But don’t delay. And better still, if you’re going to Tax Court, read the Rules.

Fortunately for counsel in C&G Consultants, Docket No. 8598-14L, filed 8/11/15, Judge Gale puts them right, even though they ask imperfectly.

Counsel moves for reconsideration, claiming Judge Gale mistakenly denied subject matter jurisdiction over their motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

No, says Judge Gale, you didn’t read the Rules. And Taishoff says “nor did you read my blogpost “Ask Early, Ask Often,” 12/9/13“.

“The Court did not find that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion for litigation costs. As more fully explained below, the Court deemed petitioner’s Motion for Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs moot because, under a straightforward application of the Courts’ rules governing claims for litigation costs (Title XXIII of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure), petitioner had apparently conceded its claim by virtue of executing a stipulated decision that did not provide for such costs.

“The heart of the confusion here stems from petitioner’s counsel’s failure to appreciate that the Court’s Rules governing awards of litigation costs contemplate only a single decision being entered in a case. That single decision must include the award of litigation costs, if any. See Rule 232(f). (‘The Court’s disposition of a motion for reasonable litigation or administrative costs shall be included in the decision entered in the case.’) The requirement that an award of litigation costs be incorporated in a single decision in the case ‘is designed to simplify appeal procedures by incorporating into a single document the Court’s disposition of both the substantive issues in the case and the motion for reasonable litigation or administrative costs.’ Note accompanying amendment to Rule 232(f), 93 T.C. 1021.” Order, at pp. 1-2. (Footnotes omitted.)

But counsel gets lucky, because within six days after it was entered, they moved for reconsideration of the order that denied their litigation costs.

So Judge Gale distinguishes between C&G’s counsel, and the unfortunate Bill and Liz Foote, who got the boot (sorry, guys) from Judge Wherry in my abovecited blogpost.

Judge Gale vacates his decision, treats the parties’ stip of settlement as a stip of settled issues, grants the motion for reconsideration and tosses his previous order, and tells IRS to respond to C&G counsel’s claim for litigation costs.

Takeaway—Quoting from my blogpost above cited: “Read the Rules, guys. If you’re going to practice in Tax Court, or before the IRS, read the Rules.”