E. A. = USTCP?

In Uncategorized on 03/05/2020 at 15:26

Back in the day, I would query then Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel when letters and other communications were proffered on behalf of nominally pro se petitioners by Certified Public Accountants, and accepted by Ch J Iron Fist. See, e.g., my blogpost “CPA = USTCP?” 6/6/16.

I thought one either had to be an attorney or a United States Tax Court Practitioner (USTCP) to appear on behalf of a petitioner, with certain specifically enumerated exceptions (officer for a corporation, tax representative for an entity taxed as a partnership, trustee for a trust, personal representative for a deceased person). Even where an attorney or USTCP appears, that person must file an Entry of Appearance (Form 7). And attorneys admitted in any US jurisdiction must still obtain admission to US Tax Court, again with specifically enumerated exceptions.

But Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley, though so far as I can tell barring the door at The Glasshouse to Certified Public Accountants, seems to be developing a soft spot for Enrolled Agents.

For the skinny on this happy crew, to which I am proud to belong, see 31CFR§10.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, my Tax Court admission is based solely on my admission to the Bar of the Empire State fifty-three (count ‘em, fifty-three) years ago three weeks from tomorrow.

So how come Vinicio Rovere, Docket No. 18305-19, filed 3/5/20?

IRS says Vini owes neither deficiency nor chop, and stips to the same with Vini. But when petition, answer, and stip all fail to consider jurisdiction, you know Ch J Mighty Mo will want some ‘splainin’ or else lock the Glasshouse door.

IRS shoots in the PS3877 that shows Vini is too late.

“…a Letter… by Sabita Balloo, E.A. on behalf of petitioner was filed in this case. Therein Ms. Balloo states, among other things, that petitioner acknowledges that the petition was not timely filed. No other response was received from petitioner.” Order, at p. 2.

So did Ch J Mighty Mo bounce the case for want of response by petitioner, on whom falls burden of proof that the Court has jurisdiction? Or did he take Ms. Balloo’s letter as an admission? If the former, why not state that the letter from Ms. Balloo is rejected, as she is neither a USTCP nor an attorney admitted to Tax Court, and therefore petitioner has made no response? If the latter, how does Ms. Balloo get to represent Vini or anyone else unless she is an attorney admitted in Tax Court or a USTCP, in which event her qualification as an EA (like mine) is irrelevant?

A quick docket search shows Vini is pro se.

Looks like EAs have taken over from CPAs. I hasten to add that some of my best friends are CPAs.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: