Attorney-at-Law

DO’S AND DON’TS FOR LAWYER

In Uncategorized on 04/16/2018 at 15:15

Tax Court Style

Let’s take these in reverse order. Both Richard Edward McCormick & Cielo Marie Mendoza, Docket No. 6186-17, filed 4/16/18, are, according to that Obliging Jurist Judge David Gustafson, “…attorneys, though apparently they are not tax attorneys and are not admitted to practice in the U.S. Tax Court.” Order, at p. 1.

I seriously doubt that box-top admission to USTC would much avail Rich & Ciel, or either of them, as they seem unable to deal with pre-trial prep. They prefer to seek continuance six (count ‘em, six) days before trial, without an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or hospital admission slip in sight.

“…the Court received from petitioners an amended motion for continuance…. It includes no affidavit or unsworn declaration substantiating petitioners’ allegations. It does not state whether petitioners challenge the four numbered allegations about which the Court asked [the unreported income]. It does not give detailed allegations about the merits of the disputes in this case and does not give any supporting documentation. Rather, it alleges that ‘petitioners are reviewing their records and are still compiling primary documents from 2014’.” Order, at p. 4

This does not go over big with Judge David Gustafson.

“When a party mails a motion for a continuance to the Court 6 days before a trial date and then leaves the country, he does not thereby tie the Court’s hands and effectively grant himself a continuance.” Order, at p. 5.

IRS played nice before an earlier trial date, because IRS needed info from the State of VT as to the accuracy of its third-party reporting. Turns out VT confirms all the shortfalls.

Rich & Ciel get hit with the fully monty plus chops.

Don’t do it.

Judge Pugh is in on the hunt in Eric S. Harrop, Docket No. 6174-17, filed 4/16/18, but it isn’t about Eric at all. His attorney, to whom I’ll hereinafter refer as RJR, is a trifle casual with his motion practice.

“…counsel for petitioner, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel that did not comply with the Court’s Rules. After RJR failed to respond to our… Order for a supplement to his motion, we denied his motion to withdraw….

“This case was called from the calendar for the Trial Session of the Court at Salt Lake City, Utah…. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Counsel for respondent appeared and filed with the Court a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.” Order, at p. 1.

So Eric is ordered to show cause why his petition should not be tossed, with a win on all counts for IRS thrown in at no extra charge. And so that RJR doesn’t feel left out, RJR “shall show cause in writing… why he should not be sanctioned for failure to respond to this Court’s…Order and for failure to appear…, or otherwise comply with the Court’s Rules.” Order, at p. 1.

Definitely don’t do it.

Here’s the “do” part of my blogpost, as Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel shows the correct way to let an attorney who is allowed a peek (quick or otherwise) at the sacrosanct Section 6103(b) taxpayer info through the Section 6014(h)(4) peephole prepare for trial.

It’s a whistleblower case, of course, Richard G. Saffire, Jr., Docket No. 101-18W, filed 4/16/18.

And I do want to give a Taishoff “Good Job” to that well-respected Buffalo NY law firm representing Mr. S.

Of course, the material protected must be appropriately marked (see Order), and communicated only “…for the sole bona fide purpose of trial or hearing preparation….” Order, at p. 2.

As for anyone getting a glimpse from the Buffalonians, here’s the drill.

“…whenever petitioner or petitioner’s counsel intends to provide to any person(s) any document(s) containing section 6103 information of third party taxpayer(s) that respondent has designated and marked as ordered in the second ordered paragraph and provided to petitioner or petitioner’s counsel, petitioner or petitioner’s counsel must first provide a copy of this Order to any such person(s), inform such person(s) that he or she must comply with the terms of this Order, and obtain on a copy of this Order the name, the business or home address of such person(s) at which service of process can generally be made during business hours, and the signature(s) of such person(s). Petitioner or petitioner’s counsel shall retain the signed copy of this Order until one year after the decision in this case becomes final within the meaning of section 7481(a). After petitioner or petitioner’s counsel has complied with the first sentence of this ordered paragraph, petitioner or petitioner’s counsel may provide to any person(s) described in the first sentence any document(s) containing section 6103 information of third party taxpayer(s) that respondent has designated and marked as ordered in the second ordered paragraph and provided to petitioner or petitioner’s counsel.” Order, at p. 2.

Finally, anyone with any of the aforesaid material must, within fourteen (count ‘em, fourteen) days after decision become final per Section 7481(a), either destroy same and so certify to IRS, or give it all back to IRS.

I suggest getting a receipt in the latter case.

And I’d really like to read the moving papers that allowed the Buffalonians to get the peek, appropriately redacted, of course. But that isn’t possible.

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 )

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: