USTC_RFI_12.1.17.pdf

Request for Information # 18-001

United States Tax Court

Future Electronic Filing-Case Management System

(EF-CMS)

Date Issued: December 1, 2017 Responses Due: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 i

Table of Contents

Introduction

Description of the Tax Court

Description of a Future EF-CMS

Information Requested

Industry Day Conference

Submission Instructions

- About the Tax Court ................................................................... A-1

- Case Processing Workflows ........................................................ B-1

B.1 Case Initiation ...................................................................................... B-3

B.2 Docket Management ............................................................................ B-8

B.3 Calendaring and Scheduling ............................................................. B-11

B.4 Trials and Hearings ........................................................................... B-18

B.5 Opinion Release and Publication ...................................................... B-21

B.6 Case Disposition and Closure ............................................................ B-22

B.7 Appeals ................................................................................................ B-25

- Bar of the Tax Court ................................................................... C-1

- Network Environment ............................................................... D-1

Introduction

This is a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the United States Tax Court (hereinafter “Court”).

The Court seeks written responses that provide functional, technical, cost, and other information regarding the potential acquisition, deployment, and implementation of a future electronic filing and case management system (EF-CMS, also referred to herein as “the System”). The Court requests that responses be provided on or before Tuesday, January 16, 2018. The Court also invites participation in an Industry Day Conference that will be held in Washington, D.C.

on Thursday, December 14, 2017. Questions regarding this RFI can be emailed to clerk@ustaxcourt.gov.

This RFI is solely for information, planning, and market research purposes. The Court may use information provided in response to this RFI to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP). However, this RFI does not commit the Court to procure a future EF-CMS. The Court will not reimburse either for costs associated with attendance at the Industry Day Conference, or for costs associated with responding to this RFI.

The cost estimates requested by this RFI are for market research purposes only, and will not be binding with respect to any RFP that the Court may subsequently issue. Vendors choosing not to respond to this RFI will not be penalized in any way in connection with any future Court solicitations.

Description of the Tax Court

The United States Tax Court is an independent Federal court with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Court adjudicates disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Court conducts trial sessions and hearings in Washington, D.C., and in 73 other cities throughout the United States. The Court maintains space in 37 of those other cities and borrows space in the rest.

The Court currently has about 23,000 open cases. Tax Court cases are initiated by a petitioner. The petitioner is self-represented in approximately 70% of the cases filed with the Court. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the respondent in each Court case, and is always represented by IRS counsel. The Court requires certain case filings to be made electronically. The Court also allows for public walk-in and electronic access to most case records.

Appendix A describes certain aspects of the Court’s operations that relate to electronic filing and case management. Appendix B presents case processing workflows that the Court expects will be supported by a future EF-CMS.

There are currently approximately 25,000 registered Court practitioners, representing both petitioners and the IRS. The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will support certain workflow processes relating to the Bar of the Court.

Appendix C describes those processes.

The Court maintains a data network that operates in a Windows environment and supports approximately 250 internal users. Appendix D describes the Court’s current network environment in more detail. The Court currently contracts with Iron Bow Technologies, LLC for a broad variety of network services. The Court expects that a contractor that provides support for a future EF-CMS will work closely with the Court’s network services contractor.

The Court utilizes Volume 14 (Procurement) of the Guide to Judiciary Policy for procurement matters which is available at http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol14-2017-01-18.pdf.

Description of a Future EF-CMS

The Court is considering implementing a future EF-CMS that will have certain capabilities and will support certain workflow processes. The Court’s expectations regarding the capabilities of a future EF-CMS are set forth below in this section.

The case-related workflow processes that the Court expects a future EF-CMS to support are described in general terms in Appendix B. Appendix C describes the non-case-related processes relating to the Bar of the Tax Court that the Court expects a future EF-CMS to support. Throughout Appendices B and C, the Court refers to internal Court users and System features. Regardless of the references used in describing the Court’s current processes, the Court would prefer automation or automation support wherever possible.

Compatibility: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will be compatible with the Court’s current technical environment (see Appendix D, Network Environment), and will apply best practices for System security and confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data, including protection of personally-identifiable information (PII).

Accessibility: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will utilize an intuitive web-based interface with customizable user screens and interfaces that is accessible from a variety of internal and external platforms, including desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. The Court expects that internal Court users will be able to access a future EF-CMS remotely using either Court-provided devices through a secure VPN connection, or personal devices through a standard HTTPS connection using Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 or higher. In addition, a future EF-CMS will utilize access controls, with the ability to customize restrictions and permissions. The Court also expects that a future EF-CMS will be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, except for scheduled downtime and standard maintenance windows.

Electronic Filing (eFiling) and Electronic Service (eService): The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will provide for eFiling and eService, and will allow the Court to lock case records so that no external electronic filings can be made.

Ticklers/Alerts/Notifications: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for ticklers, alerts, intelligent notifications (including intuitive generation of proposed notifications and orders), and administrative alerts and notifications regarding System behavior and performance. The Court expects that these features will be automated, customized with user-based permissions, and capable of being applied for both internal and external users.

Data Extraction and Indexing: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for the digitizing, storing, and processing of documents. The System will include an advanced indexing capability that transforms image content (e.g., PDFs, JPGs, TIFFs) into indexed content that is usable and searchable. In addition, the Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for automatic data extraction from structured and unstructured machine-readable documents, and automatic transfer of data into System fields. Finally, the Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for the application of rules to document data, thereby enabling the System to generate proposed notifications and orders for user action.

Court Analytics: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will be capable of generating standardized and customizable reports, charts, graphs, and geographical information system (GIS) maps that can be exported into formats that can be viewed, edited, and saved, such as MS Word, MS Excel, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

The Court also expects that a future EF-CMS will be capable of providing a variety of case management metrics, including, but not necessarily limited to, caseload, specific case types, disposition, self-represented (pro se) versus represented petitioners, and cases with pending due dates by category. The Court further expects that a future EF-CMS will be capable of providing analytics and reporting on various operational areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, revenue collection, internal and external audit trails, courtroom use, and the Tax Court Bar.

The System will also be capable of providing log reports for usage and security-related monitoring, and response and diagnosis of technical problems, including user errors.

Data Archiving and Record Retention: The Court will retain ownership of all data maintained and managed by the vendor in support of the future EF-CMS, as well as all reports maintained and managed by the vendor, plus any documentation used to describe the architecture, design, requirements, processes, test cases, etc. used to build and maintain the future EF-CMS. The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for the archiving of electronic records for various periods of time based on the Court’s record retention policy. The Court also expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for the following archiving processes:

Auto-Archiving. Maintaining an automated records retention schedule based on a rules-based process that considers the type of record and the retention policy to be applied.

Data Parsing. Allowing electronic data associated with a particular case to be parsed into active and archived data.

Tiered Data Archiving. Moving to a variety of storage media, based on performance, frequency of access, or defined data sets.

Public Access to Court Records: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will include a public viewer platform that is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, except for scheduled downtime and standard maintenance windows. This public access interface will be severable from the rest of the System, so that the Court can temporarily disable public access without interfering with the other functions of the EF-CMS. This public viewer platform will include the following capabilities:

Search of Court case records. The public will be able to search all publicly available electronic Court case records. This search function will be able to support natural language searches, as well as Boolean search requests. The public will be able to search Court records by one or more parameters.

Online document requests. The Court is considering a System that would allow the public to submit online document requests for approved documents through an interface that allows for the selection of specific case number(s) and docket entry number(s). The public would then be able to select a delivery option (i.e., electronic or via mail) and pay for the service.

Search for active Court practitioners. The public will be able to search the

Court’s Member Directory by practitioner name and/or location (state, zip, and region). Search results will return practitioners who the Court considers to be in good standing and are therefore authorized to practice before the Court, as well as practitioners who have been suspended or disbarred. The search result will clearly indicate the practitioner’s current status with the Court.

Court Fees: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will process electronic payment of case filing fees, application fees, and other Court fees through Pay.gov (www.pay.gov). The System will include a web portal through which external users can request and pay for copies of case filing documents. The Court also expects that real-time fee payment will be integrated with other processes, including case initiation and applying for admission to the Tax Court Bar. The Court further expects that a future EF-CMS will include comprehensive and configurable fee payment reporting.

Information Requested

Through this RFI, the Court hopes to gain a comprehensive understanding of the functional and technical capabilities of available EF-CMS solutions, and of the potential costs, schedule, and risks that would be associated with the acquisition, implementation, operation, and maintenance of such solutions. The Court therefore requests responses to this RFI that will provide the Court with information on the capabilities and expected cost for future EF-CMS solutions that include the capabilities described above in Section 3 and also support the work processes described in Appendices B and C. The Court welcomes all responses, including responses from vendors that can provide only partial solutions, and responses that address only portions of the capabilities described above in Section 3 and the work processes described in Appendices B and C. The Court reserves the right to request additional information regarding any response which, in the Court’s opinion, is necessary to understand the information provided in that response.

The Court requests information regarding (1) the capabilities of such a future EF-CMS solution, and the processes it might support; (2) the process of preparing, deploying, and implementing such a solution; and (3) the costs to the Court associated with acquisition, deployment, implementation, operation, and maintenance of such a solution. The Court also requests information regarding training and help desk support, as explained at the end of this section.

Capabilities and Process Support: The Court requests that responses explain how, and the extent to which, a proposed future EF-CMS solution would provide some or all of the capabilities referred to in Section 3 above, and would support some or all of the workflow processes described in Appendices B and C. The Court also requests that responses describe any other related capabilities and/or workflow processes that might be enabled or enhanced by the proposed solution. The Court also requests that responses provide information about hosting options, including on-premise, government cloud, or hybrid government cloud/on-premise, and associated cost, performance, and security benefits and risks. Finally, the Court requests that responses indicate which descriptions of capabilities or workflow processes that are set forth in this RFI, if any, warrant clarification if they were to be included in a future RFP.

Implementation: The Court requests that responses include a description in general terms of the steps and processes that should be taken for a smooth, efficient, and rapid deployment and implementation (including data migration of case and Bar member records) of a future EF-CMS solution. This description of steps and processes could include a timeline. Timeline milestones might include events such as: system design, software customization, data migration, testing, a pilot program, installation, activation, parallel operations, and cutover. The Court also requests that responses list and describe any additional hardware and/or software that the Court would have to acquire for the proposed solution to be implemented, and explain why that additional hardware and/or software would be needed.

Costs: The Court tentatively expects that the total overall costs to the Court for acquiring, implementing, and operating a future EF-CMS solution would fall into the following three broad general categories: (1) an initial fixed amount, or incremental amounts, as compensation for either writing new software, or customizing and/or configuring existing software (COTS), along with testing, training, and deployment; (2) a fixed annual license fee, in exchange for which the Court would receive software maintenance and upgrades, and perhaps training and help-desk support; and (3) compensation on a labor/hour basis for services ordered by the Court for the preparation and deployment of subsequent enhancements to the System after it has become operational.

The Court would prefer that the cost to the Court for the first category—software production, testing, training, and deployment—be divided into two or more distinct fixed increments based on the successful completion of specified milestones.

Milestones that could form the basis for incremental payment obligations might include completion of preliminary design, final design, testing, pilot deployment, and/or final deployment. Milestones could also include sequential development cycles of agile design, development, testing, and deployment.

The Court expects that the initial term of the contract would begin on the date of award, and run for one year thereafter. The Court would then have options to extend for up to four and one-half additional years.

The Court requests that responses discuss the Court’s tentative expectations regarding the costs that are set forth above, including but not limited to the extent to which those expectations comport with industry norms. The Court also requests that responses discuss, with the greatest possible specificity, the amount of each cost element likely to be associated with the proposed future EF-CMS solution.

Training: The Court requests recommendations and information regarding appropriate amounts and associated costs of both pre- and post-deployment training of internal Court users.

Tiered Help-Desk Support: The Court requests descriptions and potential associated costs of various levels of electronic and telephonic help-desk support for internal and/or external users.

Industry Day Conference

The Court intends to hold an Industry Day Conference (Conference) to exchange information with industry representatives regarding a future EF-CMS and possible solutions. The Court intends to hold the Conference on Thursday, December 14, 2017, beginning at 10:00 a.m., at the main courthouse of the Tax Court at 400 Second Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Open Session: The Conference will begin with an open session at which Court representatives will describe the Court’s mission, operations, workflow processes, technical environment, acquisition process, and expectations regarding a future

EF-CMS.

Q&A Session: After the open session, there will be a Question and Answer (Q&A) session during which Court representatives will respond to questions previously submitted to clerk@ustaxcourt.gov. Participants may also pose questions during the Q&A Session, to which the Court may respond during the session, or in a subsequent amendment to this RFI. Any information provided by the Court during the Q&A session that would be relevant in preparing a response to this RFI will be published as an amendment to this RFI.

One-on-One Discussions: After the Q&A session, Court representatives will meet with registrants for 30-minute one-on-one sessions. During those one-on-one discussions, registrants may demonstrate electronic filing and case management systems and/or tools. As part of these discussions, the Court will provide registrants with access to the Internet and a display capability for any such demonstrations. Registrants may contact the Court at clerk@ustaxcourt.gov to coordinate demonstration issues to avoid technical difficulties.

The Court will not disclose any information provided to the Court during a one-on-one discussion and deemed by the provider to be confidential or proprietary.

Registration: Registration for the Conference and the one-on-one discussions can be made through the “Industry Day Conference Registration” page which is available at https://events.ustaxcourt.gov. Attendance will be limited to the first 20 entity registrants. The Court reserves the right to hold an additional Industry Day Conference if there are more than 20 entity registrants.

Submission Instructions

The Court requests that written responses to this RFI be submitted electronically to clerk@ustaxcourt.gov no later than Tuesday, January 16, 2018.

Information submitted in response to this RFI will become the property of the Court. However, the Court will not disclose information that is submitted in response to this RFI if the RFI respondent deems that information confidential and does not wish to have it disclosed. Such information must be clearly marked as follows:

The title page of the RFI response document must be marked with the following statement: “This RFI response includes data that shall not be duplicated, used or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose except for use in the Court’s procurement process.”

Each page containing confidential information or data that the RFI respondent wishes to restrict must be marked with the following statement:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction on the title page of this RFI response.”

A-1

- About the Tax Court

The United States Tax Court provides a national forum for the expeditious resolution of disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that allows for careful consideration of the merits of each case and ensures a uniform interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court is not affiliated with the IRS. The Tax Court handles the vast majority of all substantive Federal tax litigation. Tax Court cases are tried by Judges; there are no juries in Tax Court. The Court is committed to providing taxpayers, approximately 70% who are self-represented before the Court, with a convenient place of trial, and, when their disputes involve relatively small amounts of taxes, simplified procedures.

The scope of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is set forth in Title 26 of the U.S. Code (the Internal Revenue Code). The Court’s jurisdiction includes income, estate, gift, and certain excise tax deficiencies, collection due process cases, claims for spousal relief from joint and several liability, partnership proceedings, declaratory judgments, disclosure cases, interest abatement actions, review of awards under the IRS whistleblower program, and review of denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport due to delinquent taxes.

The Court’s caseload varies from year to year based on a combination of the scope of jurisdiction provided by Congress, the level of audit and enforcement activity by the IRS, and the choice of forum by taxpayers. Between 27,000 and 30,000 cases are initiated in the Tax Court each year.

TAX COURT CASES FILED

Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2017

FY FILED

2009 30,379 2010 29,402 2011 28,900 2012 30,801 2013 27,039 2014 30,402 2015 29,117 2016 28,831 2017 27,091

A Tax Court proceeding commences with the filing of a Petition. A “Petitioner” is the party who initiates the case; the IRS is always the “Respondent”.

Because the Court tries cases in 74 cities nationwide, a case is not automatically assigned to a particular Judge when the Petition is filed. Rather, cases are

A-2 maintained in a “general docket” under the supervision of the Chief Judge until calendared for trial or otherwise assigned to a Judge.

Below is a description of each of the Court units that are involved in the various aspects of the Court’s current case management processes:

Office of the Chief Judge: Attorneys under the Chief Judge provide legal guidance to the Judges and chambers staff on difficult procedural and case-related issues. In addition, these attorneys assist with work in the Court’s “general docket”.

Intake Section: The Intake Section (“Intake”) is responsible for receiving and processing all incoming mail before its distribution.

Petitions Section: The Petitions Section (“Petitions”) receives and processes all Petitions and any accompanying documents as part of the case initiation process.

Docket Section: The Docket Section (“Docket”) receives and processes documents (other than Petitions) and maintains the “docket record” for each case. A docket record lists every document that is part of the Court’s official record in the case.

Calendar Section: The Calendar Section prepares term calendars, schedules cases for trial, and issues trial notices and orders.

Trial Clerks: A trial clerk attends each trial session with a Judge. While at a trial session, the trial clerk calls the calendar of cases, swears in witnesses, processes documents submitted at the session, orders the official transcripts of the proceedings, prepares a minute sheet of the proceedings, and prepares draft orders for the Judge.

Reporter’s Office: The Reporter’s Office reviews all opinions before filing to ensure stylistic conformity with Tax Court standards. It also processes all opinions for filing, both in slip opinion format and electronically, on the Court’s Intranet and on its Internet Website. The Reporter’s Office coordinates publication of Division Opinions and Court-reviewed Opinions in the United States Tax Court Reports published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Records and Reproduction Section: The Records and Reproduction Section (“Records”) is both the Court’s copy center and responsible for maintaining the Court’s official case records.

Admissions Section: The Admissions Section (“Admissions”) processes new applications to be admitted to the Court’s Bar. Admissions is also responsible for administering the biannual non-attorney examination, assisting with the administration of the Court’s Bar, and verifying that practitioners appearing on behalf of a petitioner are admitted to practice and in good standing before the Court.

B-1

- Case Processing Workflows

This Appendix B outlines each of the case processing workflows that the Court expects will be supported by a future EF-CMS, through a narrative description of each process, followed by figures depicting the current workflows of the Court. The workflows depict the Court’s internal processes and not those of its current case management system.

The following abbreviations are used throughout the figures:

CI Case Initiation DM Docket Management CS Calendaring and Scheduling TH Trials and Hearings OR Opinion Release and Publication CD Case Disposition and Closure

The following symbols are used throughout the figures:

Key

Task Start Event

End Event

Decision Gateway

Intermediate Event

Collapsed Sub-Process

B-2

The integrated figure below depicts the current relationship between these various case processing workflows.

B-3

The Court expects that a future EF-CMS solution will provide support for the Court’s case initiation process, described as follows:

A Tax Court case will be initiated by the filing of a Petition in one of three ways:

(1) Hand-delivering a paper Petition to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C.;

(2) Mailing a paper Petition to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C.; or

(3) Filing a Petition electronically.

A complete Petition packet should include a Petition that complies with the Court’s Rule 34, a copy of the IRS notice on which the Court’s jurisdiction is based (if any), a Request for Place of Trial, a Statement of Taxpayer Identification, and the Court’s filing fee. However, many Petitions do not conform with the Tax Court Rules, and some of the documents submitted will not become part of the official case record.

The Court expects a future EF-CMS will allow for the processing of these documents that are not part of the record.

Receipt of Petition: If a paper Petition is hand-delivered to the Court, a Court employee will stamp it with the date and time it was received, and provide the person who delivered it to the Court with a receipt. If a paper Petition is mailed to the Court, a Court employee will open the envelope and stamp the paper Petition with the date and time it was received. A person wishing to file a Petition electronically will be required to first register with the Court through the Court’s electronic filing system.

Initial Processing: All paper and electronic Petitions will be assigned a docket number in each calendar year’s sequential order through System-prompted authorized user action. Court employees will scan and upload paper Petitions to the Court’s document/case management system. An internal Court user will then review the Petition and all documents submitted along with it, and enter or verify certain attributes of data related to the case (e.g., petitioner’s name and address, type of case, amount in dispute, regular or small case election, place of trial, etc.).

The user will then note missing or erroneous information for correction or follow-up.

The Court’s Petition review process will include payment of the Court’s filing fee. Filers will be able to pay the filing fee electronically through pay.gov. The System will allow for filing fees paid through pay.gov to be associated with the appropriate case. In addition, the System will allow for payment of filing fees by check. If paid by check, a Court employee will scan the check for automatic transmittal to the U.S. Treasury. Checks that cannot be scanned for automatic

B.1 Case Initiation

B-4 transmission will be manually delivered to the U.S. Treasury. At the end of each day, the System will automatically generate a report summarizing all filing fees received.

Petitioners will also be able to apply for a waiver of the Court’s filing fee. Tax Court employees will review waiver requests as part of Petition processing. Internal Court users will grant or deny the requests based on financial information provided by the filer. If the Court’s filing fee is not paid, or if the fee waiver is denied, the System will prompt the user to issue an Order directing the payment of the fee.

Petitions will also be reviewed for signature. If the Petition is signed by anyone other than the petitioner, a check will be made as to whether the signer is admitted to practice before the Court. If the signer is an admitted practitioner, the practitioner’s identity will be entered into the case by Tax Court Bar number. If the signer is not admitted to practice before the Court, a letter/notice will be issued to the petitioner (with a copy to the signer) advising them that the signer of the Petition is not admitted to practice before the Court. An Order will also be prepared directing the petitioner to ratify the Petition.

Final Processing: Any additional Orders or Notices needed will then be electronically prepared within the System. A copy of the Petition and any related Orders or Notices that have been prepared during the processing of the Petition will then be served on both parties through System-prompted authorized user actions. To the extent any of the Orders include a deadline, the deadline(s) will be entered into a tickler system, along with respondent’s deadline to file an Answer.

The System will create a daily Service List of all documents served, and on whom, by the Court.

Case Status: Each case will be assigned a case status to reflect the posture of the case. The case status will change as a case progresses through the Court. The Court expects the future EF-CMS will allow for a case status to be associated with each case, and for that status to change through System-prompted authorized user actions.

B-5

Case Initiation Activity Sequences

Petitioner or Practitioner

Taxpayer (petitioner) or practitioner (member of Tax Court Bar in good standing) files petition in person

Petitioner or practitioner files petition electronically

CI-1

Petitioner or practitioner files petition by mail

CI-4

CI-2

CI-3

Petitioner or practitioner registers for electronic filing

Records Section Intake Section

Add date/time stamp on all documents received

Open Mail Provide walk-in a receipt of filing

Deliver all petition documents to

Petitions Section

CI-2

CI-4

CI-3

Deliver all petition documents to

Petitions Section

CI-4

Add date/time stamp on all documents received

B-6

B-7

Admissions Section

Is Signatore Member of

Tax Court Bar in good standing?

Enter Bar Counsel # into case record

Signed by Attorney who is not a member of the Tax Court Bar, or a member not in good standing

YesCI-4e

Receive Activity from

Petitions Section

Return to Petitions Section

Signed by non-attorney (e.g., tax professional) who is not a member of the

Tax Court Bar

Signed by “Power of Attorney”

Signed?

Notify Petitions Section that ratification

(signature) is needed

No

Issue Notice to Petitioner, with a copy to signer, advising that signer is not admitted to practice before the Court

Issue Notice to Petitioner, with a copy to signer, advising that Tax Court does not accept

Powers of Attorney

Return to Petitions Section

(f)

If ineligible due to failure to pay periodic fee, permit fee payment

Once fee paid

Yes

No

B-8

After a case is initiated, all documents and filings coming into and going out of the Court for that case are routed through Docket. The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will provide support for the Court’s docket management processes, described as follows:

Receiving Documents from External Users: The future EF-CMS must allow for parties to file documents either electronically or in paper. Generally, parties who are represented by counsel must electronically file documents after the case is initiated. Pro se litigants may, but are not required to, register for electronic filing.

If the Court receives a paper document, it will be scanned and uploaded, and then otherwise treated the same as an electronically filed document.

When a document is filed with the Court, it will be automatically added to a case record. The future EF-CMS must allow for the parties to submit certain categories of documents that will not be automatically added to the case record unless approved by an internal Court user. The System must also allow the parties to file sealed documents. The System must allow non-parties to file documents in specific instances.

After a document is added to the case record, the System will automatically generate a cover sheet with the case caption, docket number, title of document or filing, and date and time filed or submitted. The internal Court user will then perform a quality control inspection of the document and make any changes necessary to the docket record to accurately reflect the filing. An internal Court user will then initiate service of the document on the other party (if necessary) and electronically forward it to the appropriate internal user for action within the System. If the filing was in response to a Court Order, the System will prompt an internal user to clear the related due date from the tickler system, or mark it complete.

Court Generated Documents: Internal users will electronically prepare various documents within the System including Orders, Notices, and Decisions. If an Order issued by the Court includes a due date, the due date will be entered into the tickler system and a copy will be served on the parties through System-prompted authorized user actions.

Service on Parties/Counsel: All Tax Court practitioners must register for electronic service. Pro se litigants may, but are not required to, register for electronic service.

All documents filed with the Court must be served on the parties. If an internal Court user confirms from a Certificate of Service that a party has already been served, the Court will not serve that party. Otherwise, the Court will serve all documents (internal and external) on all parties, and counsel (if any). The Court will send an email notification with a link to the served document to any party

B.2 Docket Management

B-9 registered for electronic service in that case. If a party is not registered for electronic service, the Court will serve a copy of the document on that party by mail.

Data Attributes: Case-related filings and submissions will be assigned unique codes for purposes of analytics and data extraction. The System may auto-populate some due dates associated with documents in the case record into a tickler system.

In addition, the future EF-CMS will provide for automatic alerts and recommendations based on defined business rules when certain due dates are triggered.

Case Docket Records and Access: A future EF-CMS will generate case docket sheets that will include the docket number, parties, service parties, counsel, and the docket record which is a list of all filings and official proceedings in a case. Internal users and parties to the case may view all documents filed in a case through the Court’s eFiling portal.

Consolidated and Related Cases: A future EF-CMS will allow for the Court to consolidate two or more pending cases that have common issues and/or parties. The System will allow for both parties and internal Court users to make filings in some or all of the cases in a consolidated group. In addition, the System will also allow for internal Court users to group related cases that are not consolidated.

Docket Management Activity Sequences

DM-1

(1) Receive and Manage Documents from External Users activity sequence

Paper or Electronic?

Scan and upload to

CMS

Paper

System automatically generates cover sheet

Electronic

Perform quality control, and update if needed

Serve document on other party (if necessary)

If response to Court Order, remove tickler / due date

Is Court review required?

No

Yes

Court review

Stipulated Decision?

CD-3

Yes

Approval for filing?

Yes

DM-2

No

Case caption Docket number Title of document or filing Date / time of submission

B-10

DM-2

(2) Generate, Receive, and

Manage Documents from Internal Users activity sequence

If Order or Notice carries a due date or deadline, enter tickler / due date

Serve Order or Notice on parties

If Docket Section can confirm via Certificate of Service that a party has already been served a document, do not serve

If CMS auto-populates due dates, system provides automatic alerts and recommendations when due dates are triggered

DM-3

Generally, service is electronic; if not, service is by first-class mail

DM-3

(3) Manage and Maintain Docket Sheet / Record activity sequence

If document, Order, or Notice added to case record, System auto-populates docket entry

Allow Docket Section to modify docket entry

Docket Sheet lists docket number, parties, service parties, counsel, and docket record. All documents filed may be viewed internally and by the parties through the user’s e-portal. No fees imposed.

B-11

There are several unique aspects to the Court’s trial calendaring process.

Cases filed in the Tax Court are not assigned to a Judge at the time the case is initiated. Generally, a Tax Court case is placed in “general docket” status until that case, along with other cases, is added to a trial session.

The Court conducts trial sessions in the main courthouse in Washington, D.C., and in 73 other cities throughout the United States. Generally, the Court holds a trial session in each trial city at least once per year. The Court schedules three trial terms per year: Winter, Spring, and Fall. The Court creates a trial term calendar to set forth when and where the Court will hold trial sessions during each term.

All Tax Court cases can be divided into regular and small case categories.

Generally, small cases involve $50,000 or less per taxable period. A petitioner who wishes to proceed under small case procedures must affirmatively elect small case status. Regular cases are all cases that are not small cases. Each trial session can be one of three types: Regular, Small, and Hybrid (a combination of Regular and Small cases). See, e.g., Winter 2018 Term Calendar at https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/court_schedules/Winter_2018.pdf.

After a tentative trial term calendar is complete, additional layers of information are added for each trial session, including: the Judge assigned; the specific cases for each trial session; courtroom reservation and contact information; and the trial clerk, court reporter, and security officer assigned. The result of these additional layers of information is an integrated calendar.

Trial Term Calendar

B.3 Calendaring and Scheduling

Create Term Calendar with Date, Location, and Type (Regular, Small, or Hybrid) for each Trial Session

Assign Judge to each Trial Session

Add Cases to each Trial Session

Add Courtroom Reservation Information to each Trial Session

Assign Trial Clerks, Court Reporters,and Security Officers to each Trial Session

B-12

The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will provide support for the Court’s calendaring and scheduling processes, described as follows:

Trial Term Calendar: The Court’s trial term calendaring process for each trial term consists of several steps. First, the Court ascertains the number of cases, by type, that are eligible for trial in each trial city. Next, the Court considers, among other things, the number of cases eligible for each place of trial, the last time a trial session was held in a city, courtroom availability, holidays, other city events, and Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic schedules.

After a tentative trial term calendar is prepared, it is transmitted to the individual Judges of the Court, and they may request assignment to specific trial sessions.

After requests are considered, a Judge is then assigned to each trial session, and the official trial term calendar is released. After release, users with necessary permissions will be able to modify the calendar as needed.

Trial Session Calendars: After the trial term calendar is final, approximately 150 cases are automatically assigned to each of the trial sessions to create trial session calendars. Those case assignments are based on criteria that include initial filing date. When a case is added to a trial session calendar, trial session notices and orders will be automatically generated within the System, served on the parties, and added to the case record. In addition, the System will change the case status to “Calendared”. Trial session calendars are automatically updated as cases are added or removed. If any changes to the trial session calendar are made, notifications are generated and served on the parties and/or distributed to designated internal and external individuals.

The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for internal Court users to effect global service on all parties, or categories of parties, to cases on a particular trial session.

The Court also expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for the generation of travel authorization forms for Judges and trial clerks for each trial session.

Scheduling of Resources: The Court coordinates the scheduling of space and staff resources for each trial session. The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will incorporate courtroom space and staff information on an integrated calendar, including:

Reserving courtrooms and chambers in Court-leased spaces in buildings managed by the General Services Administration (GSA).

Reserving temporary spaces borrowed by the Court from a Federal, State, or local agency.

B-13

Providing contact and other information about courtroom space to internal users.

Scheduling trial clerks, court security, and court reporters.

Notifications/Alerts: The Court expects that a future EF-CMS will allow for notifications and calendar alerts, including alerts that will be sent to Judges assigned to a trial session about cases with certain attributes, and notices that will be sent to specified internal and external stakeholders when a calendar is officially released, modified, cancelled, or at other scheduled times.

Special Trial Sessions and Hearing Sessions: The Court conducts special trial sessions when the projected length of the trial of a case exceeds the time available during a normal week-long trial session. The Court expects that it will schedule hearings and special trial sessions in trial cities in the same manner as trial sessions. Therefore, all of the processes described above will be applicable to hearings and special trial sessions.

Sealed Cases: The Court also expects that a future EF-CMS will support specialized procedures that apply to cases for which the anonymity of a party or witness must to be protected from public disclosure. A future EF-CMS will allow for calendaring sealed hearings or portions thereof for which Court staff need access to the scheduling information but the public does not, and for permitting an internal search for the name of a petitioner where the public-facing name is “anonymous”.

B-14

Calendaring and Scheduling Activity Sequences

CS-1

(CS-1) Trial Term

Calendar sequence

For each location, Calendar Section identifies number of regular and small cases “at issue” and eligible for trial

For each location, Calendar Section prepares report of past case information

Calendar Section considers holidays, future events, and courtroom availability at location (conferences, sport events), academic LITC schedules

Calendar Section creates draft Trial Term Calendar with a sufficient number of cases for each location

Where appropriate, assign multiple Trial Sessions in one location or combine two locations to one Trial Session

Chief Judge and Chief Special Trial Judge circulate Term Calendar to other Judges to submit requests for assignment to specific Trial Sessions

Chief Judge assigns Trial Sessions to

Judges and releases Trial Term Calendar

After release, authorized users can modify the Trial Term Calendar as needed

CS-3

CS-2

After IRS (Respondent) files answer, no motions are pending, and not otherwise flagged as not eligible for Trial

# cases by Type, Judge, last Trial Session

Priority for certain case types in a location; otherwise, by date filed

(CS-2) Trial Session Calendar sequence

CS-2

For each location, verify “exception” cases remain valid

If case is now eligible for trial, exception is removed so case will be picked up for a Trial Session

Calendar Section generates Trial Session Calendar, and case Docket # is automatically associated with the Trial Session

System automatically changes case status to “Calendared”

If a “Calendared” case status changes, the system automatically updates Trial Session

Calendar

CS-3

CS-7

Cases where a motion or other response is pending, making the case ineligible for calendaring

Note: Courtroom location, if changed by Facilities Section, automatically updates

Integrated Court Calendar

B-15

Trial Clerks Section Supervisor schedules

Trial Clerks to Trial Sessions

TH

Court reporter Vendor notifies Trial Clerks Supervisor of reporter assignments

Courtroom Facilities secures temporary Trial location from other Government entity

Leased Courtroom?

Facilities provides Judge’s Chambers and

Trial Clerks Section updated leased building entry procedures

No

Courtroom Facilities / Facilities adds relevant information to

Integrated Calendar

Court maintains Integrated Court Calendar with all scheduling details; user rights defined, accessible from mobile devices

Facilities maintains data on leased and borrowed courtrooms

Facilities makes reservation for designated Trial Session dates, releases leased Courtroom for reservation by other Government entities

USMS schedules CSOs, and notifies

Court of CSO assignment

IRS notifies Clerk with name of Trial Session

Calendar Administrator and Clerk adds name to Integrated Calendar

Yes If Trial Session (regular or special), hearing, or other event is cancelled or rescheduled, leased or borrowed Courtroom is released or made available to other Government entities and the session removed from the Integrated Calendar

CS-3

(CS-3) Scheduling of Resources activity sequence

Begins after Court releases

Trial Term Calendar (Fall, Winter, Spring)

System automatically updates each Trial Session with name, title, contact information for all assignees

Address, phone, GSA and USMS contact, building access status and entry procedures, Occupancy Agreement expiration date, etc.

B-16

(CS-4) Service of Calendaring-related documents activity sequence

CS-4

Calendar Section creates and serves documents on Parties (~5 months before Trial)

System automatically adds index entry for Notice of Trial and SPTO, or SPTN, and the document to the case record

Calendar Section runs daily Service List

If Trial Session Calendar is re-released, a notice is automatically generated, entered on the case docket record, and served on the parties

For Pro Se Petitioners, ~30 days before Trial Session, Calendar Section generates and serves reminder Notice of Trial and LITC information

DM

THCS-5

Begins after Court releases

Trial Term Calendar (Fall, Winter, Spring)

(1) Notice of Trial with location and date (see Scheduling); (2) Standing Pretrial Order (regular cases) or Standing Pretrial Notice (small cases) specific to the trial session and Judge; and (3) a final status report form for parties to later submit; and, (4) if self-represented, the applicable LITC information sheet for the place of trial to petitioner.

(CS-5) Notifications and Alerts activity sequence

CS-5

After Notice of Trial is served on Parties, Calendar Section provides notification to Judge

When Trial Term Calendar is released or modified, Calendar Section notifies internal stakeholders, USMS, and court reporting vendor

TH

~1 week before Trial Session, system automatically generates and distributes Trial Session Calendar to identified stakeholders

List of cases by type at Trial Session List of cases where required document has not been filed List of cases with tax deficiency greater than $X amount

CS-6

(CS-6) Special Trial Sessions and

Hearing Sessions activity sequence

Judge issues Order scheduling Special

Trial Session or Hearing

Judge may add cases to a Special

Trial Session

Special Trial Session or Hearing is added to integrated Court Calendar

When Special Trial Session or Hearing is released or modified, Calendar Section notifies internal stakeholders, USMS, and court reporting vendor

DM CS-3

If a Special Trial Session or Hearing is cancelled or changed in some manner (date, time, etc.), notification is sent to Parties and the space reservation information is revised (with notification to space lease managers, as appropriate)

B-17

CS-7

(7) Judicial

Official Travel sequence

Judge and Trial Clerk plan for and conduct

Travel

Judge and Trial Clerk submit expense voucher

Finance Section…