Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

..

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 1 of 16

\

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERA CLAIMS

No. 02-6 T

(Judge Futy)
RONALD C. PRATI and MAY G. PRTI,

Plaintis
v.

THE UNlTED STATES,

Defendant

JOINT NOTICE OF INDlRECTL Y-RELATED CASES

/~T 11 2002

The parties submit the following notice pursuant to RCFC 40.2(b),

and the order issued August 1, 2002, in Richard J. Carota v. United
States, Fed. CI. No. 01-30.5 T; John Y. and Josephine J. Glass v. United

States, Fed. CI. No. 01-575 T; and Lewis C. and Sonia C. Ganter v.

- 1 -

~ JOINT
,¡

i ¡ EXHIBIT A, , . .

.".... . /

::..' /1". .:.-~

i

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 2 of 16

Unit Sttes, Fed.. CI. No. 02..248 T.1

~, .'.

I. Background

Eac of the plainti in the cases ident in Part II, infr, wa ~
limited paFtr in one or moe of

43 limi partrships subject.tø~.

provions of §§ 6221-6234 of

the Intrnl Revenue Coe of 198

(commnt reed to as "TEFRA"). In atl of the caes file to date, bo

the general partners of each partership, and th managing agent of each
partership, were identicaL. The parters in eac case identi in Par II,

infr, reprtd th~~(llsbutive share of losses attbutble to purped
farming expenses of the partnerships on thei individl incme ta

returns.
The income tax returns for each of the 43 limited partnerships were

examined by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Following this

examination, the IRS issued a notice of Final Partership Administrative
Adjustment ("FPAA") to each partnership disallowing losses that had been

reported by the partnership and allocated to the partners.

1 Pursuant to the order entered August 1, 2002, the parties are filing

this notice in each case identified in Part ", infra.

- 2-

"

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 3 of 16

.~ A paner of eac partership fied a petion for readjustmnt,

pursuant to §'626. in the United States Tax Court. Whil th
proceedings were pending, cein of the parters, including th ptaìnli

in each of the cases identi in Par U. infr, enter int selleø ,
with the IRS with respec to their agree adjustments to th lo

report by ~~ paerhips.
The IRS subseuently assesse additnal ta and interest aganst
the plainti as a consequence of th settements. The plaintis paid the
assessents

and fi dams for refund requesting a refund of the

additional ta and interest paid. After the claims were disalloed by the
IRS, the plaintiffs filed suit in this Court.2
II. Indirectly-Related Cases Filed to Date

The following is a list of the cases filed by plaintifs' counsel,

Thomas E. Redding, and, if an answer has been filed by defendant, the -

2 The foregoing is a 'general statement of facts included only for the

purpose of this notice. Defendant does not conæde that the jurisdictional requirements for a refund suit (including, without limitation, §§ 6511, 6532, and 7422) have been satisfied in each of the cases identified in Part II, and does not waive the other jurisdictional defenses referred to in the answers filed in these cases.

- 3-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 4 of 16

dataof fillng (in paeses r Mr. Redding expct to file addon
cases that present similar. related issues of fact and law.

Richard J. Caroa v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01-30 T (Oc. 2, 201 )
Robert J. and Susa L Isler v. United States, Fed.Ct No.
Jeffey T. Scuteri v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01-358 T (De. 6,
Robert H. and Joan C. Donaldson v. United Sttes, FecI. CI. No.

2001) ,
01..34 T (Feb. 26, 2002)

01-386 T (Mar. 11.2002) William ~ Wintemit and Madeleine M. HiD v. United States, Fed.
el. No. 01-404 T (Dec. 20,2001) John ~ and Josphine J. Glass v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01-575 T (Apr. 10.2002) Morrs A. arid Ann M. Weiner v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01-623 T (June 20, 2002) Richard E. and Heather H. Dahlbrg v. United States, Fed. CI. No.

.01-720 T (May 14.2002)
John J. and Unda E. Vigiotta v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-13 T (May 15.2002) Robert B. and Nancy L. Wood v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-56 T (Aug. 21,2002) Ronald C. and Mary G. Prati v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-60 T (Aug. 21, 2002) Nassif J. Cannon, Jr. and Gail F. Barber v. United States, Fed. CI.

No. 02-61 T (May 7, 2002)
Lewis C. and Sonia C. Ganter v. United Statas, Fed. CI. No. 02-248 T Helen R. Pineo v. United States, Fed. CL No. 02-401 T John G. and Gretchen G. Schuler v. United States, Fed. CL No. 02-432 T

- 4-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 5 of 16

~f! Larr A. lyalShaH and Mary S. LeMieux Marshall v. United Stle, Fed. at ',No. 02-474 T Richard J. iind .Barcay L. Bolen v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-696 T (Sept. 19,2002)

E. Usk Wycoff Jr. v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-772 T

Uoyd T. an Ma Ann Whitker v. Uni States, FecI. Ct. No.
02-795 T

Carmn C. and EmHy M. Mastpieri v. Unid States, Fed. CI. No.
02-910 T Mark A. and Ellen S. Koretz v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-9'12 T Thomas E. Jones, Jr. and Elinor B. Jones v. Unitd States, Fed. el. No. 02-1079 T David tA and Jane H. Lewis v. United Sttes, Fed. CI. No.

02-108T
i.~

III. Common.lssu~ of Fact and Law
Each of the caes identite in Par II, supr, presnts at teast one

of the following issues respecting plaintis' tax liabilit as it relates to their
investments in the partnerships.

1. Whether the notice of FPAA was issued to each partership
~ fore the statute of limitations on assessment of any tax liabilty
attributable to adjustments to partnership items, as provided in § 6229,
had expired.

2. Whether plaintiffs are liable for tax-motivated interest under

former § 6621(c).

- 5-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 6 of 16

\ 3. V\~r plati are entied to interest abatemen under
§ 6404(e).

4. Whether plaiti ar enti to th ne inteest ra of zero _
under § 6621

(d).
5. Wheter plainti are enti to an overayment, in the ye of

terinatin of the relvant pahip, atbutbl to an incr in th
basis of their parterhip interet resultng frm tie adjustmnt to
partership items for earlier years embodie in the settemen agemnt
betwen plainti and ,the IRS.

IV. . Case Management Plan
The partes believe there are preliminary legal questins with
respect to Issues No.1 (the § 6229 limitations issue), NO.2 (the § 6621

(c)

interest issue), and No.3 (the § 64(e) interest abatement issue) set out
in Part II, supra. Resolution of the preliminary legal issues wil contrl the
extent of and may preclude the need for extensive discovery in these

cases. It would be more effcient and cost-effective to resolve these legal
issues prior to conducting what may amount to a large ~mount of
discovery in places as far away as California, Arizona, Texas, Puerto Rico,

- 6-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 7 of 16

and

'Mexico.

The partes prose to selec represe~tative ca and to couc
limited discover in thos ca in order to prare disposite moti on
the preliminary lel issues. All other cases identi in PadtI, S!pt. .

well as those to be file in the fure, would be stayed or adinisvely
dosed pending the outcome of the preiminary motns.
Legal

Issue No.4 in Part II, supra (the § 6621(d) interest nettng

claims), is almost entily a fac question; however, in the cotext of

thse

cases the reolutn of that interest nettng claim depends on the outcoe

of Issue No.5.
As to legal

Issue No. 5 in Part II, supra (the basis adjustment on

termination of the partnerships), the fact questions related to that issue are

not as extensive as for Issues Nos. 1-3. Even so, for those cases that

present this issue the legal questions are almost identicaL. :he partes
propose to select representative cases for discovery and for dispositve
motions and to stay or administratively close the remaining cases and all
new cases with the same issue.

The selection of representative cases would avoid the duplicative

- 7-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 8 of 16

use of time an reurce relate to discovery. It would al prote

\. :'"

jUdicial ecy an effcicy by avoidin multple trls and wo av
potentiaJly inconsistent desions bêlwêê the vars jud to wh
these case were orial assgne.

The partes propoe the fowing:
· to identi reprsentae caes by Der 4, 2002;

· to conduc inital discvery necary to preare init
dispoite motions for Issues 1-3 and dispositve motis fo
Iss 4Gld 5 by Apl 2,2003;

· for plamti to file a disposie motion for Issu 1-3 by Apl
30, 2003 (wit subsequent brifs to be filed by the pares in
accordance with RCFC 7.1); and

· for plaintis to file a dispositive motion for Issues 4 and 5 by
April 30, 2003 (with subsequent briefs to be file by the partes

in accordance with RCFC 7.1).

Following the final outcome of the representative cases, the parts
propose that a status conference be held to determine the most

appropriate and effcient means to address the remaining cases, for

- 8-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 9 of 16

ex:p'e, .by.~~~g and determing those case in a manner

consisnt wit _ 'oute of the resentave caes. or by rein
and trng those cases on th basis of th outcome of the le is~ in

... .' ~ ~,,~

the representave ca$es.
Plainti' attomey has auoried defedants atey to sitl

notce on his behal.

RespectfUy submied,

Il)~//O~ h
Date

,t~q_r_ ~. ~ D~~ THOMS E. REDOING /
Reddig & Asciates, P.C.

~èL S ~ - £'fL.eg':i

P. O. Bo 724328
Houston, Texas 77292-4328 (713) 965-9244 (713) 621-5227 (Facsimile)
Attorney for Plaintiff

- 9-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 10 of 16

\

/O/;//oíL
.

Date

ELL C. SPECKER

~~ C-. S~ a i It 0 Ie i

At of Recrd
U.S. Deprtt of Justi

Tax Diion

Court of Fedral Çlaim Sect
Post Ofce Box 26 Ben Frain Po OOce

Washington, D.C. 200 (2&2) 307''50 (202) 514-940 (Facsmile)
EILEEN J. O'CONNOR

Assitant Attmey General
MILDRED L. SEIOMA Chief. Cour of Federal Claims Sect

WILLIAM K. DRE Reviewer

I l) Il/ /tP :0
Date

Of Counsel

ú. I. ~ t.~. . S~ ll ~ lc. ~ Ø- 'e¿.L-e
,
Attoreys for Defendant

- 10-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 11 of 16

\

.';-' CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE

I ce th"Seæ of th foegg No of Indirec~el
, '; ","'

Cases has, ths 11th day of Ocr, 20, be ma on plinJ _
counel by mag a copy th, in a po pre efve().~'-ll'

folo adres:
Thmas E. Redng" Esqir

Redg & Asocats, P.C.
P. O. Box 9243 Ho, Texa 77292-428

1~ ;/ ~A~~
U.S. Deparnt of juStce
Tax Diio

Post Of Box 26 Ben Fraklin Post Offce
(202) 307-6440

Co of Fedral Claims Secon

Washington, D.C. 2004

0: \Users\especker\prati\not i ce. rcfc40. 2 (b)

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB
t

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 12 of 16

~

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL ClA

No. 02-6 T
(Jud Bohdan A. Fur)

RONALD C. PRATI and MAY G. PRATl,

Plaint
v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant

JOINT NOTICE OF REPRESENTATIVE CASES

JAN 1 0 20

1. On October 11, 2002, the partes filed a joint notice of indirectl- _
related cases pursuant to RCFC 40.2(b) in the above-captioned case and
22 other cases.1 The notiGe recited that the parties_intended to select a

1 Four additional indirectly-related cases were filed on or after
October 11, 2002: Velusami and Pur

ani A. Arumugam v. United States,

Fed. CI. No. 01-1395 T; Charanjit Singh Dhillon and Mandy K. Dhillon, Fed. CI. No. 02-1477 T; Stanley C. and Ruth A. Sperling v. United
- 1 -

; JOINT
,¡

)-;/1,/ ,/" /l-/ r _ r ~'., - . '. " ',~:'/./?~

.... r-t . l'

i EXlBIT
å

.

i5

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 13 of 16

rel¥esenlatie case or cases and to request th suspensin of
proceedins in th remaining cases.

2. The part have id the foll cas as reree
cases:
Robert J. Islr and Susan L. Isler v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01..34 T
Jeffrey-T. Scuterj v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 01-358 T

Ronal C. Prati and Mary G. Prati v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-6 T
~

3. The par-s intend to request that proceedings in the remining

cases be suspended until final decsins are entered in Isler, Seuteri, and

Prati.

4. Plaintifs' attorney has autorized defendant's attorney to sign this

notiæ on his behalf.

States, Fed. CI. No. 02-1523 T; and Gordon Wand Elizabeth K. Ludwig v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 02-1730 T.

- 2-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 14 of 16
,.

\l

'w ..," .

l ~ \. . ,~;'

Respelly submited,

'11/03 .
Date

THOMAS E. REONG

~a.~D~ 5- ~. ~

.

~.¿ct'~~~

Redg & As1:es, P .C.

P. O.Bo 72432.
Houston, Texas 77292-4328 (713) 965-9244 (713) 621-527 (Facsimile)
Attorney for Plainti

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 15 of 16

'\

,",. ;7~'-'

'/9/lJ3 '
,

~_-n.. t!. ~.I ø .e.. 0 ~

Date

At DepaReJustice of of U.S.
Tax Divion Court of Federl Claims Sen
Pot Of Box 26

ELLEN C. SPECKER '

J-'f

Washingtn, D.C. 20

Be Frankln Pos Ofce

(202) 307..

(202) 514-94 (Facimil)
Asisnt Attrny General

EILEEN J. O'CONNOR
MlLDRED L. SEIDMAN

Chief, Co of Fedral Ctais Se
WILLIAM K. DReW Reviewer

~#. l-1MO'7

Date

Of Counsel

~~

Attorneys for Defendant

- 4-

Case 1:05-cv-01250-LB

Document 5-2

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 16 of 16
:

\

-

. ,;~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I cert tht servce of the foreging Joint Notice of Repråsta

Cases has, this 10t day of Janua, 2003, be made on plainti' counsel by mailng a coy theref, in a pota prepaid envélo,. tèlle
following address:

Thomas E. Redding, Esquire

Redg & Associates, P.C.
P. o. Box 924328 Houston, Texas 77292-4328

~/~
(202) 307-640

U.S. Departt ~f Justi Tax Division

Court of Fedra Claims Setion
Post Offce Box 26

Ben Fraklin Post Ofce
Washington, D.C. 20044

)): \~JHl'rs\espccker\prati \not, 1 r'c'. n~pc,I!'Ps