-17-
Following the remands, these cases were assigned to Judge
Harry A. Haines, a Judge who was not involved in the prior
proceedings in these cases.10
II. Amendment to Rule 183
In response to the Supreme Court’s holding in Ballard v.
Commissioner, 544 U.S. 40 (2005), the Court amended Rule 183 to
provide a procedure for service on the parties of a Special Trial
Judge’s recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law and
the filing of objections and responses. The pertinent portions
of new Rule 183 state as follows:
(c) Objections: Within 45 days after the service of
the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of
law, a party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law. A party may respond to another
party’s objections within 30 days after being served
with a copy thereof. The above time periods may be
extended by the Special Trial Judge. After the time
for objections and responses has passed, the Chief
Judge shall assign the case to a Judge for preparation
of a report in accordance with Code section 7460.
9(...continued)
that case, i.e., that there is no deficiency and no addition to
tax due from the Lisles for the taxable year 1984, was entered
Nov. 20, 2003, and is otherwise final. See secs. 7481(a)(1),
7483. Although the Clerk of the Court notified the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of this discrepancy, the Court has
received no further instruction from the Court of Appeals on this
point. Under the circumstances, the Court will assume that
docket No. 20219-91 was included in the Court of Appeals’ mandate
as the result of an inadvertent clerical error and docket No.
20219-91 shall remain closed.
10 Judges Mary Ann Cohen and Howard A. Dawson, Jr., and
Special Trial Judge D. Irvin Couvillion have taken no part in the
review of these cases on remand. See Ballard v. Commissioner,
429 F.3d at 1032 n.7.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011