Attorney-at-Law

THE SLIDE

In Uncategorized on 06/04/2015 at 16:44

IRS wants to slide some documents into the record post-trial, after Judge Cohen caught them submitting proposed findings of fact based on the sliders, which of course weren’t in the record to begin with.

The petitioner leaps into the fray, filing an objection to IRS’s motion to reopen the record to do the sliding.

Judge Cohen is definitely not amused by the shenanigans of both sides. She gets a wee bit waspish.

While this is technical, it can spare the USTCPs and lawyers among you a judicial smack, so read Transupport, Incorporated, Docket No. 12152-13, filed 6/4/15.

As to the petitioner’s unrequested leap, “Petitioner was not asked or entitled to file an unsolicited response to respondent’s motion”. Order, at p. 1.

Remember, Tax Court plays the Simon Says gambit, “Mother, may I?” variation.

As for IRS’s would-be sliding, they are rebuked by Judge Cohen.

“The remedy proposed by respondent’s motion is not the preferred remedy. Admitting hearsay documents would require further testimony. The Court always compares proposed findings with the record and evidence admitted in the case to confirm the accuracy and fairness of the proposed findings. The appropriate remedy is an objection to the proposed findings and/or a motion to strike them from the offending brief if calling attention to a violation of Rule 151(e)(3), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, is warranted.” Order, at p. 1.

So petitioner’s leap is stricken from the record.

And IRS’s would-be sliding in the documents avails them not. Any proposed findings based upon the unslidden is, sua sponte, stricken from the record.

A novel concept this, judges who actually read the papers.

  1. I’m surprised that the judge didn’t discipline the IRS attorneys who tried this.

    Is there no mechanism for doing this, or was the action not deserving of more than a strong rebuke?

    Like

  2. I’ve commented previously on the Tax Court bench’s restraint (I won’t say “reticence”) in such matters. Perhaps in this case striking the offending findings was a sufficient deterrent, as this may lead to an adverse outcome for the wannabe slider. But this wasn’t a designated order, so none but the litigants themselves, my faithful readers and I will ever see it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: