Opinion
8792-20
03-15-2023
DONALD W. THOMPSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber, Judge.
This case involves a charitable contribution deduction claimed by petitioner for a conservation easement in 2013, which generated carryforward deductions on his 2016-2018 tax returns. On March 20, 2020, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency disallowing the carryforward deductions and determining deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties for 2016-2018.
Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for redetermination on July 10, 2020. On September 27, 2022, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties to discuss setting this case for trial. Petitioner requested that the case be set for trial no earlier than May or June 2023. By Order served October 6, 2022, following a discussion with the parties during the conference call, we set the case for trial beginning August 28, 2023. The case has thus been pending for two-and-a-half years, and it has been set for trial for five months. The Pretrial Scheduling Order has been in effect since December 14, 2022.
On March 9, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, to which respondent promptly objected. On March 11, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Response to respondent's Objection and concurrently lodged a Response. We will grant the Motion for Leave to File Response and consider the Motion for Continuance considering all filings by the parties.
In his Motion for Continuance petitioner requests that the Court continue this case for five months or (in the alternative) "restore this case to the general trial docket." Petitioner alleges no inability to conduct the trial as scheduled. Rather he asserts that "exceptional circumstances" justify granting his Motion because "[r]espondent sought to deny [p]etitioner his right to an Appeals conference."
We are not persuaded. Respondent represents that petitioner has an Appeals conference scheduled for May 8, 2023-a fact that petitioner does not dispute and neglected to mention in his Motion. Indeed, respondent represents that petitioner was offered an Appeals conference three years ago, before the notice of deficiency was issued, but that petitioner declined to avail himself of that opportunity at that time. Petitioner is not being "den[ied] . . . his right to an Appeals conference." The IRS has afforded him the opportunity that he belatedly requested.
Petitioner next contends that he needs adequate time to prepare for and participate in an Appeals conference. That conference is scheduled for May 8, 2023, roughly two months from now. Petitioner's counsel has been working on this case for almost three years and has been engaging in trial preparation for almost five months. Under these circumstances, two months would seem sufficient time to prepare for a meeting. The date of the Appeals conference, moreover, is 15 weeks before the trial is set to begin. That should leave the parties adequate time to discuss a possible resolution of this case short of trial.
We conclude that petitioner has identified no "exceptional circumstances" justifying a continuance at this time. If the Appeals Conference bears fruit and the parties agree that additional time is needed to conclude a settlement, we will entertain a joint motion for continuance at that time.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, filed March 11, 2023, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Continuance, filed March 9, 2023, is denied.