In Uncategorized on 12/18/2015 at 17:30

Again a sort-of follow-on to the 1976 Woody Allen – Zero Mostel movie that should have been a cult classic but wasn’t. Perhaps two exceptional comedians should have stuck to comedy, and left serious stuff alone; “‘twas caviare to the general,” as a much better writer than I observed long ago.

Howbeit, here the story of Benyamin Avrahami & Orna Avrahami, et al., Docket No. 17594-13, filed 12/18/15. This case also involves an outfit called Feedback Insurance Company, Ltd., which has engendered many an order, none of which I deemed worthy of my wordprocessor.

But this apparently pedestrian set-to involves matters of “great pith and moment,” in the words of that same much better writer. So much so that another outfit called the Self-Insurance Institute of America wants to file a brief amicus after the trial and while the parties are gearing up for their post-trial briefing.

As they used to say on the red clay at Fort Jackson, “What ya gonna do, company commander?” No, they never said it to me; I was just rabble.

But here’s The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Implacable, Irrefragable, Indefatigable, Incontrovertible, Incomparable and Illustrious Foe of the Partitive Genitive, and Old China Hand, Judge Mark V. Holmes, who sorts it out.

“…the Court received a motion to file an amicus brief from the Self-Insurance Institute of America. This is either a trade association of those involved in captive insurance, especially smaller captive insurers; or, if respondent [IRS] is to be believed, a front for those promoting micro-captive insurers as a tax-saving scheme. This is a lead, if not quite a test, case; the Court would benefit from hearing all views on the subject and those with an interest in the industry are most likely to have an incentive to produce a useful brief. This amicus brief, however, comes at the end of the Court’s established briefing schedule for the parties. In the interest of fairness, we will give respondent a chance to reply to it — but only to answer what’s in the new brief, not to surreply to petitioners’ forthcoming reply brief.” Order, at p. 1.

So the front, if it is a front, is front-and-center.

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: