No, not the theme song from Mondo Cane, a 1962 pseudo-documentary, which tune produced any number of wedding singers’ outpourings. I must have danced, or waddled, through dozens of such, as friends took the plunge.

Rather, this is another example of defects of the “shoebox” gambit, as disclosed by that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, in a designated hitter, Jean Michel Cazabat, Docket No. 2271-14, filed 9/3/15.

JMC and IRS were dueling over document production. The principal bone of contention was JMC’s response to IRS’s demands that he fork over substantiation of four classes of business expenses. JMC claimed he had, but IRS wasn’t best pleased with JMC’s response.

“For each of these four classes of requested documents, petitioner responded that responsive documents ‘were enclosed with Petitioner’s proposed Stipulation of Facts as’ a specified exhibit. Respondent replies: ‘In response, petitioner referred respondent to voluminous bank and credit card periodic statements he had provided earlier. Respondent respectfully requests that petitioner be compelled to indicate, in a meaningful way, how the proffered documents support the expenses.’” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Gustafson finds IRS is right: “Without having the documents in front of us, we surmise that respondent is reasonable in asking for citations. A petitioner could not carry his burden of proof to substantiate deductions by submitting unexplained bank and credit card statements as evidence and then expecting the Court to puzzle through them and link the entries thereon. He would need to give testimony, presumably aided by a spreadsheet or other demonstrative exhibit, that would show the relevance of specific entries. In the right circumstance, a ‘summary’ under Fed. R. Evid. 1006 might be expedient. In any event, petitioner would need to offer more than his raw bank and credit card statements, and respondent is entitled to obtain that ‘more’ in discovery.” Order, at p. 2.

Most of the rest of the fight is over the Section 7525 adviser privilege, and Judge Gustafson finds JMC blew it. IRS refers to “various affidavits” wherein JMC’s adviser discussed communications with and to JMC.

Just a tad testy (for such an Obliging Jurist) at IRS’s want of specificity (“It would have been helpful if respondent had given specific citations to these ‘various affidavits’, which were apparently filed before the undersigned judge had jurisdiction over this case….” Order, at pp. 2-3), nevertheless Judge Gustafson obliges IRS by finding a couple paragraphs (hi, Judge Holmes) in an affidavit wherein said adviser advises all and sundry that JMC handed him everything he needed to prepare the return in question, that what he got enabled him to prepare a true and complete return, and that JMC never intended to understate income or tax due therefrom.

“It does appear, as respondent argues, that whatever privilege may have initially attached to communications between petitioner and Mr. X has indeed been waived.” Order, at p. 3. (Name omitted). If you’re going to argue reliance on your adviser, everything is a free-fire zone.

There’s more, but you get the idea.