Back in the winter of ’15, Winter Storm Octavia blew through Our Nation’s Capital and shuttered the Glasshouse on Second Street. And then-STJ Armen, the Judge With a Heart, crafted an exception to the Iron Law of wet ink snail mail on time. See my blogpost “Blow, Blow, Thou Winter Wind – Part Deux,” 8/24/15.

Well, last week the Octavia Rules were applied to applications to take the Tax Court Bar exam. Aspirants for torture can e-mail their forms. Here’s the skinny.

OK, so everyone who has a case is urged to sign up for eAccess. And if you don’t have a case but want to represent those who do, you can e-mail your application. While the press release doesn’t say so, why shouldn’t attorneys admitted in any US jurisdiction be allowed to seek admission via e-mail or e-filing?

And even more to the point, why can’t petitions and amendments thereto be filed electronically? Rule 34(a), effective 11/30/18 says, in pertinent part, “A petition may be filed electronically under the electronic filing procedures established by the Court, or a petition may be filed by properly mailing or hand delivering it to the Court.” So what’s holding up the parade?

Octavia was a one-day wonder. COVID-19 is here for the long haul.

All y’all who are bashing the FRE, the Tax Court Rules, and the Code and regs, in hot pursuit of the non-attorney admission to USTC via the toughest Bar exam around, thank the virus.

COVID-19, proving that it is indeed an ill wind that blows no one some good, has given you more study time.

Like a year’s worth.

Here’s the hot flash from The Glasshouse.

I hesitate to draw a sweeping conclusion from a single instance. Except our commonlaw system is a “wilderness of single instances.”

So perhaps STJ Lewis (“Gets It Right Every Time”) Carluzzo’s designated hitter today is more than just another voice crying in the wilderness.

Here’s Salvador Vasquez, Docket No. 10386-19S, filed 5/11/20.

Sal never responded to IRS’ multitudinous pretrial approaches to ready his case for trial. So IRS wants to dismiss Sal’s petition from a SNOD for want of prosecution.

“The failure of a party: (1) properly to prosecute; or (2) to comply with Court Rules or orders; or (3) to appear for trial, are grounds for dismissal. See Rules 104(c)(3), 123(b) and 149(a).” Order, at p. 1. (Footnote omitted). No quarrel with that.

But it is the severest and harshest sanction known to Tax Court Rules. You’re out, and since by the time you’re tossed the magic 90 (or 150) days to petition the SNOD is gone, never to return.

So since trial was set for June 1, but the trial session was postponed sine die, “(U)nder the circumstances and at this stage of the proceedings, we are reluctant to impose the harsh sanction that respondent requests.” Order, at p. 1.

However, lest Sal become too elated, like a much more exalted personage he gets a thorn in his flesh: “Our reluctance, however, to impose the sanction at this time in this case should not in any way be taken as a suggestion that a party’s behavior, as petitioner’s behavior is described in respondent’s motion, could not support such a sanction under appropriate circumstances.” Order, at p.1.

I know this is a small-claimer, unreviewed, off-the-cuff, don’t-quote-me, nonprecedential.

But something in me asks: Is it time for a verse or two of the late great Steve Allen’s 1954 hit? “This could be the start of something big”?

We all must recognize and help, to the extent we can, the waitstaff furloughed by COVID-19. It’s a tough job. My only experience of that life, as a dining room orderly (the best job on KP at Fort Jackson, and I only got it once), taught me that much. Separate orders, separate checks, are only two of the many things that cross and vex them.

Tax Court has a plethora of such problems for counsel who venture into the floating world of USTC.

Here’s Norma L. Slone, Transferee, et al, Docket No. 6629-10, filed 5/11/20. Except Norma has three (count ‘em, three) companion cases all conjoined. And two attorneys trying to join the fun.

Apparently each of the two has figured out that he need file a separate Entry of Appearance for himself. But both apparently missed the fact that, even if the cases be consolidated, he needs a separate Form 7 for each.

Judge Vasquez has a busy day trying to match clients with attorneys.

“…the entries of appearance are designed as entries of appearance for the case docketed at 6629-10 only.

“If counsel wish to enter appearances in the cases docketed at 6630-10, 6631-10, and 6632-10, they must file separate entries of appearance for each docketed case. See Rule 24(a)(3).” Order, at p. 1.

Note-while the docket search shows a motion to consolidate, it doesn’t show whether the motion was granted, although the cases all appear to have been tried together, and appealed to 9 Cir together. For the backstory, see my blogpost “Substance Matters – Part Deux,” 6/13/16. And for the upshot, see Norma Slone, Transferee v. CIR, 16-73349, 9 Cir, 2018.

Please to refer to my blogpost “The Quick-Kick Denied,” 8/31/16, wherein I provided the following takeaway: “If Congress starves IRS of resources, it doesn’t hurt IRS. It hurts the taxpayers.” 

In further proof thereof, Judge Vasquez joins Judge Buch in denying IRS’ motions to compel, respectively, document production and responses to interrogs.

IRS is on a super-quick-kick, machinegunning Branerton letters at Gilbert Hakim & Elham Hakim, Docket No. 20528-16, filed 5/11/20. For those who come late to this feast, see Branerton Corp. v. Com’r, 61 T. C. 691 (3/5/1974), the classic “play nice” discovery case.

Those of us who started our careers in the last millennium as State courtiers will remember responding to initial pleadings with a barrage of demands for bills of particulars, notices to admit, notices to produce, document production demands, notices to appear for depositions, and motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. This stuff don’t fly in Tax Court, no siree.

“Respondent’s motion to compel production of documents is based on five separate Branerton letters that respondent sent petitioners over the course of 19 days. Three of respondent’s Branerton letters gave petitioners less than two weeks to respond. One of those letters requested a response within four days. Having failed to give petitioners adequate time to respond to several Branerton letters before serving his third request for production of documents, respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to proceed with informal discovery.” Order, at p. 1. Motion denied, without prejudice.

As for answering interrogs, IRS seems to think that they can overrule Einstein (or whoever said it) by doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

“Respondent’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is based on three of the above-described Branerton letters, none of which gave petitioners more than 11 days to respond. One of those letters requested a response within four days. Having failed to give petitioners adequate time to respond to the Branerton letters before serving his third set of interrogatories, respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to proceed with informal discovery.” Order, at p.2. Motion denied, without prejudice.

Now I don’t know the backstory here. Maybe so Gil & El were first-class top-fuel rounders. Or maybe not. There are six (count ‘em, six) pages of docket entries under this number, replete with discovery jousts, motions to calendar, motions for trial, motions for continuance, Rule 91 deemers, motions to review for sufficiency, and what not, all bandied back and forth, the overwhelming majority of which cannot be viewed online. Even if the Glasshouse Doors were flung wide to the winds, it would entail days of unremunerated toil in The City of Taxation Without Representation to try to unscramble this huevos rancheros, the which I ain’t gonna undertake nohow.

Howbeit, I must again most respectfully refer all to whom these presents come to my takeaway hereinabove in the initial or first paragraph hereof (as my two-Grey-Goose-Gibson, notwithstanding the COVID-19 lockdown, lunching colleagues would say).

When it comes to the big blind in US Tax Court, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is on the case at warp speed. I’ve blogged his vigilant protection of the Tax Court purse any number of times, but, solely by way of illustration of the foregoing, see my blogpost “The Tossed Petitioner,” 10/29/18.

Well, perhaps today Ch J Mighty Mo is in a mellow mood, because Linda R. Knapp, Docket No. 3420-20, filed 5/8/20, maybe gets her SNOD tossed for free.

Linda mailed in some correspondence, including but without limitation (as my expensively-sheltered-in-place colleagues would say) a SNOD, for tax year 2017, on 2/20/20. No check, however. Note the dates matter here.

Ch J Mighty Mo reacts swiftly.

“On February 28, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing that payment of the filing fee for this litigation be made, or an application for waiver thereof submitted, on or before April 13, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the Court then received from petitioner a further letter indicating that petitioner did not intend by the initial correspondence with this Court to begin a case herein and that petitioner preferred to work administratively through the Internal Revenue Service to resolve the 2017 tax matters, rather than to continue with the instant Court proceeding.” Order, at p. 1.

Toss coming right up, no?

No. “…additional review of the record at this juncture suggests a fundamental jurisdictional defect, calling into question the validity of the purported notice of deficiency dated February 3, 2020. In particular, the petition explained, and attached documentation supporting, that the deficiency had been paid in July of 2019. If the amount of an alleged deficiency has been paid prior to issuance of a statutory notice pertaining thereto, the determined amount fails to qualify as a deficiency within the meaning of the governing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.” Order, at p. 1.

So let IRS and Linda show cause why the non-SNOD should not be tossed. Well, a file was opened, a docket number assigned, and scarce judicial resources employed, so shouldn’t Linda ante up?

“…the Court’s $60.00 filing fee for this case is waived, and petitioner is no longer required to pay such amount.” Order, at p. 2.

Vincent J. Fumo, Docket No. 17603-13, filed 5/7/20, is another one who thinks IRS is up to no good.

VJ is an ex-PA legislator who went down for bribery. After being sprung but before being locked-down, VJ unloads a pretrial brief wherein he seeks to put on the stand at trial “…among the witnesses he expected to call, an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) involved in his criminal case and two revenue agents (RAs) who participated in the IRS civil tax audit. Petitioner suggests that the testimony of these witnesses will supply evidence relating to the ‘manner and motives’ behind the examination and his contention that the notices of deficiency are ‘arbitrary, capricious, and excessive.’ In support of his belief that these witnesses will provide relevant testimony petitioner cites the following facts or assertions: (1) the United States appealed the sentence imposed upon his criminal conviction; (2) the IRS did not commence the civil examination until after the criminal case had ended; (3) the IRS did not agree to a settlement of his civil case; and (4) IRS officers declined to give him extensions of time and missed a scheduled appointment. Petitioner also contends that the IRS relied on facts established in the criminal case when preparing its notice of deficiency.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber says “So what?” Only more politely.

VJ gets a trial de novo for his SNOD. Whatever IRS did or didn’t do, they’ve shown a connection between something VJ did and some income that may or may not be taxable. A naked assessment, backed by nothing except the presumption of correctness, might be tossable for arbitrary-and-capriciousness. Except VJ stiped to much trial testimony from his fall, and that’s enough.

Greenberg’s Express, 62 T.C. 324 (1974) stops in PA.

The statistics link on my WordPress.com page tells me that the most popular of all my 3,225 posts is “Settle Order On Notice,” 6/23/17. It has received 997 views. And since Judge Mark V Holmes crafted the order that inspired that post, it is only right and proper that he gave me the sequel.

This is one for your form file, guys. No warranties, guarantees or representations, but save and tailor to suit.

EZ Lube, LLC, EZL-1 Investments, Inc., A Partner Other Than The Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 18021-13, filed 5/7/20, has been here before, but this post has nothing to do with that, so I won’t cite to it.

Apparently a certain heavy-hitting investment bank greased the wheels in the deal at issue, and both the EZ Lubers and IRS want a whack at the pictures, descriptions and accounts that the heavy-hitters used in the process.

Unusually, the heavy hitters don’t object, but want a Rule 103 protective order.

Now generally (don’tcha love that word? You know there generally follows several thousand words of exceptions), Judge Holmes would have to pull such an order from his forms file, and tailor to suit.

But apparently an outside counsel type has one ready to hand, and incorporated same in the body of the heavy hitter’s motion for a protective order.

Now that Judge Holmes has ascended to senior status, I’m sure he’s glad to be spared the labor.

So Judge Holmes orders “…the Clerk is to attach to this Order the protective order found on pages 13 through 19 of [heavy hitter]’s … motion for a protective order.” Order, at p. 2. And send it to heavy hitter’s counsel. Maybe to settle on notice.

Practitioner, the protective order is part of Judge Holmes’ order. You might want maybe so to scan, deskew, and save to your form file. Just on the off-chance.

Takeaway- If you want someone to do something for you, make it easy, Especially judges.

But Win On Remand

I’m sure my readers, few in number but photographic in memory, will easily recall Bruce Edward Haddix & Rae Anne Haddix, Docket No. 23437-16L, filed 5/7/20. For the new-fledged, see my blogposts “No Deus, Much Machina,” 11/18/15, and “Lose Your Case At Discovery,” 12/7/16.

Turns out Bruce & Rae got the NITL knocked out at a remand to Appeals back in February. I missed that one, but here it is. So, notwithstanding Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley’s invitation for Bruce & Rae to sue in USDC or USCFC, Bruce & Rae are back.

“On March 4, 2020, petitioners filed a motion to vacate the Court’s orders dated September 21, 2017, and February 3, 2020, alleging that respondent was intentionally dishonest in his answer to the petition. Petitioners assert that respondent and others are attempting to cover up corrupt activities of certain public officials. Respondent filed an objection to petitioners’ motion, to which petitioners filed a response.” Order, at p. 2.

IRS denied information sufficient to form a belief as to Bruce’s & Rae’s broad allegations of official misconduct. Back here in the Apple we call that a “DKI.”

“Under the Court’s pleading rules, positions taken in an answer must be grounded in fact to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry. Rule 33(b). If the Commissioner is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, he shall so state and such statement shall have the effect of a denial. Rule 36(b). Contrary to petitioners’ position, and in the light of the broad allegations that petitioners made in the petition, the Court finds that respondent’s answer was not misleading or dishonest and it served its intended function–to inform the Court of the issues in dispute. Rule 31(a).” Order, at p. 2.

No vacation.

No, I have no case pending in US Tax Court. I do have a petition to the Court of a different kind. I’ve been advocating for the end of the wet-ink snail-mail petition and amended petition for some time now. Rule 23(a)(3) should be brought into the first year of the Twenty-First Century, now that we are halfway through the twentieth year thereof.

All y’all will recollect the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN, Pub. L.106-229, 114 Stat. 464, enacted June 30, 2000, 15 USC ch. 96). That enactment provided for electronic signatures in interstate and foreign commerce, as all, or almost all, States had their own enactments.

Of course, that statute made the use of electronic signatures optional. Any party could opt for wet-ink snail-mail. So, for example, does our New York State Technology Law Section 309.

So, when I read Brandon Tucker & Kanhnilla Tucker, Docket No. 2355-20, filed 5/6/20, I see that perhaps the dawn of the age of technology is slowly breaking over the locked-down Glasshouse.

Thus spake Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley.

“On April 22, 2020, the parties electronically filed a Proposed Stipulated Decision bearing petitioners’ signatures. To the extent that the Court’s procedures require all stipulated decisions to bear original signatures and the party who files the decision to maintain the paper copy, petitioners’ intention to file and prosecute this case in this forum has been adequately verified.” Order, at p.1.

So why not e-signed and e-filed petitions and amendments, with wet-inks retained, and delivered on request to IRS, Court or intervenor? And anyone can opt out.