November 8, 2024, the Commissioner shall file a reply to Ms. Shomo's response (or, if she has filed no response, then he shall file a status report so stating). It is further
ORDERED that our order of October 21, 2022 (requiring status reports every 60 days) is hereby vacated. It is further
ORDERED that, along with regular service of this order on Ms. Shomo, the Clerk of the Court shall mail to her copies of three documents previously filed and served on her--i.e., the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29), the Commissioner's accompanying declaration (Doc. 30), and our order of February 29, 2024 (Doc. 31).