Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00683-MBH

Document 26

Filed 06/04/2007

Page 1 of 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOHN E. KETTLE and ANNE R. KETTLE, Plaintiffs, RAYMOND W. WEIDEMANN and JOAN C. WEIDEMANN, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER The court is in receipt of the parties' May 29, 2007 joint status report, reflecting the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Hinck v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2011, 2015 (2007), which concluded that the United States Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over 26 U.S.C. § 6404 interest abatement claims. In their joint status report and in conference with chambers staff on June 1, 2007, the parties propose that the interest abatement claims in the two above-captioned cases be dismissed. The court concurs. The interest abatement claims in Kettle and Weidemann are DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The two cases are not dismissed, however, due to the remaining untimely assessment claims and tax motivated interest claims in both cases. Nor does the Hinck decision impact the other cases consolidated under lead case Kettle v. United States, No. 04-683T: Plowman v. United States, No. 05-695T; Glass v. United States, No. 05-696T; Mitchell v. United States, No. 05-1074T; and Brandsted v. United States, No. 05-1315T. Kettle and the consolidated cases shall remained stayed pending the results in the cases reported on by the parties in their May 1, 2007 joint status report. The parties shall continue to file periodic joint status reports, with the next report due on or before Wednesday, August 1, 2007, and quarterly thereafter. In addition, on or before five days after a decision is issued in a case being reported on, the parties shall file a joint status report addressing the impact of the decision on the consolidated cases, include a copy of the decision, indicate whether a continued stay is proposed and why, or propose future proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___s/ Marian Blank Horn___ MARIAN BLANK HORN Judge

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nos. 04-683T, 05-1384T Filed: June 4, 2007