Or at least at 400 Second Street, NW, amid the frost-bitten cherry blossoms. That’s what Herbert Heintz & Barbara Heintz, Docket No. 2731-17L, filed 3/21/17, want from Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel.

Herb & Barb are upset about “…imposition of liens and executions upon the real property of the Petitioners and upon the refusal of the right to appeal the rejection of amended tax returns and later reneging of IRS credits which implied an acceptance of the amended returns.” Order, at p. 2.

Herb & Barb petitioned the foregoing. IRS said “No SNOD, no NOD, no jurisdiction.”

Herb & Barb say they want a declaratory judgment. “This appeal involves all of the elements of a declaratory judgment. A declaratory action seeks a ruling by the Court on of [sic] legal uncertainties. This Court deals with substance over form and it is unnecessary to specifically title a pleading a ‘Declaratory Judgment’. There is no magic in the nomenclature of a pleading and it should be construed to serve the best interests of the pleader, with technicalities of procedure set aside.” Order, at p. 2.

Sounds good, right?

Except there’s a Tax Court Rule 211. Tax Court hasn’t got the freewheeling jurisdiction of USDC to go whithersoever it listeth. There’s a laundry list of what Tax Court can “declare among the nations” or anywhere else.

So, Herb & Barb, time for a supplement wherein you shall “…set forth and discuss fully petitioners’ position as to (1) whether the purported declaratory judgment action petitioners seek is described in Tax Court Rule 211(b), and (2) “all applicable allegations, if any, described in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Rule 211 pertaining to such declaratory judgment action.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Herb & Barb get a Taishoff “Good Try, third class” for that inventive, although likely unsuccessful, try.

Edited to add, 4/24/21: See orders 3/29/17, and 4/7/17. They lost.