Attorney-at-Law

EXCLUDING THE EXCLUDED

In Uncategorized on 10/23/2019 at 15:31

Ya gotta give ‘em credit, Dave Greenberg and Will Goddard are stayin’ alive for fourteen (count ‘em, fourteen) years in USTC, even after they lost the trial, trying to relitigate their losses in other courts and making more motions than “a one-legged cat in a sandbox” (I cribbed that one from a judge in KY).

See my blogpost “Delay of the Game – On Steroids,” 9/27/19.

Now, as the Rule 155 beancount is chuggin’ along, David B. Greenberg, et al., Docket No. 1143-05, filed 10/23/19, has Dave and Will and the bunch of als trying on a fresh conundrum for Judge Mark V Holmes.

Once again, TEFRA raises its ghostly head.

Dave and Will and the als want Judge Holmes to bukh “…on a supposed distinction between ‘converted items’ (partnership items originally, but converted under TEFRA into nonpartnership items), and ‘Excluded Items’ in a ‘converted items notice of deficiency’ (items that aren’t converted into nonpartnership items by a converted items notice of deficiency because they are already nonpartnership items). Their latest motion would have us distinguish between ‘Excluded Items’ in a nonpartnership item notice of deficiency and ‘Excluded Items’ in a converted items notice of deficiency.” Order, at p. 1.

Like I said, give ‘em credit. While the rest of us were watching Yanks v ‘Stros, or Sugimoto Bunraku Sonezaki Shinju at Jazz at Lincoln Center, or just having a couple frosties with our chums (hi, Judge, sorry I can’t buy you one), Dave and Will and their trusty attorney SRM were dreaming up this stuff.

Judge Holmes excludes the Excludeds.

“This is something we won’t do without some precedent, Code section, or regulation that tells us to do so. The late TEFRA procedural rules were complicated enough without trying to tease out a jurisdictionally significant distinction between nonpartnership items that became nonpartnership items because they were converted into nonpartnership items, and nonpartnership items that were always nonpartnership items because the Code and regs defined them to be nonpartnership items. One way or another in these consolidated cases we had jurisdiction to redetermine all the contested items because, one way or another, they were all nonpartnership items.” Order, at p. 2.

Seems that formerly partnership items became nonpartnership when some of the crew got indicted. But whatever, they’re nonpartnership, so show your numbers.

But whatever, the story will go on. And on.

“The Court notes that petitioners have now more than adequately preserved this issue for appellate review.” Order, at p. 2.

Now let’s see if they can post a Section 7485 bond.

 

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: