Many times, when a Tax Court opinion is rendered, the story isn’t over. While sometimes Tax Court judges do indulge in arithmetic (see my blogpost “Tax Court as Preparer?”, 9/17/12 but even there a Rule 155 beancount followed), most of the time, to permit Tax Court to render a decision (how much money, if any, is owed?) when arithmetic is needed, Tax Court invokes Rule 155.

That sends IRS and petitioner(s) off to do the numbers. If they agree, then entry of decision follows. If not, each submits their own numbers, and they can argue about them, and the judge will choose her (or his) own.

But–and here’s the point (and my readers will doubtless say “And about time, too”) — Rule 155(c) keeps them on the straight-and-narrow.

“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.”

Except it doesn’t. Judge David Gustafson, obliging as always, doesn’t bother reciting the Rule.

He just tells Jackie H. Robinson, and Estate of Lolita I. Robinson, Jackie H. Robinson, Adm’r, Docket No. 248-11, filed 1/8/15, that he isn’t having any more argy-bargy about what he concluded in 2014 T. C. Memo. 120, filed 6/16/14 (and no, I didn’t blogpost it, because it’s the usual unsubstantiated deductions).

Now ordinarily, even though Judge Gusfason’s order is a designated hitter, I’d skip it, because there’s nothing here to long detain the tourist (or anyone else).

But the problem is endemic. Pro ses like Jackie H. don’t know Tax Court rules and won’t look them up. So maybe each reference to a Rule 155 beancount, rather than the throwaway line “Decision will be entered under Rule 155”, should include at the end of the opinion a statement like “The parties shall prepare and exchange computations within the time limits of, and in the manner set forth in, Rule 155. No additional, further or other argument is permitted.”

Will petitioners obey? Not if they want to stall; but disregarding the Rules, when made explicit, may be grounds for a Section 6673 delay-of-game chop.