In Uncategorized on 12/02/2016 at 16:52

John Melvin Corker & Lisa Ann Adame-Corker, Docket No. 19090-16, filed 12/2/16, are pardonably peeved with having missed the cutoff due to the standard pro se conflation of IRS with Tax Court. John & Lisa apparently mailed all sorts of paperwork all over the lot, but missed the Glasshouse at 400 Second Street, NW, by 19 days.

Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel gives John & Lisa the bad news sympathetically.

A sad tale, but what else is new? This happens almost every day. Notwithstanding all the political chatter about amending Title 26, I have yet to hear anyone suggesting a rule of reason for filing Tax Court petitions.

Well, John & Lisa want their sixty bucks back, especially since Ch J Iron Fist ordered them to send it in before telling them they were late.

Too bad, so sad, John & Lisa. “…, insofar as petitioners have suggested a degree of dissatisfaction with having been directed to pay the filing fee for a case subject to dismissal, they are advised that the filing fee is intended to defray the administrative expense of filing and processing a petitioner’s paperwork, without regard to whether such paperwork establishes a valid basis for jurisdiction and/or a continuing action. Subsequent dismissal or resolution does not affect the fact that a case was begun. Consequently, the filing fee is not refundable by the Court.” Order, at p. 4.

I’ll try again, as I am a man of great patience.

So what price Ethel M. Stewart, Docket No. 9223-16, filed 9/27/16?

Because it looked like John & Lisa wanted to start the case, and Ethel seemed uncertain (or maybe Ch J Iron Fist couldn’t figure out what Ethel wanted), Ethel gets her money back and John & Lisa don’t? But in both cases there was paperwork, a docket number assigned, and an order issued. And the sixty bucks is owed “without regard to whether such paperwork established a valid basis for jurisdiction,” right?

So what’s the rule?

And this is not just another irrelevant rant. More people are involved at the sixty-buck-ticket-to-justice phase than anywhere else. Every Tax Court case starts with something, be it even an unaccompanied money order, a partial copy of a NOD or SNOD, one or more of IRS’ multifarious billets doux that look like a SNOD but aren’t, or even a letter from a confused pro se without a clue.

If there’s a rule, let it be consistent. And let it be known.

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: