In Uncategorized on 10/27/2016 at 16:10

Unless you absolutely have to, that is.

Judge Nega’s order in Ellen F. Campbell, Docket No. 10290-13, filed 10/27/16, makes me doubt whether this is such a circumstance.

Ellen moved for partial summary J, IRS responded, whereupon Ellen moved for all-in summary J. While all this was happening, Judge Nega wanted Ellen and IRS to discuss Ellen filing a joint return with her spouse and the negligence penalty.

IRS agreed to stip to the joint return, but Ellen wanted IRS to agree about all items of income and deduction before filing the joint return.

Judge Nega is not amused.

“We find that petitioner’s failure to work cooperatively with respondent in the stipulation process has delayed the resolution of this case. Petitioner is demanding by her refusal to stipulate that respondent and the Court address a matter that is moot in view of respondent’s willingness to accept a joint return from petitioner and her spouse. Neither the Court nor respondent is required to engage in academic exercises that serve no purpose in the case before us.” Order, at p. 1.

Then Judge Nega berates Ellen’s attorneys, brandishing the Section 6673 delay-of-game chop. And bounces both of Ellen’s motions.

I understand the desire to take an extra base if you can. Just choose your spots carefully.

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: