Opinion
17890-19
05-08-2024
ANDREW B. WEST, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
This case has been set for trial at the Tax Court's session in San Antonio beginning September 30, 2024 (see Docs. 64-65)--more than four months from now. In this order we will give instructions to the parties.
Background
This case is the oldest case on the calendar for this upcoming trial session. The case concerns tax years 2015 and 2016, which are the subject of a notice of deficiency issued by the IRS in July 2019. The petition commencing this case was filed September 30, 2019, exactly 5 years before the upcoming trial session. This case was set for trial but then was continued on five previous occasions--for sessions in January 2021 (Doc. 9), September 2021 (Doc. 13), October 2022 (Doc. 27), January 2023 (Doc. 40), and December 2023 (Doc. 53).
The most recent continuance was made at the request of petitioner Andrew B. West (see Doc. 57) over the Commissioner's objection (see Doc. 62 at 4-5). At a calendar call in December 2023, Mr. West stated that he needed to hire an attorney and that he expected "to have my house sold in the next 30 days. As soon as I have my house sold, I can hire a good lawyer." (Doc. 62 at 5.) The Court observed that" you've had over a year to get an attorney" (id. at 10); and the Court ordered the filing of status reports in 30 days (id. at 19; Doc. 59). The Commissioner filed a status report (Doc. 60), but Mr. West did not. On February 6, 2024, the Court issued an order (Doc. 63), stating:
Upon due consideration of respondent's status report filed on January 10, 2024, and the Court's unsuccessful attempts to contact petitioner, it is
ORDERED that the undersigned no longer retains jurisdiction over this case and [it] is restored to the general docket.
The case was then set for trial at the upcoming session.
Discussion
The parties are advised that the Court does not expect to entertain any motions to continue this case a sixth time. A continuance is granted when it is shown that the delay would better enable the preparation and presentation of the case, but not when a delay would simply leave the parties in the same circumstance they were in at the time of the previous session. Mr. West's expectation of selling his house and his intention to hire an attorney would not be reasons that would justify a further continuance. If he has not been able to sell his house and hire an attorney in time for the upcoming sixth trial session, then there is no reason to suppose he could do so before a seventh. A majority of Tax Court petitioners represent themselves, and Mr. West may likewise do so.
Much cost and effort has been spent for five continuances and reschedulings of trial. Several judges have had to acquaint themselves with the case and then manage the rescheduling. Clerical staff have prepared and served orders. The docket record has grown. In December 2023 the case was called and recalled at a session; other parties sat in the courtroom waiting for their cases to be called while Mr. West's case was addressed; transcripts were prepared and paid for. Thereafter the judge and his chambers staff tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr. West. We do not intend to allow further delay.
If Mr. West intends to hire an attorney, then he should do so immediately, so that the attorney can be able to prepare the case for trial starting September 30, 2024. It is our experience that sometimes a petitioner hires a new attorney who explains to the client that he will file a motion for a continuance that he expects the Court to grant. Mr. West should not hire an attorney with such an expectation. He should hire only an attorney who has been shown this Order and who understands that this case is proceeding to trial at the upcoming session beginning September 30, 2024. It is
ORDERED that the parties shall heed the foregoing instructions.