Opinion
15447-19
07-07-2022
PETER BRANCOVICH TUREK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Alina I. Marshall Judge
This case was previously calendared for a remote trial at the session of the Court scheduled to commence on June 6, 2022, for cases in which Salt Lake City, Utah, was listed as the place of trial. On June 1, 2022, this case was stricken and continued from the Court's Salt Lake City, Utah, remote session and the undersigned retained jurisdiction.
On April 5, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On April 27, 2022, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment.
On June 17, 2022, respondent filed a status report. On June 20, 2022, petitioner filed a status report.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment is not, however, a substitute for trial; it should not be used to resolve disputes over factual issues. Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982). Summary judgment may be granted where there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; see Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).
Upon review and consideration of petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment filed April 5, 2022, it appears to the Court that petitioner is asking the Court to reconsider its decision to grant respondent's motion for leave to file out of time first amendment to answer, filed October 29, 2020. The Court declines to do so. Petitioner also asks the Court to "consider sanctions and a finding of default on the part of [r]espondent", but respondent has not failed to prosecute this case at this time. It is not appropriate at this juncture to render a decision in favor of petitioner as to any issue as a matter of law. Furthermore, there remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment filed April 5, 2022 is denied. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before August 15, 2022, the parties shall file separate status reports (or may instead file a joint status report) reflecting the then-present status of this case. In the report(s), the parties shall:
(1) state whether the parties would be available, shall the Court calendar this case for in-person trial, at a special session of the Court scheduled to commence in October or November of 2022 in Washington, D.C.;
(2) state whether the parties would be available, shall the Court calendar this case for remote trial, at a session of the Court scheduled to commence the week of October 11, October 31 or November 14, 2022, for which petitioner would be required to testify under oath that petitioner is testifying from either a location within the United States or any United States embassy or consulate;
(3) for petitioner only, state petitioner's progress in inquiring with an United States embassy or consulate as to whether he may conduct live stream testimony from there and what requirements need to be met first;
(4) for petitioner only, state petitioner's progress in securing counsel if petitioner remains interested in doing so;
(5) state whether they intend to file a motion for non-binding mediation;
(6) explain their views on the following items with respect to the 2014 tax year: (a) schedule C-1 gross receipts/sales, (b) schedule C-1 contract labor, (c) schedule C-1 legal and professional services; (d) moving expenses; (e) schedule C-2 meals and entertainment; (f) schedule C-2 contract labor; (g) schedule C-2 travel; (h) state refunds/credits; and (i) any other items the party believes to be at issue with respect to the 2014 tax year. The parties shall include the following items:
i. the amount reported in petitioner's return;
ii. the amount of the adjustment made in the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based;
iii. the amount of the adjustment made in the first amendment to answer filed June 24, 2021;
iv. the amount, if any, conceded by either party;
v. each party's views as to whether they have the burden of proof with respect to part or all of the item;
vi. the legal theories upon which the party intends to proceed with respect to the issue;
vii. specific items of substantiation or other evidence that the party intends to offer at trial to support this item.
The parties shall label each item pursuant to the numbering system used herein (e.g., when addressing the amount of the schedule C-1 gross receipts/sales reported on petitioner's return, the heading of the section shall be marked (6)(a)(i)).
(7) explain their views on the following items with respect to the 2015 tax year: (a) schedule C-1 cost of goods sold, (b) schedule E-1 depreciation expense or depletion, (c) schedule E-1 repairs; (d) state refunds/credits; and (e) any other items the party believes to be at issue with respect to the 2015 tax year. The parties shall include the following items:
i. the amount reported in petitioner's return;
ii. the amount of the adjustment made in the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based'
iii. the amount of the adjustment made in the first amendment to answer filed June 24, 2021;
iv. the amount, if any, conceded by either party;
v. each party's views as to whether they have the burden of proof with respect to part or all of the item;
vi. the legal theories upon which the party intends to proceed with respect to the issue;
vii. specific items of substantiation or other evidence that the party intends to offer at trial to support this item.
The parties shall label each item pursuant to the numbering system used herein (e.g., when addressing the amount of the schedule C-1 cost of goods sold reported on petitioner's return, the heading of the section shall be marked (7)(a)(i)).