In Uncategorized on 01/28/2015 at 16:06

Were I the true grammatical stickler that some have called me, I would have entitled this post “See With What We Have To Deal.” But Mr Jefferson’s (and Judge Holmes’) “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” (and even more so of womankind) requires I should forgo that locution.

Here is an extract from a curriculum vitæ, or more properly a cursus honorum, of a currently-sitting Tax Court STJ. “Received undergraduate and law degrees, Villanova University, 1971 and 1974. Admitted to New Jersey Bar, 1974. Served as law clerk, New Jersey Superior Court Judge. Associated with law firm in Bridgeton, NJ, 1975, also serving as city prosecutor. From 1977 until appointment as Special Trial Judge, employed by the Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, as attorney, Washington, DC, District Counsel’s Office. In 1983, appointed Special Trial Attorney on staff of the Associate Chief Counsel, Litigation. From 1992 to 1994, assigned to the Office of Special Counsel, Large Case. Appointed Special Trial Judge, United States Tax Court, on August 7, 1994.”

Impressive, right?

Much less impressive is a certain blogger’s resume: “BA cum laude Hunter College (Bronx) 1963; LL.B. Cornell Law School, 1966 (Moot Court Board); U. S. Army, 1967-1969. Ten years New York State Attorney General’s Office Grade 28 Attorney. Private law practice, large and small firms and solo, 38 years. Admitted New York State, US District Courts Eastern and Southern Districts, United States Tax Court. Enrolled Agent.”

And this is what that esteemed jurist and this much more humble practitioner has to deal with. No opinions today, so here’s a designated hitter.

Jerald E. Sark, Docket No. 20861-14, filed 1/28/15. Case comes up on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

For you civilians, that means that the petition doesn’t set forth any facts that establish the petitioner’s legal right to anything.

“In a notice of deficiency… respondent [IRS] determined a deficiency in, and imposed additions to tax with respect to petitioner’s 2011 Federal income tax. According to the notice, petitioner received ‘Nonemployee Compensation’ during 2011, but failed to file a 2011 Federal income tax return reporting that income. These points are not disputed by petitioner in the petition, amended petition, or in anything else he has submitted. Instead, in page after page of frivolous assertions, petitioner, who was living in Texas when the petition was filed, insists that he is not subject to Federal income taxation or otherwise obligated to have filed a 2011 Federal income tax return. Given the amount of income attributed to him in the notice, he is mistaken on both points… and nothing else needs to be said in that regard. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).” Order, at p. 1 (Citations omitted, but they’re the usual ones).

“We further note that nothing in the petition, amended petition or anything else submitted by petitioner suggests that the deficiency is overstated because petitioner is entitled to deductions not taken into account in the notice. And to the extent that anything submitted by petitioner explains his failure to file a 2011 Federal income tax return, the explanation hardly constitutes reasonable cause.” Order, at p. 2.

Of course, Jerald gets tossed, with a showing of the usual Section 6673 yellow card.

So, gentle reader, spare some pity for Exalted Lew, with a wee bit of pity left over for Humble Lew, as we deal with this stuff.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: