Ch J L. Paige (still accepting suggestions for byname) Marvel gets a letter from a CPA saying the petitioner wants to close the case because he got a “no change” letter from IRS.

So Ch J L. Paige (watch this space) Marvel treats this as a “Motion for Entry of Decision on Behalf of Petitioner John E. Cox by E., C.P.A.” And IRS is directed to respond. (Name omitted.)

The order is John E. Cox, Docket No. 10207-16S, filed 6/6/16.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Well, I did a docket search before writing this. John E. Cox is listed as “pro se.” And if E is an attorney admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court, or a USTCP, it is nowhere stated on Tax Court’s website. But if E is an attorney admitted to practice or a USTCP, shouldn’t he have filed entry of appearance? And if he had not, should not Ch J L. Paige (send in your suggestions) Marvel tell E to do so?

E doesn’t appear to be next friend or seeking appointment as such.

We all know that agents (that is, holders of Powers of Attorney) cannot appear in Tax Court. And CPAs, however otherwise credentialed, cannot appear for others in Tax Court.

So, as I have heard it expressed in certain circles, whassup wit’ that?