I didn’t blog Ann Marie Adams, 2013 T. C. Sum. Op.  57, filed 7/18/13, because it really didn’t say anything I thought worthy of my readers’ precious moments. It was a joust about tuition and fees for the Section 25A lifetime learning credit, and the statement Ann  Marie proffered didn’t prove what she paid or when she paid it.

So CSTJ Panuthos sent the parties off for a Rule 155 beancount. Now any number of Tax Court cases, large and small, end up with a Rule 155. The parties do the numbers, and the only thing left for Tax Court to do is enter decision based on the right set of numbers.

Ann Marie and IRS went off to do numbers, and of course couldn’t agree.  Well, prescient CSTJ Panuthos warned her back in July not to try to relitigate the case she lost: “The Court will enter a decision in this case pursuant to Rule 155 because of the concessions by the parties as enumerated herein. This will provide an opportunity for the parties to compute the correct tax on the basis of the mutual concessions and the opinion herein. Petitioner is advised that Rule 155(c) provides:

“(c) Limit on Argument: Any argument under this Rule will be confined strictly to consideration of the correct computation of the amount to be included in the decision resulting from the findings and conclusions made by the Court, and no argument will be heard upon or consideration given to the issues or matters disposed of by the Court’s findings and conclusions or to any new issues. This Rule is not to be regarded as affording an opportunity for retrial or reconsideration.” 2013 T. C. Sum Op. 57, at pp. 6-7.

Wouldn’t ya know, it, Ann Marie tries again.

CSTJ Panuthos won’t have it. Here’s his take, in Ann Marie Adams, Docket No. 13767-12S, filed 12/13/13: “… petitioner was provided an opportunity to file an objection to respondent’s Motion for Entry of Decision. On December 3, 2013, petitioner’s objection was filed. Petitioner attached documents to her objection attempting to show that the Court’s findings and conclusions were not correct. In the Court’s Summary Opinion filed in this matter the Court clearly set forth the provisions of Tax Court Rule 155(c) and pointed out that ‘… no argument will be heard upon or consideration given to the issues or matters disposed of by the Court’s findings and conclusions or to any new issues.” Petitioner’s assertions in her objection are precisely contrary to the Court’s rule which limit the Court’s consideration at this juncture. Harris v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 121, 124 (1992), aff’d, 16 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 1994); Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 12 (1998).” Order, at p. 1.

Decision entered based on IRS’ numbers.

Takeaway- It’s a beancount, nothing else.