Or, Gambler’s Choice

A belated Christmas present for that Prince of Orthography, STJ Lewis (“The Right Spelling”) Carluzzo is delivered through the opaque verbiage of Kimberly J. Gafford, Docket No. 19207-13L, filed 12/26/13.

KJ gets off on the wrong foot. STJ Lew: “If either of petitioner’s affidavits, both filed October 29, 2013, were construed as a motion to compel some form of discovery, the motion would be denied. But neither is, so respondent’s Motion for Protective Order, filed November 27, 2013, and presently before us, is, at this point, unnecessary.” Order, at p. 1.

Moot? Maybe not. As I said in an earlier blogpost, “It Depends”, 10/22/13.

Only we now know upon what it depends.

STJ Lew: “Respondent [IRS] is free to construe the affidavits in the manner he sees fit, and further may choose to respond to, or ignore the demands, if any, made in those documents.” Order, at p. 1.

So it’s gambler’s choice: if IRS wants to respond, it may do so, in whole or in part, reserving (or maybe renewing) its protective order motion (in whole or in part), or do nothing.

In the meantime, lest KJ feel neglected or ignored, STJ has a pertinent suggestion to KJ et hoc genus omne: “If petitioner is unsatisfied with respondent’s response or respondent’s failure to respond, he should consult the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are available on the Internet, and proceed accordingly.” Order, at p. 1.

Here, KJ, I’ll make it easy for ya; paste in this URL: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/notice.htm

Then look at Rules 70 through 74, both inclusive.

Note that, although STJ Lew says IRS’ motion “is moot”, he didn’t deny it on that ground.

So the moral of Harry Golden’s tale remains: “Vot Did She Set?”