Attorney-at-Law

STYMIE

In Uncategorized on 06/15/2020 at 11:53

The golfing term, when one player’s ball lies directly in the way of another’s, has migrated into any situation where a person’s performance is thwarted, whether or not another person has any part in thwarting.

I’ve commented extensively about how the COVID-19 lockdown at the Glasshouse has thwarted paper filers. True, the internet remains for filings other than petitions and amendments thereto. But not everyone has internet connectivity to hand; even if the public libraries and cybercafes were open and providing low-cost or no-cost internet service, I’d worry about putting Section 6103 info into a public router of dubious security, even using VPN software. And I’d never use a public computer; who knows what spyware got emplaced thereon?

Hence I’m puzzled by ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s order to IRS to move for summary J in Dardanius Anderson, Docket No. 231-19L, filed 6/15/20.

True, Dardanius lost partial summary J for a bunch of years before the lockdown. Here’s that order, which I didn’t blog. But IRS had problems with the Section 6330(c)(1) checklist for compliance with law and procedure for the most recent four (count ‘em, four) years at issue. So Dardanius is down five for nine. Ex-Ch J Iron Mike ordered IRS to supplement their answer with a SNOD or showing why a SNOD was unnecessary for those years, plus any Boss Hossery for the chops.

IRS filed something in March, and ex-Ch J Iron Mike then ordered Dardanius to respond by April, but by that time the Glasshouse doors were locked up tight. And all ex-Ch J Iron Mike has to say about the internet is the boilerplate encouragement to register for eAccess.

So neither ex-Ch J Iron Mike nor I know whether Dardanius snail-mailed a response, and if he did, what happened to it.

Nevertheless, ex-Ch J Iron Mike tells IRS they “…file a motion for summary judgment or any other appropriate dispositive motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Maybe if Dardanius snail-mailed his response to IRS as well as to ex-Ch J Iron Mike, IRS can attach same to such motion, if they got it.

I know judges want to move their dockets along, and that they’re just as frustrated and stymied as the rest of us who are locked down. But if IRS moves, gets summary J, and Dardanius in fact snail-mailed a response timely, then there’ll be a vacation motion, and the work to do all over again.

 

  1. So are you saying that Tax Court is not processing anything filed on paper?

    Like

  2. Mr Reilly, what I am saying is that it would be difficult for the Court (or anyone else) to process a paper document they cannot see. If all snail-mail is being held or returned because the Glasshouse is locked down, it seems that the Court cannot be aware of the document’s existence, much less its content.

    Like

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: