In Uncategorized on 09/15/2020 at 13:56

Those practitioners too young for Medicare won’t remember when those of us geriatric types actually had legal secretaries, whose syntactical, grammatical, and legal skills equaled or in some cases far outpaced ours. I remember Dolores and Lydia, to name just two; of course, their daughters became lawyers.

There were others, of course, less good. One of them, when the dictation was “very truly yours,” ended a letter with “Virtually yours.”

But that’s what today’s blogpost is about.

I have often praised the Low Income Tax Clinics, their motivated future Bar leaders, and their distinguished faculty advisers. They are definitely there to help.

But even they are useless if those of Low Income fail to show, even virtually.

Here’s Raymond J. Owens, Docket No. 20681-18, filed 9/15/20.

Raymond J. had apparently stiped out back in February, but never returned the signed documents for entry. So Judge Nega did a whass’up phoneathon with all hands in June.

“During that call, petitioner expressed interest in seeking assistance from a low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs) and the Court provided petitioner with a list of those clinics available in the Chicago, Illinois area.” Order, at p. 1.

But Raymond J. tells IRS he “…had contacted multiple LITCs and that ‘none of the clinics reached back out to him.'” Order, at p. 1.

Maybe the law schools were all locked-down and teletubbying their classes; I don’t know. In any event, Judge Nega sent Raymond J. and IRS off to teletry the case this November.

But now IRS moves to dismiss for want of prosecution.

“…respondent represents that on August 18, 2020, respondent spoke with petitioner and ‘schedule[d] an appointment to speak with LITCs and pro bono legal volunteers at a Virtual Settlement Day event held on August 28, 2020’ to which petitioner indicated he would be available to attend. Respondent further represents that on August 28, 2020, petitioner failed to attend the Virtual Settlement Day even though respondent made numerous attempts to contact and reach petitioner. Lastly, respondent states that petitioner’s views as to the granting of respondent’s motion to dismiss are unknown.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

So let Raymond J. respond.

And it’s nice to know the LITCs are “virtually yours.”




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: