Opinion
18733-19
10-01-2021
Mohamadreza Yazdi Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This case was on the January 25, 2021 Los Angeles, California trial calendar, but we continued it and imposed some deadlines for petitioner to produce key records. In a call on June 17, 2021, we learned that the parties had finished exchanging documents, but were not able to settle. We therefore added the case to our remote Pacific Coast trial calendar set to begin on October 25.
Dr. Yazdi had been representing himself, but he has since retained a lawyer who entered an appearance on September 23 and immediately moved for a continuance on September 24. We noted that respondent did not oppose this motion, but spoke with the parties on September 30 because Rule 133 specifically cautions that "employment of new counsel ordinarily will not be regarded as ground for continuance." To his credit, petitioner's new counsel understood this Rule and structured his motion around the good cause that he thought his client might have.
The problem here is that the case was pending for more than a year before informal discovery got underway. We continued it once, but set as a condition that Dr. Yazdi adhere to strict deadlines for the production of documents and other records to respondent. He did in fact produce much relevant information by those deadlines and later reports from the parties showed that that production had ended and that respondent waived any formal discovery. Statements a month before the trial date that even more documents might be found with a continuance are insufficient justification because in our earlier order we specifically said that late production would trigger preclusion.
The second reason proffered was that Dr. Yazdi was misled by the person holding his power of attorney before the IRS to think that his representation could continue in Tax Court. The gentleman to whom Dr. Yazdi gave his power of attorney is not authorized to practice before Tax Court. And Dr. Yazdi acknowledged this in a January 19, 2021 email: "I have not retained an attorney and I hope there is not a need for one unless I see one party is less than sincere in our interactions." We ourselves had to specially recognize that representative in our previous phone calls because all on the call knew that he wasn't authorized to represent anyone in Tax Court.
It is therefore
ORDERED that petitioner's September 24, 2021 motion for continuance is denied.