In Uncategorized on 06/19/2020 at 15:00

Back in May, 2013, some person using the name Alex chided me for blogging when  “…people are already in a difficult place and with your blogger persecution making it worse.” I protested the word “persecution,” then and now, because Alex never furnished particulars, only badly-constructed generalities. He never surfaced again.

Howbeit, I am left with the blogger’s unfortunate lot, always “an hour to play and the last man in.”

The litigants, their counsel, and the Judges and STJs have all had their innings.

When I get my turn, I’m always out of time. But what was written, was written, and it remains. And it’s all the daily grist that comes to the blogger’s mill. I object to being accused of “piling on.”

So here’s Dan Israely & Zahava Israely, Docket 18108-18, filed 6/19/20. It’s not Dan’s or Zahava’s story, although they’ve something to say at the end.

Perhaps it’s the strain of isolation; or the strains of family, friends, cohabitants, pets, or all the above; or the temptation of kitchen and Amazon-chock-a-blocked refrigerator, freezer, and cupboards; whichever it is, has caused IRS’ counsel to turn out less than a perfect effort. I won’t name her, because I’m sure ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”)’s gentle admonition stings more than my “persecution.”

“Respondent’s motion for leave to file first amendment to answer states that it is made ‘in order to assert additional bases for the adjustments to Schedule C expenses and an increase in the deficiency and [sic] for tax years 2014 and 2015.’ However, neither respondent’s motion nor the first amendment to answer lodged therewith states the amount or contemplated calculation of any increased deficiencies. In fact, the first amendment to answer as lodged…concludes by requesting that ‘respondent’s determination, as set forth in the notice of deficiency, be in all respects approved.’ Consequently, we are left in doubt as to whether respondent is actually seeking increased deficiencies and, if so, in what amounts. We are also left in doubt as to how any increased deficiencies relate to the various alternative ‘additional bases’ respondent has advanced in his lodged first amendment to petition.” Order, at p. 1.

Of course, Dan’s and Zahava’s counsel comes in to oppose, but appropriately raises Section 7491 “new matter” BoP shift, both as to facts and legal theories.

So let IRS’ counsel respond to Dan’s & Zahava’s counsel’s objections, but don’t forget ex-Ch J Iron Mike.

  1. To give Alex his or her due. I have made a practice when I blog about Tax Court decisions involving ordinary people who tell embarrassing stories – think innocent spouse cases of not naming them, since they don’t need my help to be more famous.


  2. Mr Reilly, I value your opinion. Still, as a much finer writer than I put it “As it is, however, I must needs tell my tale in my own plain way.”


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 )

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: