In Uncategorized on 08/11/2016 at 18:31

Jeffrey A. Wolf, Docket No. 23980-13 L, filed 8/11/16, has a really tough situation. He’s been badly injured. His petition from a NOD off a CDP has been adjourned three times. IRS wants an order to show cause why Jeff shouldn’t accept IRS’ 24 pages of stipulated facts. Pretrial briefs are due September 6. Trial is set for September 19.

And Jeff’s attorney moves for another adjournment to September 9 to respond to the OSC motion because “…’I will be out of the country and not returning to New York City until August 31, 2016’. The motion does not explain the reason counsel must be out of the country, nor whether that absence was scheduled before or after we issued our standing pretrial order. The motion does not attempt to reconcile his requested September 9 extension with the parties’ current September 6 pretrial deadlines.” Order, at p. 2.

In State Court, this would draw judicial lightning like Benny Franklin’s kite.

But Jeff has drawn that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson.

“The Court assumes the accuracy of petitioner’s counsel’s statements about his client’s condition, and the circumstances he describes are worthy of great sympathy.” Order, at p. 2.

He’s obliging, sympathetic–a real mensch, if I may use a technical term.

But I’m sure Ch J. L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel is looking over his shoulder.

“However, petitioner’s medical difficulties do not render the case moot nor, as far as we can tell, form a basis for resolving the case. One way or another, the Tax Court must decide the issues committed to its jurisdiction. If petitioner’s condition will not improve on a foreseeable schedule, then the case must be resolved in the best way possible.” Order, at p. 2.

And it doesn’t look like Jeff’s medical problems will go away any time soon.

So no continuance for absentee counsel.

“While counsel did not receive the Rule 91(f) motion until August 5, he has known since April 2016 that the parties must file a stipulation of facts at the beginning of trial, and he should have been working on that important task in any event. A review of respondent’s proposed stipulations shows that many of the assertions are of such a nature that petitioner’s counsel surely knows already what petitioner’s position is. If there are particular assertions therein for which a substantive response by August 26 is truly impossible, then petitioner’s response to the order to show cause can explain that. (This would presumably not include facts as to which the parties’ positions have been well ventilated in the briefing of the previous motions.) But petitioner’s response is needed by August 26 in order to maximize the possibility that the case can proceed on its current schedule.” Order, at p. 2 (Emphasis by the Court).

I’m out of town, too, but I keep blogging. And I did so while out of the country last fall. And incidentally practicing law as well. So do most of my colleagues; nothing special.


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: