Attorney-at-Law

PROOF FIRST, BURDEN AFTERWARDS

In Uncategorized on 02/12/2020 at 10:03

And since it seems today we’re dealing with hysteron proteron (as Judges Scholar Al and Scholar Pat would say), let me first give a Taishoff “good try” to Matthew T. Journy, Esq., attorney for Guardian Community Trust, Inc., Docket, No. 23668-16X, filed 2/12/20.

Matt wants CSTJ Lewis (“Can’t Get Enough of That Name”) Carluzzo to stick IRS with the burden of proof and simultaneously strip them of the presumption of correctness, in bouncing his client’s 501(c)(3). And CSTJ Lew, again modestly eschewing his Chieftainship and signing simply as “STJ,” denies Matt’s motions, but without prejudice.

“The parties have already submitted the administrative record, or at least a substantial portion of it…. At the hearing both parties recognized the possibility that the administrative record could be supplemented as the case proceeded. Neither party was in a position to predict whether the case could be submitted entirely on the basis of the administrative record, or for that matter, whether they would be in agreement as to what materials should be included in the administrative record. Petitioner had not yet decided whether to request trial in order to resolve any factual disputes that might arise.” Order, at p. 1.

Matt says he was worried that, if Guardian had BOP, access to IRS’ records that Guardian needed would be impaired. Also, if IRS had BOP, that would “…allow for a better informed decision on how to proceed.” Order, at p. 2.

CSTJ Lew doesn’t dismiss Matt’s concerns out of hand. “We appreciate and have seriously considered petitioner’s approach….” Order, at p. 2.

But.

“At various points during the hearing the Court expressed its inclination that the relief sought in petitioner’s motion was premature, and that the judicial officer ultimately assigned to resolve the substantive issues might be better positioned to consider the relief petitioner now seeks after the parties have had the opportunity to further prepare the case for trial or summary disposition.” Order, at p. 2.

Like maybe Branerton? Interrogs? Document production? Even a final version of the administrative record, or if not agreed upon, at least with each side’s list of additions and strike-outs.

CSTJ Lew gracefully exits.

 

 

 

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: