In Uncategorized on 02/13/2019 at 17:54

I wonder if Judge Nega is a fan of Paul Simon’s 1972 reggae hit.

Take a look at William French Anderson & Kathryn D. Anderson, Docket No. 23789-16, filed 2/13/19.

Wm seeks to deduct his legal fees for appealing from his criminal conviction, claiming he was wrongfully accused and convicted in an effort to deprive him of his intellectual property, the nature of which is not specified.

IRS wants summary J that said expenses are personal and not ordinary and necessary business expenses.

“Based on the record before the Court, there appears to be a genuine dispute as to an issue of material fact regarding Mr. Anderson’s actual innocence. In other words, the parties fundamentally dispute whether or not Mr. Anderson factually engaged in the physical act elemental to the crime for which he was convicted. We observe that, to this extent, respondent’s motion appears to rely exclusively on Mr. Anderson’s criminal conviction, but avoids substantively addressing the question of material fact essential to the dispute in that criminal case and now the dispute before this Court. Instead, respondent’s motion appears to conflate a context for the claim with the origin of the claim. We find this approach unavailing due to the factually intensive nature of the origin-of-the-claim inquiry before this Court, and because petitioners’ argument in that respect appears to fundamentally rely on a factual finding that Mr. Anderson did not engage in the acts for which he was convicted.” Order, at p. 3 (Footnote omitted).

Maybe Wm gets to retry his criminal case. IRS’ motion for summary J is a loser.

Howbeit, while jousting over Wm’s conviction, the names of the mother and father of a minor child, as well as of said child, nonparties to this case, were mentioned at the hearing on IRS’ summary J motion. Judge Nega ordered the parties to agree on redactions to the hearing transcript, per Rule 27a. But they can’t; IRS wants all three names redacted, but Wm & Kathryn agree only to redact the name of the minor child.

“Tax Court Rule 27(a) generally provides that in an electronic or paper filing with the Court, a party or nonparty making the filing should refrain from including or should take appropriate steps to redact certain specified information, including (1) taxpayer identification numbers, (2) dates of birth, (3) names of minor children, and (4) financial account numbers. The Rules further provide procedures for redaction and protective orders under Rule 103(a) when good cause is shown. See Rule 27(d).” Order, at pp. 3-4.

Mothers aren’t on the list, and Judge Nega is a staunch believer in the public’s right to know.

“Respondent seeks to redact the names of the mother and father which such names are not covered under Tax Court Rule 27(a). Although the Court understands respondent’s concerns, we find that redacting the names of the mother and father are not appropriate at this time. Therefore the Court expects that the parties’ positions will be further developed as they prepare for trial and may at a later time, file a motion under Rule 103(a) or take such action as it deems appropriate.” Order, at p. 4.

So although Judge Nega does not give IRS a false hope, the mother and child reunion may only be a motion away.

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 )

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: