Opinion
18005-22
07-11-2023
AMALITA PAULINE VAN BUUREN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Eunkyong Choi, Special Trial Judge
Pending before the Court is petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely, filed August 16, 2022, in which she represents that she lives in the Netherlands and is a single mother of a minor child and has no means to travel to the United States. On March 30, 2023, respondent filed an Objection to Motion to Proceed Remotely in which he cautioned that the taking of testimony from abroad in the course of a United States court proceeding must be consistent with applicable law and foreign policy. He noted that petitioner is likely to provide testimony in her case while located in the Netherlands, and that doing so could violate the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters and/or principles of international comity. He contended that the motion should be denied because petitioners have not demonstrated compliance with applicable law and policy, nor have they secured from the Netherlands authorities permission to take testimony from the Netherlands.
We will hold petitioner's motion in abeyance pending respondent's determination of what additional steps must be taken (if any) to permit the taking of testimony from witnesses located in the Netherlands. We note that respondent's counsel in other cases has consulted for this purpose with the Department of Justice's Office of Foreign Litigation and its Office of International Judicial Assistance.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion to Proceed Remotely, filed August 16, 2022, is held in abeyance. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before September 11, 2023, the parties shall file a joint status report informing the Court of their views as to how this case should proceed. If the parties agree that a trial is necessary and that it may proceed remotely, they shall specify in the report how they intend to comply with Tax Court Rule 81(e)(2).
The parties shall also express their views as to whether the issues in this case could be resolved without a trial either via a Rule 122 motion or cross-motions for summary judgment.