Attorney-at-Law

TOSS THE CHIEF?

In Uncategorized on 10/17/2017 at 15:23

We’re used to the toss-all-the-judges, separation-of-powers cases. See my blogpost “Pay the Man – Part Deux,” 9/1/17, and my blogposts therein cited. Well, as Lucius Annaeus Seneca would remark, “Ex Tax Court semper aliquid novi.”

So we go from Latin Lu to CSTJ Lewis (“Lew”) Carluzzo, and onward to blogger Lew (that’s me), via Mark Y. Liu and Ginger Y. Bian, Deceased, Mark Y. Liu, Surviving Spouse, Docket No. 8667-17, filed 10/17/17, an off-the-bencher.

Mark Y. is unhappy with CSTJ Lew. Very unhappy.

“According to Petitioners, I should recuse myself from this proceeding because of my involvement in a prior Tax Court proceeding, that is Liu v. Commissioner, docket number 16841-14 (prior proceeding). The prior proceeding also was a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency. It was resolved by stipulated decision.

“Believing themselves ill-advised with respect to the resolution of the prior proceeding, Petitioners moved to vacate the stipulated decision upon the ground that the decision represented a fraud on the Court.

“Petitioners’ motion to vacate the decision in the previous proceeding was heard….. A bench opinion was rendered…,, and by Order…, I denied Petitioners’ motion. Petitioners appealed my ruling, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit….  See Liu v. Commissioner, 689 Fed Appx. 264 (5th cir. 2017).” Order, Transcript at p. 5.

Well, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. So Mark Y. files a misconduct complaint against CSTJ Lew, and makes fresh motions to toss the Chief, fearing he will be judge in his own cause.

Now Mark Y. is pro se, of course, so he needs some comfort from CSTJ Lew. CSTJ Lew well knows nemo judex in sua causa (and I need not translate for my learned readers), but CSTJ Lew lays it on Mark Y.

“Sometimes it makes sense to state the obvious, and in so doing, I’ll note that the misconduct complaint against me will not be resolved by me, either as a result of the matters now pending before me, or otherwise. The misconduct complaint will be resolved independent of this proceeding and in accordance with the Courts’ procedures now in effect for such matters.” Order, at p. 6.

In any case, Mark Y.’s remaining motions are legal and don’t require any testimony.

There is a SNOD and petition, so there’s jurisdiction. There is a trial pending, and CSTJ Lew is not keeping jurisdiction, so he isn’t trying this case. As for Mark Y.’s motion for summary J, neither Mark Y. nor IRS has submitted anything that looks like agreed facts, so there needs to be a trial.

CSTJ Lew is out.

I’m not betting that CSTJ Lew loses the misconduct hearing, either.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: