Attorney-at-Law

GRAEVEN IN THE CARDS

In Uncategorized on 11/13/2018 at 16:17

If anyone needed more proof that Judge Holmes got it right last year, when The Great Concurrer predicted cataclysmic silt-stirring after Tax Court put the Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss sign-off front-and-center whenever and wherever a chop is invoked (see my blogpost “Stir, Baby, Stir – That Silt,” 12/20/17) , here’s Roy E. Hahn & Linda G. Montgomery, Docket No. 1910-14. Filed 11/13/18.

All y’all must, without the slightest doubt, remember Roy Hahn. If y’all do not, by whatever mischance, check out my blogposts “House of CARDS,” 3/8/11 and “CARDS – A Busted Flush,” 7/2/18.

Roy was one of the top guns at Chenery, dodgefloggers extraordinary.

In the year-and-a-half-plus since Judge Nega closed the record at Roy’s & Linda’s trial, IRS has been rooting around for the Boss Hoss truffles wherewith to inflict chops on Roy & Linda. Judge Nega burns up two-and-a-half pages of order chronicling how he refereed the prolonged back-and-forth between IRS and Roy’s and Linda’s counsel.

One may doubt the parties have moved any closer to a resolution.

“To eliminate any possible prejudice to any of the parties, we will direct the parties to cooperate in developing all facts relevant and necessary to aid this Court in rendering a determination with respect to the application of the section 6751(b)(1) requirement. The parties shall file a report proposing a schedule for further proceedings in this case.” Order, at p. 3.

Now to do this, “…the parties shall each file a status report advising the Court if the relevant facts with respect to the section 6751(b)(1) requirement can be resolved by way of: (1) additional discovery, or (2) a supplemental stipulation of facts, or (3) a stipulation of settled issues, and/or (4) whether there is a need for further trial solely as to the issue of the Commissioner’s compliance with the section 6751(b)(1) requirement. If there is a need for a further trial then the parties shall also include an estimate of the expected length of trial, and a list of anticipated witnesses and exhibits that they intend to rely on. The Court would appreciate specific references to the issues discussed so the Court can ensure that progress is being made to move this case to either further trial or other resolution.” Order, at p. 4.

And if the parties really want another trial, Judge Nega can oblige them next March in The City by the Bay.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: