Attorney-at-Law

CPA = USTCP? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 06/29/2016 at 20:26

A truly dull day in Tax Court, but a great performance of Sleeping Beauty by the American Ballet Theatre, so I’m ahead.

Aside from loan proceeds not being income in the only T. C. Memo. today, and tax protester drivel not earning a Section 6673 chop in the only designated hitter, all I could find with which to entertain you is a reprise by Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel of my blogpost “CPA = USTCP?” 6/6/16.

Here’s the whole story. “On June 27, 2016, respondent filed a Response to the Motion for Entry of Decision filed on behalf of petitioner by E., C.P.A. on May 31, 2016. In that response, respondent states that the parties have agreed to a stipulated decision and that he expects to submit executed stipulated decision documents for the Court’s consideration very soon.” John E. Cox, Docket No. 10207-16S, filed 6/29/16, at p.1. (Name omitted).

And a docket search still shows John as pro se.

So CPA’s can file motions in Tax Court, without an Entry of Appearance, or even a power of attorney, and even if not admitted to practice?

As I have received no response to my previous inquiry above noted, I’ll try again.

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

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: