Let IRS be so advised. And who better so to advise than The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Implacable, Irrefragable, Indefatigable, Indomitable, Irrepressible, Illustrious (but never Inscrutable) Foe of the Partitive Genitive, Judge Mark V. Holmes?

Judge Holmes tells it in the plainest words possible: “The Court urges the IRS to make this index comprehensible to a nonlawyer.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

If desirous of perusing Judge Holmes’ direction and the bases therefor, the reader is directed to Estate of Antonio Santillan, Deceased, Marcos Santillan, Special Administrator, Docket No. 9848-13L, filed 1/9/15.

It’s a CA-based petition from a NOD, which means “record rule”. For those tuning in late, the “record rule” is the contrapositive of the old Yellow Pages slogan: “If it’s not in here, it’s not out there”.

So all Judge Holmes can consider is what Appeals had before it. And the question in advance of judicial review is “what did Appeals have before it?” Marcos and IRS should agree, but if they can’t, IRS should give Marcos a list of what IRS claims Appeals had before it…in people language.

Then Marcos can fight about what documents weren’t before Appeals that IRS claims were, and what documents were before Appeals that IRS left out.

Of course, if Marcos and IRS can’t agree, Judge Holmes will sort it out at the hearing.

Anyway, Judge Holmes “…will also hear at that time any arguments from both parties about whether or not the IRS did abuse its discretion in upholding the lien, and about whether there is any reason to send the case back to the IRS for reconsideration because of new evidence or a change in circumstance since the collection due process hearing was held.” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Holmes loves remands (see my blogpost “Back to the Future”, 8/1/11) almost as much as he loves Chenery (see my blogpost “He Loves Chenery”, 12/17/14).

But he loves writing like a human being even more. And inciting others to do likewise.