In Uncategorized on 06/08/2020 at 10:33

“The Last Extension”

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber is always good for blogfodder, for which I’m grateful during this lockdown. Although Our Fair City is up today for the Phase I Law of Return, I am still homeworking and teletubbying until I get the “All Clear.”

Judge Scholar Al’s order in Yong S. Park & Yu J. Park, Docket No. 18282-18, filed 6/8/20, reminds me of the days of my youth, when I was sent to cover calendar calls.

The State court trial calendars were lengthy, and calendar calls brought out brigades of attorneys, horse-trading, posturing, seeking out one another “across a crowded room,” as the song has it. The battle-weary jurist assigned as catherd-of-the-day would enter (all standing), and the clerk, a hardcase child of the Depression, would call the calendar, carefully mispronouncing parties’ names.

The judge would clear the calendar like an experienced goalie.

The prolific pleas for adjournments (that’s “continuances,” to you high-priced Federalists) were kaleidoscopic in their inventiveness. Many were adjourned, but not a few were “marked final,” that is, no more adjournments. Except there usually were.

Judge Scholar Al gives Yong’s & Yu’s CPA, whom I’ll call Mr. K, one last chance, after Mr. K thrice failed to hand over documents substantiating Yong’s Sched C. Yong claims Mr. K tried on 4/29, but IRS counsel’s office was shut. That was after a couple orders (hi, Judge Holmes) starting last December, to unload.

“In light of these extraordinary circumstances, we permitted petitioners one more extension of time, to June 1, 2020, within which to produce documents, cautioning them that no further extensions would be given.

“On June 1, 2020, petitioners filed petitioner Young [sic] S. Park’s Motion for Extension of Time, seeking two more weeks to produce documents to respondent’s counsel. In their motion petitioners cite the health of their CPA as the reason for the delay in producing documents and request that the due date be extended to June 14, 2020. On June 2, 2020, respondent filed a status report in which he objected to petitioners’ motion for extension of time.

“Given the history of this proceeding, respondent’s objection to granting petitioners additional time is not unreasonable. However, in light of current circumstances, we will give petitioners the additional time they have requested, subject to the proviso that this really will be the last extension.” Order, at p. 2.

So let Yong & Yu call up IRS’ counsel, doublecheck the mailing address, and send the documents forthwith. If IRS’ counsel doesn’t get them by 6/14, they can’t be used at any trial.



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: