In Uncategorized on 12/16/2015 at 17:36

No, not a reproach, just an echo of my blogpost yesterday, anent the obliging nature of Judge David Gustafson. See my blogpost “I’ll Help You Try Your Case,” 12/15/15.

In that blogpost, I quoted my earlier blogpost “Beyond Obliging,” 1/31/14, wherein I said “He’ll tell you what you meant to allege, but didn’t, and let the other parties know as well. Can’t do more than that.”

Well today, Judge Gustafson is at it again, and designating to boot. What a pleasure, especially as I am saddened after reading an account of one of my colleagues going down in flames in what looks like a SDLIA case today, which I’ll blog presently.

Josue Guerra, Docket No. 342-15, filed 12/16/15, is fighting about three (count ‘em, three) tax years, but doesn’t bother attaching the deficiency notice to his voluminous petition. And in the text of his petition (self-represented, of course) he mentions only one of the years, three separate times.

IRS says OK, you waived two of those years, and moves to dismiss those years.

Judge Gustafson, never one to shrink from his duty as protector of the pro se, digs deep.

“The motion accurately describes the first page of the 279-page petition, which does refer to ‘Tax Year: 2013’. It is followed by a Form 886-A for 2013 and receipts dated 2013. However, the petition is evidently in three parts, and page 1 introduces only the first part.

“Part 2 of the petition begins at page 104. It is similar to page 1, but it refers to ‘Tax Year: 2012’ and is followed (at page 106) by a Form 886-A for 2012 and (beginning at page 109) receipts dated 2012.

Part 3 of the petition begins at page 173 and is followed (at page 175) by a Form 4549 for 2011 and (beginning at page 179) receipts dated 2011. Page 173 refers to ‘Tax Year: 2012’, but it is evident that this is a typo and that 2011 was intended, since the amounts on page 173 relate to the 2011 documents that follow.

“We thus conclude that the petition intended to put at issue all three years 2011, 2012, and 2013.” Order, at p. 2.

Now that’s meta-obliging.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: