I thought that DAWSON, the brand-new, improved (most affirmative, right?), jim-handy, electronic staircase to The Cloud, would finally bring into being electronic petitioning and amending.

After all, Rule 34 cleared the way, three years ago. See my blogpost “I Dreamed a Dream,” 11/25/20.

But no.

For no apparent reason, Tax Court is still enamored of Fourth Century B.C. technology. For example, see Donald L. Adkins & Janette Adkins, Docket No. 13060-20, filed 3/12/21. Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is still expending scarce judicial resources on “(T)he Amended Petition should be signed by both petitioners (preferably in blue ink) and submitted in PAPER FORM (not eFiled), as petitioners’ original signatures are needed to support jurisdiction in this proceeding.” Order, at p. 1.

If it be objected that the petition (or any amendment thereto) must be executed under penalty of perjury, and therefore must be wet-ink papered, what price the electronically filed tax return, which now constitutes the overwhelming majority of returns filed? Are these not filed under penalty of perjury? And must IRS’ answer be wet-ink papered? Or need the answer not comply with FRCP 11? Perhaps Chuck Rettig and the 1111 Constitution Ave guys are exempt somehow.

Paper submissions, whether via mail or PDS (hand delivery is out during COVID as The Glasshouse is closed), are slow, cost money, and produce useless debates about timeliness, and potential malpractice claims. So what price Rule 1(d), the darling of The Great Chieftain of The Jersey Boys?

“The Court’s Rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every case.” Rule 1(d).

Time to get past Herodotus and the Persian posties.