Attorney-at-Law

“I’LL HELP YOU TRY YOUR CASE”

In Uncategorized on 12/15/2015 at 16:29

I’ve said he’s obliging. I’ve told how he’ll visit you in the Stony Lonesome to hear your case, if need be. He designates his orders, making light the task of the hard-laboring blogger racing a deadline. He does everything but bring coffee and Krispy Kremes to calendar call, to help out hapless petitioners. As I said before, “He’ll tell you what you meant to allege, but didn’t, and let the other parties know as well.” And he’ll let petitioners know that ex parte communications with the Court don’t cut it.

That’s Judge David Gustafson, Jurist and mensch (if I may use an obscure vernacular term). And you can check out my multitudinous demonstrations of all the foregoing by reviewing the archives on my website.

Today Judge Gustafson again shows his sterling good nature in Stewart Bradley Scott, Docket No. 5403-15, filed 12/15/15.

Stew double-faulted, but claims unequal protection of the laws and the software did him in, respectively. Fault One: writing off his son’s tuition as a charitable deduction; claims the software put the right info on the wrong lines in each of the two years at issue.

Fault Two: Trying to claim at examination that he was entitled to take the educational expense deduction even though he filed MFS. But Section 222(d)(4) disallowed the deduction for MFS. PS- The deduction itself sunsetted at the end of 2014.

As to Fault Two, Judge Gustafson tells Stew to take it up with Congress. Check out my blogpost “Playing Favorites,” 4/18/13, where Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton bestows the hammer on Nancy Louise Field’s attempt to play the Fifth Amendment gambit, Due Process variation.

But as to Fault One, Judge Gustafson says that while the numbers stand on the deficiency, paraphrasing Scotland’s greatest, “gude faith, he maunna fa’ that.” So IRS gets summary J on tax, but not penalties. Let Stew prove the software played him false. And here’s how to play it, Stew.

“Without prejudging the issue, we point out to Mr. Scott that defenses premised on allegedly faulty software are generally unsuccessful, and that if he intends to assert this defense, he should prepare to corroborate his testimony on the point by additional evidence of the actual operation of the software. That is, he should, if possible, be able to demonstrate at trial that the software yielded a charitable contribution when he entered an educational expense. If he is unable to bring to trial a computer on which the software is running, then he should consider obtaining screen shots or other evidence to show the facts that he alleges about the software. We also draw Mr. Scott’s attention to our standing pretrial order…, which requires him to share with the IRS in advance of trial …all the evidence he intends to offer at trial. If a pretrial telephone conference with the Court would facilitate the parties’ trial preparation, then either or both of them may initiate a telephone call to chambers… for the purpose of scheduling such a conference.” Order, at p. 3.

Short of lugging his trusty laptop over to Stew’s study, downloading Stew’s software, and hauling it over to the Quaker City (where trial is to take place), what more could Judge Gustafson do?

 

Advertisements

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: