Attorney-at-Law

TITANIUM? TUNGSTEN? CHROMIUM?

In Uncategorized on 06/19/2020 at 13:29

Unlike Frances L. Rogers, Docket No. 30586-09, filed 6/19/20, I have neither a bachelor of science degree in chemistry nor a master’s degree in biochemistry. I have no expertise in metallurgy. But I am told that the above-captioned are among the hardest metals known, and therefore are singularly appropriate anatomically with respect to the herein-referred-to order from Judge Goeke.

Frances moves out of time (that’s Fedspeak for after the train left) for a new trial. “Mrs. Rogers asserts that her husband had a conflict of interest when he represented her and that she was not adequately represented in the prior proceeding which resulted in opinions finding she is not eligible for relief under I.R.C. § 6015 for 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009.” Order, at p. 1.

Really, Frances should sit down with her husband’s now or former partner, Mrs. Susan Hartigan, who also claimed to have trouble with her tax lawyer husband. Susan has the same problem that Frances has: Tax Court Judges are hard-hearted souls, and don’t buy what Frances and Susan are selling.

See my blogpost “Getting Out of the Neighborhood,” 8/11/17, for Susan’s story.

Now here’s Judge Goeke’s take on Frances’ latest.

“Her position blatantly ignores her prior testimony and representations to this Court that the interests of her husband and herself were the same, because he had no assets and was in fact her financial dependent. She gave such testimony at length and clearly made the representations in an affidavit and pleadings to successfully oppose respondent’s motions to have Mr. Rogers removed as her counsel.” Order, at p. 1.

“We found previously based upon her sworn affidavit and later testimony that there was no conflict and there is no basis to change that finding even if we were to entertain her motion for a new trial. Therefore, if we granted petitioner’s motion, we would not grant a new trial on the factual record regarding the now alleged conflict.

“We find that Mr. Rogers was and is highly motivated to sustain her innocent spouse claims because he has stripped himself of assets and wishes to preserve her wealth to maintain their lifestyle. His most recent testimony in the trial of the innocent spouse claim for 2010 and later years reinforces this finding. He testified he has no assets and accordingly it is logical he has made himself collection proof. It is important to note that the Rogerses remain devoted to each other and share the same home and Mrs. Rogers’ assets as the basis for their support.” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Goeke denies the motion. and orders the parties to file their Rule 155 numbers-crunch.

What he doesn’t order is more interesting: no Section 6673 friviolity/delay-of-the-game chop. Judge, if this doesn’t merit even a warning, what does merit a chop? If a catcher won’t even try a pick-off, I’m running with the pitch. And Frances probably has Louis Clark Brock beaten.

And you, dear reader, lest you feel neglected, choose your metal.

 

 

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: