Attorney-at-Law

ONE OF THREE

In Uncategorized on 08/16/2019 at 15:36

Sam T. Coleridge’s grey-beard loon has nothing on Judge Buch, who does not “his hand dropped he” but hangs on to the CPA I’ll call Jody in NCA Argyle LP, Newport Capital Advisors, LLC, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 3272-18, filed 8/16/19, one of a quad of designated hitters.

Trial is set for next month, IRS moves to depose three (count ‘em, three) of taxpayers’ advisors, including without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing (as my already on their second Grey Goose and Tonic colleagues would say), the aforesaid CPA, despite everybody having Branertoned up to now.

The Argyles claim too near to trial, burdensome, and IRS didn’t ask earlier.

“The Commissioner believes these depositions will help him to understand the advice given to petitioners regarding the settlement proceeds.” Order, at p. 2.

BTW, IRS claims the Argyles opposed their demand too late. Their response was due 8/14/19, but the Argyles, being on the left coast, got their opposition in at 1:04 a.m., EDT, on 8/15/19.

Now we all know Rule 22 changed effective 11/30/18. The 6 a.m. the next day grace period was dropped, and 11:59 p.m. on the due date substituted. But the Practitioners’ Guide to Electronic Case Access and Filing available on the Court’s website still states at page 42, “A document is considered timely filed if it is electronically transmitted no later than 6:00 a.m. Eastern time on the day after the last day for filing.”

Needless to say, the Rule overcalls the Practitioner’s Guide. But Judge Buch will make sure no one is misled. “The Court will take steps to conform the online guide(s) to the recently amended rule. As for this case, no one was prejudiced by the 65 minute delay, and the Court has filed petitioners’ response.” Order, at p. 2, footnote 2.

Judge Holmes, please copy. See my blogpost “Technologically Challenged,” 3/21/16.

OK, so IRS can depose. “The information the Commissioner seeks to obtain through the proposed depositions is relevant and discoverable information. The proposed depositions would examine, for all three of the individuals, their role in advising petitioners as to the proper tax treatment of the income at issue. This information is relevant to the question of whether petitioners had reasonable cause for their reporting on their returns.” Order, at p. 3.

But Judge Buch invokes Rule 70(c)(1)(C). Three depositions are too burdensome and expensive, and trial is less than three weeks away. And the nonparties’ testimony will overlap anyway.

So since Jody prepped the returns, let him talk.

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: