Attorney-at-Law

GAMBLER’S CHOICE

In Uncategorized on 09/02/2016 at 16:44

See my blogpost “Take the Hint,” 11/25/15. I don’t know if Harjit Bhambra, Docket No. 1395-16L, filed 9/2/16, read it when it came out (or thereafter), but Judge James S. (“Big Jim”) Halpern echoes the words he spoke back then in this latest designated hitter.

IRS wants a remand, Harj objects, so Judge Big Jim runs a phone-a-thon.

He adjures Harj: “The Court pointed out to petitioner that, in general, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof, see Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and that he might benefit by a remand to clarify facts. We also pointed out that if defects in respondent’s determination procedures are proved at trial, the Court might at that time remand the case.” Order, at p. 1. (Emphasis by the Court).

Harj continues to object. So Judge Big Jim ships him and IRS off to trial, with a savings clause: “We believe that the case can proceed to trial without a remand.” Order, at p. 1.

So I’ll echo my words from last November:  “But when a Judge suggests you might think about a remand, do think, and think twice. You might reject the suggestion if you don’t want to give Appeals a second chance to sink your client. But you might take the hint if you think you have enough good stuff to win at Appeals.” Blogpost op. cit.

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: