Tax Court doesn’t have one, and isn’t likely to have one any time soon. Self-represented blowers can’t use a LITC, but some of them sure need some kind of help.
Ashraf Elsayed, Docket No. 12413-19W, filed 2/6/20, which I’m blogging late because I went to the opening of the Met’s new production of Agrippina, is one such. The opera was a lot more fun than plowing through 135 undesignated orders. Yet I got more views on a day when I didn’t post than any day this February when I did; go figure.
Howbeit, Ashraf wants a more definite statement from IRS in its answer, because Ashraf is confused. He says IRS responds to paragraphs 1 to 5, which aren’t in his petition.
Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley says Ashraf used the Tax Court form petition (in part), so there are numbered paragraphs.
Besides, “(W)e also note that, pursuant to Rule 37(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, petitioner’s reply need only address the material allegations contained in respondent’s answer, rather than every paragraph of the answer.” Order, at p. 1.
Judge, are you entirely certain Ashraf can figure out what is a material allegation? In the last fifty-three (count ‘em, fifty-three) years, I’ve come across a couple lawyers (hi, Judge Holmes; the “hi” is for the partitive genitive drop. I know you know material allegations.) who’ve had trouble with that concept.
