TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark Y. Liu and Ginger Y. Bian, Deceased, Mark Y. Liu, Surviving Spouse
Docket Number: 8667-16
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/16/2017
Pages: 9

43 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MARK Y. LIU AND GINGER Y. BIAN, DECEASED, MARK Y. LIU, SURVIVING SPOUSE, Petitioners, v. ) ) ) ) Cz ) Docket No. 8667-16 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Houston, Texas, on September 21, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order will be issued denying petitioners' (1) motion for summary judgment, filed December 27, 2016, (2) motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction, filed July 10, 2017, (3) motion to object to judge's Orders, filed July 17, 2017, and (4) motion to disqualify special trial judge and to rehear from chiefjudge, filed July 28, 2017. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 16, 2017 SERVED Oct 17 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 BENCH OPINION BY: CHIEF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE LEWIS R. CARLUZZO SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 CASE NAME: MARK Y. LIU AND GINGER Y. BIAN, DECEASED, MARK Y. LIU, SURVIVING SPOUSE DOCKET NUMBER: 8667-16 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. The order to be entered in this case resulting from this bench opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case, and except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on the following motions, all submitted by Petitioners, but not here listed in chronological order: (1) motion to dismiss p73)406-2250|operationseescribersmetIwww.escribers.n·et , 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for lack of jurisdiction, filed July 10, 2017; (2) motion for summary judgment, filed December 27, 2016; (3) motion to object to judges' orders, filed July 17, 2017; and (4) motion to disqualify special trial judge, filed July 28, 2017. A fair reading of the last two motions suggests that they should be considered as Petitioners' motions for me to recuse myself from this case. For the sake of simplicity, I'll sometimes refer to those two motions as Petitioners' recusal motions. Respondent's objections to Petitioners' summary judgment motion are embodied in his response, filed January 18, 2007. By Order dated July 3, 2017, the case was assigned to me for disposition. See sec 7443A(b)(7); Rule 180. Various order set the above-listed motions for hearing on September 18, 2017, in Houston, Texas, which is Petitioners' requested place of trial. So much of Petitioners' motion to continue, filed September 7, 2017, seeking to postpone the hearing was denied by Order dated September 8, 2017, and the motions were heard as scheduled. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioners. Ashley V. Targac appeared on behalf of Respondent and argued in opposition to the motions. We'll address Petitioners' recusal motions cribers (973)406-2250loperations@escriberssietlwwnescribers.net 5 first.. According to Petitioners, I should recuse myself from this proceeding because of my involvement in a prior Tax Court proceeding, that is Liu v. Commissioner, docket number 16841-14 (prior proceeding). The prior proceeding.also was a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency. It was resolved by stipulated decision. Believing themselves ill-advised with respect to the resolution of the prior proceeding, Petitioners moved to vacate the stipulated decision upon the ground that the decision represented a fraud on the Court. Petitioners' motion to vacate the decision in the previous proceeding was heard in Houston, Texas, on May 20, 2016. A bench opinion was rendered on the same date, and by Order dated June 2, 2016, I denied Petitioners' motion. Petitioners appealed my ruling, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by mandate dated July 17, 2017. See Liu v. Commissioner, 689 Fed Appx. 264 (5th cir. 2017). Apparently unhappy with the above-mentioned turn of events, Petitioners lodged a miscónduct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24' complaint against me as a result of my ruling in the 25 . prior proceeding. That misconduct complaint is still cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersnet]www.escribers.net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pending. Petitioners' recusal motions seem to raise a concern that I would resolve that complaint, and I can understand Petitioners' concern in that regard. Sometimes it makes sense to state the obvious, and in so doing, I'll note that the misconduct complaint against me will not be resolved by me, either as a result of the matters now pending before me, or otherwise. The misconduct complaint will be resolved independent of this proceeding and in accordance with the Courts' procedures now in effect for such matters. In any event, Petitioners' pending misconduct complaint against me seems to be the primary reason that Petitioners believe I should recuse myself, or be removed from this case. Whether a judicial officer should recuse himself or herself from a proceeding is a decision first made by that judicial officer. Factors to be taken into account include the nature of the dispute to be resolved, the parties involved, and whether, all things considered, the judicial officer expect that he or she can fairly and impartially resolve the dispute presented. We note that the trial in this case has been continued. That being so, and because it is unlikely that I will ultimately preside over the p73)406-2250|operationseescribersmetlwwwæscribers.net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trial given the manner in which trial sessions are scheduled by the Court, thë relief sought in Petitioners' recusal motions will be given practical effect, regardless of the technical ruling, at least as far as the trial goes. As to the other motions now before me, both are resolved upon technical grounds, without the need to assess the credibility of any witnesses. After taking into account the circumstances and considering the reasons advanced by petitions for my recusal, I am satisfied that I can fairly and impartially rule upon the motion now before me. Consequently, Petitioners' recusal motions will be denied. Having decided that it is not inappropriate for me to rule on any of the pending motions, I'll next consider Petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as that motion should be decided before their motion for summary j'udgment is addressed. The petition in this case was filed on April 13, 2016. According to the petition, Petitioners are disputing a "notice of deficiency", see sec. 6213(a), and a "notice of determination" concerning Petitioners' "request for relief from joint and several liability".' See sec. 6015. There (973)406-2250|operations@escribersmet|www.escribers.net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a notice of deficiency attached to the petition. Otherwise, there is no notice of determination of any sort attached to the petition and issued by Respondent that could provide the basis for the Court's jurisdiction over the years here in dispute, that is, 2012 and 2013. Nor is there anything in the record that suggests that such a notice of determination has been issued to -patitienc by Respondent. For the sake completeness, we also note that there is nothing in the record that suggests that Respondent has failed to act in any manner that also could form the basis for the Court's jurisdiction with respect to the 3*nn± here in dispute. We consider the Court's jurisdiction over the deficiencies determined in the notice of deficiency attached to the petition taking into account the date that the notice of deficiency was issued and mailed to the Petitioners and the date that the petition was filed in response. See sec. 6213(a); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27(1989) (In a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency, the Court's jurisdiction is established upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and (973)406-2250|operations@escribers.net|www.esenbers.net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 a timely-filed petition). According to Petitioners, the notice of deficiency attached to the petition is not valid. Their attack in that regard, however, goes more to the merits of the adjustments contained in that notice, than it does to the validity of the notice itself. From what has been submitted, we are satisfied that the notice of deficiency attached to the petition is valid and the record shows that,the petition is treated as having been filed timely in response to that notice. See secs 6213(a), 7502 and its corresponding regulation. It follows that the Court has jurisdiction over the years here in dispute and Petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be denied. Lastly, we turn our attention to Petitioners' motion for summary judgment. Disposition upon summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no.genuine disputes as to any material facts. See Rule 121. There has been nothing submitted by either party that shows that the relevant facts necessary for the. resolution of any of the many issues contemplated in the notice of deficiency and pleadings have been agreed to by the (973)406-2250|operations escribersnet|www.escribersmet . . 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parties. Little else need to be noted to support the denial of Petitioners' motion for summary judgment. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate Order will be issued. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded. ) [973)406-2250|operations@escribersmetlwww.escribersaet