Attorney-at-Law

WE’VE ALL HAD CLIENTS

In Uncategorized on 01/02/2020 at 16:34

All y’all (I’m in the Bayou City, y’all) tell war stories about clients, or have heard them ad nauseum. Today we have an addition for the war stories of the Lead of The Jersey Boys, who got trounced by Judge Halpern for trying to help.

See my blogpost “No Good Deed,” 5/5/17.

Today I withdraw the reticence I manifested in that blogpost. Today we have Clark J. Gebman and Rebecca Gebman, leading off the 2020 T. C. Memos. with 2020 T. C. Memo 1, 1/2/20.

I bet you didn’t know Rebecca was a lawyer. And still is, according to Our Fair State’s Office of Court Administration website. But she was admitted to the Bar in 2004, Judge Nega, not 2000, according to the same source. I wonder if the Jersey Boys knew it; somehow I doubt it.

Judge Nega thoroughly shreds the Gebmans’ claimed deductions and exclusions, and NOL carryforward.

Of course Rebecca wants innocent spousery, but she was the only one with income for the years at issue. “Mr. Gebman did not have a paying job during the years at issue and earned no income. He managed, controlled, and collected rent from their jointly owned properties.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 1, at p. 7.

So Section 6015(b) apportioned relief is out of the question. The items are all Rebecca’s. And 6015(f) equity is a laugher. “…it would not be equitable to relieve Mrs. Gebman from liability on her own items of income while leaving Mr. Gebman responsible for paying the tax. Nor would it be equitable to have respondent try to collect the joint liability only from Mr. Gebman, who has professed his intention to file for bankruptcy.“ 2020 T. C. Memo. 1, at p. 15.

Judge Nega isn’t through.

“Although Mrs. Gebman argues that Mr. Gebman was in charge of filing the tax returns and that he assured her that he was taking care of the cases before this Court, she did not provide any additional evidence that she is entitled to relief. Mrs. Gebman does not allege that Mr. Gebman, in any way, prevented her from reviewing the tax returns, was not interested in her views about the cases, or otherwise discouraged her participation in the cases. Moreover, she admits to voluntarily delegating tax return preparation to her husband. Mrs. Gebman’s actions lead to the conclusion that she may have simply chosen to turn a blind eye to the tax returns. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record that indicates Mr. Gebman tried to deceive or hide anything from Mrs. Gebman. He never concealed any financial dealings, bank accounts, or business operations from her. Finally, Mr. Gebman and Mrs. Gebman are still married and have continuously lived together. Mrs. Gebman did not provide any evidence that persuades us that she meets the requirements for relief.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 1, at pp. 16-17.

But neither are Clark nor Rebecca through. They’re in the zone for a Section 6673 frivolity chop.

“The Court has provided ample warnings to petitioners of the potential implications of continuing to assert frivolous and groundless arguments. For example, petitioners’ various frivolous arguments include that they are victims of criminal conspiracies and that they request alleviation of restraint of trade. During trial petitioners persisted in asserting frivolous and groundless arguments, despite previous warnings from respondent’s counsel and this Court.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 1, at p. 20. (Footnote omitted, but I’m coming to it; it’s really the Luxardos in the Manhattan).

“At trial, with Mrs. Gebman’s silent assent Mr. Gebman spoke about the Federal Reserve; spoke about the activities of Benjamin Strong, who directed the original World War I gold transfer to London; told the story about America’s economic hedging; requested that this Court refer these cases to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; addressed the Federal Election Committee and the State Board of Elections; and talked about the Supreme Court and Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Gebman advanced many other similar arguments during trial.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 1, at pp. 20-21, Footnote 9.

$2500 to Clark and Rebecca.

I’m sure the Jersey Boys will be well pleased to have gotten rid of those clients.

Finishing up the title of this blogpost, if you have lots of time, I’ll tell you about the Swedish Joan of Arc and her larcenous husband, or about the landfill in Richmond County and the respected gentlemen who oversaw the same. And how glad I am that I survived them, with life, liberty and license intact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: