Attorney-at-Law

OBLIGING

In Uncategorized on 02/10/2016 at 16:18

But Only If You Do What He Tells You

Is it possible that that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, has finally had it with Tax Court petitioners who don’t do what he tells them?

Hear now the story of Thomas Liu, Docket No. 2003-15, filed 2/10/16, a designated hitter, no less.

Tom is on a roll, as IRS drops the case against him upon reading Tom’s golden prose. So Tom goes on offense, seeking admins.

Judge Gustafson pointed Tom in the right direction. “…the Court initiated a telephone conference with the parties, during which the Court explained various procedural matters to Mr. Liu, and… the Court issued an order that repeated some of those explanations as follows: The Court explained to Mr. Liu that if he wants to seek an award of ‘costs’ (pursuant to 26 U.S.C. sec. 7430), then he should file a motion for an award of costs. The contents of such a motion are prescribed in Tax Court Rule 231(b) and (d), and if he submits such a motion, Mr. Liu should comply with that Rule.” Order, at p. 1.

But with the way to the goal line clear before him, Tom fumbles.

“Mr. Liu filed a motion for costs that seeks ‘$250 in administrative costs for 2.5 hours of consulting fees paid to a Certified Public Account to review the IRS’ assessment’ and ‘$82.95 in court fees and expenses associated with the filing of the case in question.’ The motion does not include the content required by Rule 231(b) (including a statement as to the net worth requirement and a supporting affidavit) nor the affidavit or declaration required by Rule 231(d).” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Now one would expect Judge Gustafson to give Tom one more chance.

Not hardly. Tom is out of bounds and the play is dead. Tweet!

“… the motion for costs is denied, in view of petitioner’s noncompliance with Rule 231(b) and (d). Both orally in the telephone conference and in writing in the order… Mr. Liu was particularly instructed to comply with the rule. In an instance of attempted but imperfect compliance, the Court would have been inclined to give the petitioner opportunities to perfect the motion; but faced instead with wholesale non-compliance, we deny the motion because it fails to show petitioner’s entitlement to the relief he seeks.” Order, at p. 2.

Read and heed. Judge Gustafson’s patience has its limits.

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: