Attorney-at-Law

BEYOND OBLIGING

In Uncategorized on 01/31/2014 at 04:53

That’s  Judge Gustafson. He’ll tell you what you meant to allege, but didn’t, and let the other parties know as well. Can’t do more than that.

On a day when the only T. C. Memo. was a thoroughly baseless claim for kiddie credits, and the designated hitters were mostly clean-ups of pre-Rand refundable kiddie credit deficiencies (see my blogpost “The Rebate Debate – Part Deux”, 11/18/13), it was time to survey the orders.

Every so often there’s a hidden gem. And Judge Gustafson has one, Tracey L. Pinson, Docket No. 12925-13, filed 1/30/14.

Tracey has petitioned for Section 6015 innocent spousiness. Darryl Dennis moves to intervene (late). IRS doesn’t care, and Tracey wouldn’t care, if Darryl would tell her why he’s intervening, what position he takes as to Tracey’s petition, and what he wants Judge Gustafson to do. Since trial isn’t for three months, if Darryl can tell Tracey timely, she can prepare for trial if Judge Gustafson lets Darryl in.

Now some judges would send Darryl back to the drawing board, and tell him to answer Tracey’s not-implausible requests.

But not Judge Gustafson.

He interprets the Notice of Intervention.

“However, the ‘Notice of Intervention’ that Intervenor lodged on January 13, 2014, states as follows:

“The grounds for the intervention and reasons why the intervenor Dennis disagrees with the Petition for Determination of Relief From Joint and Several Liability on a Joint Return served on the intervenor by respondent, are as follows:

“1.            Petitioner and intervenor are married and share the expenses for maintaining their household and supporting their daughter in Maryland.

“2.            Petitioner and intervenor separately filed income tax returns for the 2007 tax year.

“3.            At petitioner’s request, petitioner and intervenor jointly filed U.S. income tax returns on which they reported petitioner’s wage income and withheld taxes, intervenor’s business income and expenses, joint itemized deductions, and a joint tax liability for the tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. * * *”

“Although the notice does not explicitly so state, it is clear that the outcome Intervenor seeks is that petitioner not be relieved of joint liability. Thus, Intervenor has already provided the information that petitioners seek.” Order, at p. 2.

Aside from pluralizing the (presumably) singular Tracey (does anybody proofread these orders?), Judge Gustafson goes the proverbial extra.

A truly obliging judge.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: