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?
Captain Marvel. Duh.
Liz Sweigart
PwC
Office: +1 713 356 4344
Mobile: +1 832 696 6462
Email: elizabeth.a.sweigart@us.pwc.com
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, Texas 77002
Sent from my iPhone. Brevity and typos aided and abetted by same.
Confidential to counsel.
LikeLike