The 1931 Florence Reece coalminers’ song is sung on two successive days by Tax Court, and only one side comes up with the right answer.

Both times it’s a Section 6015 innocent spouser, and the interrogated party is the attorney for both spouses.

First up is Ovadia Meron & Galit Meron, Docket No. 9172-11, filed 7/8/13. Galit claims she got no benefit from whatever Ovadia’s delictions might have been, but IRS claims she never prosecuted her claim to innocent spousehood.

The ever-obliging Judge Gustafson gives Galit a couple of weeks to come up with a reason why her claim shouldn’t be dismissed for want of prosecution, but throws in an admonition to her counsel: “Petitioners’ response shall also show why petitioners’ counsel does not have a conflict of interest when representing both spouses in this case.” Order, p. 1.

In short, bail, baby, bail.

Next up, doing the right thing, is the attorney for the former spouse of Cindy Palmieri, Docket No. 26110-10, filed 7/9/13. Judge Gale gets this one.

“…petitioner’s counsel, Mr X, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Motion), citing a conflict of interest in representing petitioner with respect to any claim for section 6015 relief in this case while simultaneously representing petitioner’s former spouse, Michael Palmieri, in Docket No. 26796-10. The Motion further states that petitioner does not object and that respondent’s position was unknown.” Order, p. 1. (Name omitted).

Judge Gale lets Mr. X out, being satisfied that withdrawal is appropriate.

Takeaway- See Circular 230, Section 10.29. See also Rule 1.7 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which applies to Tax Court practitioners (see Tax Court Rule 201(a)).