John Milton’s famous line is the caption to Judge Wherry’s discussion of e-filing (which is never available for petitions or amended petitions) in Dan E. Butts & Patricia J. Butts, et al., Docket No. 20656-11, filed 8/7/15.

The opinion itself spends a lot of time on the proposition that an SFR is not a return that starts the three-year lookback for filing for a refund. I dealt with that in my blogpost “Lookback in Anger,” 12/12/11.

Dan & Pat want a Rule 161 reconsideration of their losing attempt at a refund. I blogged that one, too, in my blogpost “Lookback in Anger – Part Deux,” 4/15/15, so I won’t rehash what I said then, and what Judge Wherry says now.

Dan & Pat’s e-filing hit May 16, but as the opinion hit April 15, they were a day late on the thirty-day cutoff.

But Judge Wherry gives Dan & Pat a break on their late-filed reconsideration motion, because Tax Court’s web instructions are less than perfect.

“‘Documents filed after January 17, 2014, are entered on the record automatically as they are transmitted to the Court. They are eFiled and eServed as the Court receives them’ (using Eastern time). The Court appreciates that its narrative on the web site may have been confusing to petitioners and that they transmitted the motion, presumably from their state of residence, Nevada, at 11:08 p.m. Pacific coast time May 15, 2015, therefore the Court shall permit the late filing of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, as supplemented.” Order, at p. 1, Footnote 1.

Now the thirty-day cutoff arises under Rule 161, and not Title 26 USC, so maybe Tax Court has discretion for a reconsideration where they do not for a petition from a SNOD or NOD.

Takeaway—Practitioner, maybe so a late Rule 161 motion might be worth a try, with a sufficient tale of woe attached.

I didn’t want to end today’s blogfest without another Barbara Kupersmit coruscation.

Y’all will remember Barb. No? Well, Barb ran the giant slalom of Judge Gustafson’s conundrums (see my blogpost so entitled, 6/2/15), and came out a winner (see my blogpost “Repentance Can’t Cure Fraud,” 7/1/15).

She didn’t do so well with hubby Hal, as Judge Gustafson wouldn’t let Barb join up with Hal for this hoedown back in June, as more particularly described in my latter abovementioned blogpost.

But Barb is in there pitching. And Judge Morrison is on the receiving end, in Harold P. Kupersmit, Docket No. 22350-14, filed 8/7/15.

“This case is calendared for trial during the Court’s September 14, 2015 Trial Session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On July 6, 2015, the Court filed a motion by petitioner titled:

“The Triple Power of Quo Warranto; Scire Facais; Error Coram Nobis

The Pennsylvania Internal Court System

A Cancer On The Land

If You Can’t Trust Your Court System,

Who Can You Trust?

“The motion appears to make multiple requests of the Court, including: (1) a motion for damages purportedly on behalf of Barbara Kupersmith, (2) a motion to expand the lawsuit to include relief under 5 U.S.C. sec. 702, (3) a motion to enforce subpoenas, (4) a motion for judicial notice, (5) a motion for partial summary judgment, (6) a motion for costs under 26 U.S.C. sec. 6673, and (7) a motion to shift the burden of proof.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge, her surname is Kupersmit. But I will pardon the error.

It does, however, strain my native hue of resolution, but I will resist the temptation to expatiate on Barb’s latest, except to say you gotta love a litigant who won’t quit.

Judge Morrison apparently finds Barb less than amusing: “…petitioner’s July 6, 2015 motion is denied because it impermissibly joins motions together in violation of Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 54(b).” Order, at p. 1.

Must have been a long day in Judge Morrison’s division.