Attorney-at-Law

DO I HEAR A WALTZ? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 05/12/2020 at 11:11

A couple weeks ago (hi, Judge Holmes) I celebrated the ninetieth birthday of Steven Sondheim with ASTEP, a most worthy cause that even pried a couple kopeks out of my notoriously tight fist. And today we have a sequel to Steve’s (and Richard Rodgers’) 1965 opus.

Here’s Barclay L. Douglas, Docket No. 22207-18, filed 5/12/20, a special day for a dear one far away. But Barclay is something else. I’ll let Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber take up Barc’s story.

“Counsel for respondent notes that petitioner is a finance professional who had substantial income during 2011-2016, and that his failure to file returns reporting that income have generated deficiencies and additions to tax that exceed $1 million.” Order, at p. 2. Un bello spendere, as they say in super-Tuscan vineyards.

Back last October, IRS tried to toss Barc for non-prosecution after extensive ducking, but Judge Scholar Al ran a phoneathon, where Barc and IRS promised to work and play well together. Judge Scholar Al gave them a continuance, and told them to check in with him in January.

IRS then reported that Barc was MIA. Judge Scholar Al issued an order to Barc to get with it or get tossed.

“On March 16, 2020, respondent’s counsel filed a status report representing that petitioner had continued in his refusal to respond to phone calls and letters.” Order, at p. 2. IRS’ counsel listed a bunch of tries, but Barc laid low. So Judge Scholar Al again told Barc to play nice or get tossed.

“On May 8, 2020, respondent filed his second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute. Counsel for respondent represents that petitioner recently telephoned him inquiring about the status of the case and stating that: (1) he has engaged an accountant to prepare returns for the 2011-2016 tax years at issue, but that the returns are not yet compete; (2) he would still like to meet with the revenue agent assigned to this case; and (3) he would object to the granting of a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.” Order, at p. 2.

IRS’ counsel says Barc is waltzing, so stop the music.

But Barc is saved by the pandemic. It’s an ill wind, and all like that.

“While respondent’s contentions have force, we will give petitioner one final chance to avoid dismissal of this case, influenced in part by concerns surrounding the COVID-19 epidemic. If petitioner wishes to avoid dismissal oft his case he must see to it that certain steps are taken by the deadlines set in this Order.” Order, at p. 2.

So let Barc get his accountant to give IRS Form 2848 POA, and talk about when these returns get filed. And report back at the end of June.

Judge David Gustafson could have done no more.

 

 

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: