Attorney-at-Law

HOLD ‘EM

In Uncategorized on 11/16/2018 at 14:25

No, not the World Series of Poker; there are no rivers here, but a great number of flops. This is the story of an attorney in Shreveport, LA, the author of the flops, whom I’ll hereinafter call “Hold ‘em.”

There are a couple orders today (hi, Judge Holmes) involving Hold ‘em who states proudly “in 36 years of practice he has never been sanctioned, warned or admonished.”

Well, his streak is broken today, and The Judge Who Eschews Cognomens, Judge Mary Ann Cohen, is the Judge to do it.

The case is D & K Care Service, Inc., Docket No. 20661-17L, filed 11/16/18.

Petition filed, trial set for Mobile, AL, and petitioner moves to dismiss. Of course Wagner makes this a free kick, no sanction, no decision for IRS.

Except.

“Filing the petition resulted in a suspension of collection activities under Internal Revenue Code section 6330(e). The Court observed a pattern in nine cases on the February 13, 2019, calendar, 25 cases on the January 31, 2018, calendar, and eight cases on the April 26, 2017, calendar in Mobile, all filed by the same counsel. Thus the Court ordered petitioner to supplement their motion [to dismiss] and respondent to report with respect to the perceived pattern, raising the consideration of section 6673 and a penalty for cases instituted primarily for delay.” Order, at p. 1.

The problem with a great gimmick is overuse. Dodgefloggers with real great shucks-and-jives advertise their wares and IRS steps in. Cute moves and cutesy names are all very well, until they disclose themselves. I’ve blogged the foregoing in extenso. So let it be with Hold ‘em.

“Respondent’s response to the Court’s order was filed on November 7, 2018, and confirmed the pattern observed by the Court. Petitioner’s response was filed November 9, 2018. Petitioner’s counsel argues that his conduct is not as bad as other situations where penalties have been imposed and that the motion to dismiss avoided further activity in this case.” Order, at p. 1.

Yes, but.

“His arguments do not overcome the inference that this case was instituted primarily for delay. Counsel argues that in 36 years of practice he has never been sanctioned, warned or admonished. He has now been warned and admonished that if this perceived pattern continues, he and/or his client may face sanctions.” Order, at p. 1.

To repeat another old Texas traditionalism, “pigs git fed, hogs git et.”

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: