Opinion
13005-23L
09-25-2024
GARRET SMITH & CAROL SMITH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo, Chief Special Trial Judge
This I.R.C. section 6330(d) case is before the Court on respondent's (1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 26, 2023, and (2) Motion to Remand, filed July 31, 2024. Both motions were heard in Detroit, Michigan, on September 24, 2024. Counsel for respondent appeared and, among other things, advised the Court of the current status of the underlying liabilities involved in this proceeding. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners.
The resolution of respondent's jurisdictional motion depends, at least in part, on the timeliness of petitioners' request for the administrative hearing (original administrative hearing) that resulted in the Decision Letter dated July 14, 2023, a copy of which is attached to respondent's jurisdictional motion. The timeliness of petitioners' request for the original administrative hearing must now be determined by respondent's Appeals Office after taking into account the application of equitable tolling. Because the process contemplated in respondent's Motion for Remand is evolving, respondent's counsel was understandably reluctant to recommend an appropriate time to allow for the remand.
Premises considered, and for cause set forth more fully in the transcript of the above-referenced proceedings, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Remand is granted. It is further
ORDERED that this case is remanded to respondent's Appeals Office for further administrative proceedings to determine whether equitable tolling allows for petitioners' request for the original administrative hearing to be considered timely. It is further
ORDERED that such further administrative proceedings be conducted and concluded not later than January 31, 2025. It is further
ORDERED that a supplement to the above-referenced Decision Letter be issued not later than February 28, 2025. Because the Court's jurisdiction over the collection action proposed in the above-referenced Decision Letter will depend upon the outcome of the remand, it is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is denied, without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that this case is continued with jurisdiction retained by the undersigned pending completion of the remand process.