In Uncategorized on 06/12/2020 at 18:32

I didn’t want to waste much time on Judge Elizabeth A (“Tex”) Copeland’s designated hitter today.  I have a minor jollification on the program this evening, and blogging another busted Rule 155 rehash is way down the list.

Mark Alan Staples, Docket No. 6560-18, filed 6/12/20, wants a new trial. He didn’t do so well on the first one; see my blogpost “You Can’t Lose,” 3/11/20. Judge Tex Copeland retitles this as a motion to reconsider per Rule 161. Mark Alan is 29 days late, and could get bounced for that, but Judge Tex Copeland plows through Mark Alan’s objections anyway.

“Mr. Staples sets forth a litany of dubious grievances. In brief, Mr. Staples main allegations are that the Court made errors of fact relating to realized and unrealized income; violated its jurisdiction regarding employee benefit entitlement issues; violated his 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights; and is prejudiced against him as a pro se petitioner.” Order, at p. 2.

“As to his curt references to Constitutional free speech and due process violations, they are belied by the protections set forth in our Rules 155 and 161, allowing Mr. Staples an avenue for contesting our findings of facts and opinion and allowing him to present his computations of the proper tax deficiency to this Court. The remainder of Mr. Staple’s [sic] motion discusses a mathematical formula for calculating the previously disallowed loss and rehashes previously rejected legal arguments. As such, we will not revisit this.” Order, at p. 3.

Mark Alan also wants to wild-card in three (count ‘em, three) years not before the Court.

Mark Alan’s Rule 155 numbers repeat the losing argument. But IRS’ numbers sum the whole thing up.

“Respondent’s computations have as their starting point the concessions by petitioner that he received $10 in taxable interest and $4,648 from an IRA distribution. The remaining computations are mathematical, based on the increased taxable income conceded. Respondent’s computations calculate a deficiency of $1,635; they highlight underreported withholding of $929 and an advance payment of $742 (treated as a deposit), which amounts will offset the deficiency amount and any interest due on the deficiency. According to respondent, the offsets leave Mr. Staples owing 28 cents after application of interest. We find respondent’s [year at issue] deficiency computations to be consistent with our Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion.” Order, at p. 5.

Twenty-eight cents? Don’t spend it all in one place.



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: