As I conclude my holiday visit to my nearest and dearest here in The Lone Star State, I hum the June Hershey-Don Swander ballade that spent five weeks atop The Hit Parade in my natal year. And Judge Laro has composed a coda thereto, on this rainy Friday when there are neither opinions nor designated hitters bursting from the glassy gates at 400 Second Street, NW.

And it’s more about Richard H. Cullifer, Transferee, Docket No. 20177-11, filed 4/10/15.

You’ll doubtless remember Cullifer’s Travails. What, no? Well, refresh your recollection with my blogpost so entitled.

Poor ol’ Cullifer got et, as they say here in East Texas. So now he’s in a Rule 155 beancount with IRS, and the parties seem to have gotten their numbers together, save on one point.

Judge Laro: “In his… Computation for Entry of Decision, petitioner asserts that respondent is not entitled to collect prejudgment interest from petitioner under Texas state law. Respondent does not address this issue in his calculations.” Order, at p. 1.

“Prejudge not, lest ye be prejudged,” as a much more exalted personage remarked never. Or so Cullifer would have Judge Laro rule.

Of course, the questions immediately coming to mind are (1) what, if anything, has Texas State law to do with transferee prejudgment interest on Federal income tax? and (2) If Texas State law is controlling on this point, what exactly is tort-reforming Texas State law?

Judge Laro isn’t going to do anybody’s homework for them, so “…the parties shall each file with this Court a Memorandum in Support of Computation of no more than 10 pages, briefing the Court on the issue of whether respondent is entitled to prejudgment interest from petitioner in this case. To the extent that the prejudgment interest issue is a matter to be decided in equity, the parties shall brief the Court, within the pages allotted, on whether respondent is entitled to collect prejudgment interest from petitioner in equity.” Order, at p. 1.

And they each have two weeks to do it.

This is not about interest on income tax directly owed by Cullifer. Cullifer only owes because he was allegedly bamboozled by our old chums Mid-Coast Financial. But Section 6901(a) seems to put transferees into the ankle-strappys of transferors, so it’s interest from the date the liability was incurred, regardless if by transferor or transferee, no?

Cain’t hardly wait for Judge Laro’s answer.