It’s Friday, but the enterprising Tax Court blogger can hardly say “TGIF”, because there’s rarely if ever an opinion out of Tax Court on Fridays, so I’m digging through the orders. and it’s a barren lot today. But The Judge With a Heart, STJ Robert N. Armen, Jr., saves the blogger’s day with a designated hitter that paraphrases the directive blasted from the loudspeakers of the New York City subways: If you see something, say something.

Well, per STJ Armen, the word now is: If you want something, say something. And for Tax Court purposes, say it using the downloadable form of petition from the Tax Court website, number your alleged IRS errors, and letter your material facts. Then sign with blue ink and snail-file the same timely, with check for $60 or Application for Waiver.

Unhappily for her, Rocky Brock, Docket No. 21494-13, filed 4/4/14, didn’t. She “…submitted to the Court a copy of the notice of deficiency, which copy was filed as an imperfect petition. Concurrently therewith petitioner also submitted (and the Court filed) completed and executed Tax Court forms for (1) Application For Waiver Of Filing Fee and (2) Request For Place Of Trial, both of which forms were reproduced from the Court’s website. Although the Court’s form for a petition is also available on the Court’s website, petitioner did not submit the petition form nor did petitioner otherwise state her disagreement with respondent’s deficiency determination. Nevertheless, the Court treated the notice of deficiency as a timely-filed (albeit imperfect) petition for redetermination of the deficiency pursuant to section 6213(a). See sec. 7502(a).” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Unless I got the dates wrong (which see at order, p. 1), Rocky was five days late with her imperfect petition, but we’ll let that alone for now.

IRS responds to the imperfect petition with a perfect motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, per Rule 34(b).

STJ Armen gives Rocky two thirty-day extensions and has the Clerk send Rocky the petition form to fill out, so she can tell her tale. But, like Hamlet, “the rest is silence.”

So STJ Armen tosses Rocky. “The imperfect petition in this case does not assign any error or allege any fact in support of any justiciable claim nor does it satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Any issue not addressed by a clear and concise assignment of error in the petition is deemed to be conceded. Rule 34(b)(4). Lacking any averments tending to show error in respondent’s basis for the deficiency, petitioner is deemed to have conceded the correctness of respondent’s determination. See Swain v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 358, 362 (2002). Moreover, petitioner has not stated what relief she seeks from the Court; therefore, the petition also does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 34(b)(6).” Order, at p. 2.

So Rocky, the deficiency stands. And Rocky, if you want something, say something.