Whether the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial for fraud penalties imposed by the IRS in administrative proceedings, consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Jarkesy

No question identified. : BACKGROUND In June 2024, this Court held, in no uncertain terms: “[a] defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109, 140 (2024). In reaching this decision, it was of no moment that the SEC exclusively used in-house hearings to seek civil penalties imposed by the Executive Branch, and that this method of adjudicating such disputes was business as usual in securities litigation. The bottom line remained: when the civil penalty sounds in “fraud,” the Seventh Amendment requires that a jury determine whether the Government has proven its fraud allegations. Id. When seeking to impose punitive monetary exactions, there is no principled distinction between the fraud penalties the SEC brought in Jarkesy and fraud penalties the IRS brought in this case. Rather, consistent with Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, the Constitution “limit[s] how the government may go about depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property.” Id. at 141 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis added). The premise is as simple as it is structurally critical: when the Government seeks to penalize someone by taking their property for fraud, a jury must make that decision. After the Tax Court rebuffed Petitioners’ attempts to vindicate that right, they sought a writ of mandamus in accordance with this Court’s clear and long-held position that “the right to grant mandamus to require jury trial where it has been improperly denied is settled.” Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 511 (1959). REASONS FOR GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari should be extended by 60 days, for several reasons. First, the press of other matters will make submission of the petition difficult absent an extension. Undersigned counsel has been extremely busy with numerous recent and upcoming deadlines including the following: e Post trial briefing for a one-plus week specially set trial in the U.S. Tax Court in Miami, FL, that commenced on August 18, in three consolidated cases covering twelve taxable years in Curtin v. Comm’ of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 32212-15, 21530-16, and 2241-18, which includes over 200 stipulated exhibits totaling over 20,000 pages, for which the opening brief (seriatim) is due on December 19 and subject to an 80-page word limit (exclusive of the statement of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law). e A multi-week trial in a Florida state felony criminal case (Fla. 17th Cir.), State v. Augustin, Case No. 20-3084CF10A, which commenced on October 14 and continued through October 29 and resulted in a mistrial on all counts, which are required to be retried within 90 days. e An October 29 deadline for a petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court in Wright v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 24-10563, 2025 WL 2167378 (11th Cir. July 31, 2025) (pro bono case). e A November 3 deadline for an opening brief in United States v. LizonBarias, case no. 25-10824 (11th Cir.). e A multi-day trial in a Florida state felony criminal case (Fla. 17th Cir.), State v. Jean, Case No. 25-4630CF10A, pursuant to a speedy trial demand, which is scheduled to commence on November 17. e A multi-day bench trial starting on December 2 in Est. of Evelyn Solomon, et al. v. Comm’, case no. 20102-19 (U.S. Tax Ct.). e Oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit during the week of December 8 in United States v. Girard, case no. 242097 (3d Cir.). Second, no prejudice would result from the requested extension. Whether the extension is granted or not, the petition can be considered this Term—an4d, if granted, the case will be argued and decided next Term. Counsel for Respondent? has kindly confirmed that Respondent has no objection to the requested relief. Finally, the petition is likely to be granted. The Tax Court’s decision denying a jury trial on the issue of fraud liabil