I Need Not, Of Course, Translate

This is the sequel to my blogpost “With Friends Like Him”, 2/26/13. Judge Kerrigan, the embodiment of long-suffering forbearance, finally loses it after six years of masterful inaction by Raul Salvagno and his next friend, Alexander Salvagno, in Raul Salvagno, Incompetent, Alexander Salvagno, Next Friend, Docket No. 16800-07, filed 5/13/13.

I offer this gem as an example of how far procrastination and dodging can carry a taxpayer, and in rebuttal of the oft-times stated jibe that Tax Court is hostile to taxpayers.

Raul is an incompetent because “Petitioner is a 74 year old incarcerated person serving a 20 year sentence at FCI Otisville.” Order, at p. 1. For those of you on the right side of the law, FCI (Federal Correctional Institution) Otisville is a medium-security (with a satellite low-security) facility 70 miles northwest of the Big Apple. Raul’s delictions aren’t stated, but we can assume they have a certain substance if he’s doing 20.

Enter Alexander, the frequenter of law libraries. In Sir William Schwenk Gilbert’s immortal words, like the House of Peers, Alexander “Did nothing in particular, And did it very well”.

Judge Kerrigan: “The Court notes that in the almost 6 years this case has been pending, the Court has repeatedly denied respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute to provide petitioner with an opportunity to prosecute his case, as a pro se petitioner, through his next friend, or through counsel. Petitioner has not availed himself of those opportunities. Petitioner, whether individually or through his next friend, has been repeatedly non-responsive to the Court’s Orders, and non-compliant with the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, despite multiple warnings that failure to comply with either the Rules or the Court’s Orders could result in the dismissal of this case. See, e.g., Rules 123(a) and (b). During the time this case has been pending: (1) the matters contained in respondent’s Requests for Admissions were deemed admitted because of petitioner’s failure to respond; (2) the facts as set forth in respondent’s Motion to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not Be Accepted as Established were deemed established for the purposes of this case due to petitioner’s failure to either respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause dated September 12, 2012, or to participate in the stipulation process (frequently referred to as ‘the bedrock of Tax Court practice’; and (3) petitioner has not presented any documentation or other evidence to support any claim that respondent’s determinations are incorrect, see Rules 142(a), 149(b); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).” Order, at p. 2. (Citations Omitted).

And the IRS has been uncommonly kind to Raul and Alexander: “As respondent explained during the trial session of the Court held October 22, 2012: in the last five years, Respondent has made every attempt to communicate with Petitioner or Petitioner’s next friend in preparation for seven different trial calendars. These communication attempts include numerous telephone calls, eight letters informally requesting information, two sets of requests for admissions, one set of interrogatories, a request for documents and a proposed stipulation of facts. None of which — of these have been — has been substantially responded to by Petitioner or Petitioner’s next friend.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

And IRS even concedes the Section 6654(a) underpayment penalty.

But now Judge Kerrigan tosses the Salvagnos, and dismisses the petition for failure to prosecute.

Finally.