As I said two-and-one-half years ago, “My ongoing perplexity on the assigned counsel issue in Tax Court continues apace. I’m trying to get an answer I can share with my readers, without, I hope, unduly wearing their patience.” See my blogpost “Assigned Counsel? – Two Votes ‘No,’” 2/5/16.

Today gives me a further perplexity, James Dupas, Deceased and Judith M. Dupas, Docket No. 5287-19S, filed 8/14/19.

It seems that being obliging is contagious, because Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is trying to help Judy out. Judy petitioned on behalf of herself and the late James, but when she did the late James was already the late James.

Ch J Mighty Mo reads us all the usual catechism about how only authorized representatives can represent the deceased in US Tax Court. So Ch J Mighty Mo wants a show-and-tell about what powers, if any, Judy has.

Judy sends a billet doux, stating the will of the late James was admitted to probate two years ago, but no letters testamentary or of administration.

Ch J Mighty Mo must have talked to that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, because he enlists aid for Judy.

“By Order dated June 13, 2019, the Court directed respondent [IRS] to file a response discussing his position whether, under applicable Texas law, petitioner Judith M. Dupas has the capacity to litigate in this Court on behalf of the Estate of James Dupas. On July 11, 2019, respondent filed a Response to Order dated June 13, 2019, in which he states that he is working with Judith M. Dupas and her representative to retrieve the documents necessary to establish Judith M. Dupas’ standing before this Court with regard to the Estate of James Dupas.” Order, at p. 2.

Judith is listed as pro se on the docket sheet, so whoever her representative may be, s/he is not admitted to US Tax Court.

IRS counsel to the rescue?