Opinion
12052-20L
04-05-2022
TOM LIDDELL SERVICE CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
Trial in this case is scheduled for the Tax Court's sessi0on in Philadelphia beginning April 18, 2022. We will order a pretrial telephone conference.
This is a "collection due process" ("CDP") case brought under section 6330(d), involving liabilities from periods between 2009 and 2016. A notice of determination from IRS Appeals sustained the filing of a notice of federal tax lien and stated:
Tax transcripts show you have not filed and/or paid your business tax returns for your Form 1120 for the [post-determination-year] tax years 2017 and 2018 and Form 940 for the tax year 2019. Appeals Officer Carbaugh provided multiple extensions of time for you to provide the requested financial and compliance information. You have not submitted this information and tax transcripts still show you are not in full filing and payment compliance with all required tax returns. You did not submit an Offer in Compromise for consideration. Collection alternatives of an Installment Agreement or the placement of your account in a Currently Not Collectible status [are not available] without the financial and compliance information.The petition was filed 18 months ago on October 5, 2020. The petition described serious health problems of petitioner's president and stated: "Due to Covid-19 I need additional time to gather the past due tax returns for 2017-2018 to make an offer in compromise for balance due. The balance due is all interest & penalty. All tax principal payments for the periods listed are paid in full."
On September 28, 2021, the parties filed a motion (Doc. 8) requesting a continuance so that petitioner could submit the returns for 2017 and
2018. The Court granted the motion (see Doc. 9). On January 11, 2022, the Court served notice (Doc. 10) that trial will be held in the session beginning April 18, 2022, and served its standing pretrial order (Doc. 11) that gave the parties instructions about filing pretrial memoranda (due March 28, 2022) and cooperating in the preparation of a joint stipulation of facts (due April 4, 2022). Petitioner has not filed a pretrial memorandum. The Commissioner's pretrial memorandum (Doc. 12) states:
On November 11, 2021, petitioner filed its 2017 Form 1120S tax return and simultaneously submitted a payment for the tax due.
On January 10, 2022, petitioner filed its 2018 Form 1120S tax return and simultaneously submitted a payment for the tax due. However, petitioner remained ineligible to request an offer in compromise as it has not filed its 2019 or 2020 Form 1120S tax returns.
On March 18, 2022, the parties held a telephonic conference to discuss the status of the case. Petitioner requested additional time to speak with its accountant before making any final decision on a possible resolution. Respondent agreed to hold a second conference on March 24, 2022. . . .
On March 25, 2022, the parties held a follow-up conference call. Petitioner stated that he was trying to have the remaining delinquent tax returns prepared and filed. Petitioner inquired whether respondent would agree to another continuance. Respondent did not agree to another continuance.
We cannot criticize the Commissioner's opposition to a continuance. The petition filed 18 months ago asked for more time to submit returns for 2017 and 2018; petitioner apparently took about a year to submit them; and in that time, returns for 2019 and 2020 have become due and evidently have not been filed. If more continuances were allowed, this process could continue indefinitely without real progress.
The Commissioner's pretrial memorandum reported the status of the case as "Probable Settlement", which prompted us to suppose that we might not need not intervene. However, on April 4, 2022--the due date for the parties' joint stipulation of facts--the Commissioner filed not a joint stipulation but rather a submission of his unilateral "Proposed Trial Exhibits", which can be an indication that the parties are not cooperating in pretrial preparation.
We will therefore order the parties to conduct a pretrial telephone conference with the Court. Petitioner should be prepared to explain why it has not submitted a pretrial memorandum, what the status of the stipulation is, and what it hopes to prove and accomplish at the trial of this case. It is
ORDERED that, immediately upon receipt of this order, and in any event no later than April 11, 2022, petitioner shall telephone (at 202-521-0850) the Chambers Administrator of the judge signing this order for the purpose of scheduling a telephone conference.