In Uncategorized on 05/03/2018 at 18:48

All of us solo and small-firm practitioners live for repeat business. It’s the best kind, to deal with the clients we know well, the operating styles and cast of characters we’ve seen before, and the bond of trust and confidence between us that grew like a coral reef over many years.

Well, today Tax Court has repeat business, but it isn’t the kind about which I waxed lyrical in the immediately preceding paragraph hereinabove set forth, as my already-on-their-second-Grey-Goose G&T colleagues would say.

First is Derringer Trading, LLC, Jetstream Business Limited, Tax Matters Partner, 2018 T. C. Memo. 59, filed 5/3/18, and its companion Marlin Trading, LLC, with the same TMP. And our well-known DAD flogger John E. Rogers is joined by Tax Lawyer Michael D. Hartigan.

I’ve blogged Mr. Rogers extensively, and you’ll remember Tax Lawyer Michael Hartigan from my blogpost “Getting Out of the Neighborhood,” 8/11/17.

So if you’re a stipulation wonk (in which event you have my sincerest condolences), this is your kind of case, as Derringer, Marlin and their members are trying to bail from various stips they made. Judge Goeke cruises through the FRE and considers “unfair prejudice, confusions of issues, or accumulative evidence [that] substantially exceeds the probative value of any stipulation.” 2018 T. C. Memo. 59, at p. 7. None of the foregoing helps out Derringer or Marlin.

If you’re looking for caselaw on Tax Court stips, this is your kind of case.

Next is another repeat customer, come back after a long hiatus. It’s Michael Craig Worsham, n/k/a Michael C. Worsham, Docket No. 26210-16, filed 5/3/18.

I won’t be too hard on the readers who don’t remember Mr. W. He last appeared here almost six (count ‘em, six) years ago. See my blogpost “Pay the Man,” 7/31/12. Mr. W has almost as many degrees as Mr Rogers.

Mr W makes his appearance before Judge Colvin, and shows his old form.

Mr W shows up last month and files a “…Motion to Show Cause for the IRS to Provide Factual Basis for Cost Determinations and a Motion to Determine the Constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1).” Order, at p. 1.

Mr W follows this up with a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Judge Colvin orders IRS counsel to respond to the whole shootin’ match, but I’m not sure what Mr W is trying to accomplish. Why dismiss your own request for substantiated numbers? And why dismiss your own Constitutional challenge to the Section 6673 frivolity chop?

Of course Tax Court hasn’t jurisdiction to determine the Constitutionality of anything. And given Mr W’s credentials and prior experience with the 400 Second Street, NW, crowd, I’d be surprised f he didn’t know that.

But substantiation of numbers is another story in a deficiency case.

I’m sure all these players will be back again.

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: