In Uncategorized on 02/28/2017 at 15:22

I haven’t any current statistics, but I can’t but think that the greatest number of Tax Court cases are brought by self-representeds. Even though Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel seems to let CPAs into the Tax Court Bar (see my blogpost “CPA = USTCP? – This Is Getting Boring,” 12/27/16), there is still a shortage of representatives for the ordinary petitioner.

Judge Wherry wants to help. Although Tax Court’s website plainly states that “(T)he Tax Court does not endorse or recommend any particular tax clinic or Bar-related calendar call program,” Elizabeth Wiley, Docket No. 1679-16S, filed 2/28/17, has two (count ‘em, two) helping hands offered.

Elizabeth doesn’t show at calendar call, but IRS goes along with the continuance Elizabeth asked for, and Judge Wherry gives Elizabeth names and phone numbers for LITCs.

But he won’t give any more continuances.

Even more helpful is STJ Lewis (“The Name”) Carluzzo, when he avoids reopening the record but suggests IRS have a parley with Andrew Christopher Sanek, Docket No. 4700-14S, filed 2/28/17.

Andy wants a vacation. A vacation, that is, of STJ Lew’s decision, which nailed Andy for a deficiency after trial.

Surely you remember the decision. What, no? Then see my blogpost “A No-Account Employer,” 9/22/16. OK, ready now?

“Towards the end of trial the Court noted that consideration should be given to petitioner’s entitlement to deduct certain away from home business expenses under the circumstances described in Rev. Procs. 2009-47 and/or 2010-39. Respondent’s objection points out that insufficient evidence was introduced at trial to allow for deductions as contemplated by the above-referenced revenue procedures. The Court agrees with respondent’s observation, but that observation misses the point of the Court’s suggestion that the parties confer post-trial on the matter.” Order, at p. 1.

But why talk? No evidence means no evidence, right?

Well, STJ Lew thinks they should talk, and here’s why.

“As of the date of trial, petitioner, who represented himself, was unaware of the above-referenced revenue procedures, the application of which might very well allow for some of the deductions now disallowed. Sufficient evidence to support the application of the revenue procedures was not introduced at trial, but that is not to say that petitioner, now aware of what information required to support the application of the revenue procedures, could not demonstrate to respondent that he is entitled to deductions they allow.” Order, at p. 1.

Not even that obliging jurist, Judge David Gustafson, could do better.

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 )

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: