In the current roster of Tax Court rounders (frequent litigators with specious or frivolous arguments), Gregory J. Podlucky, lead in Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Docket No. 453-17, filed 6/25/21, has earned the coveted (?) Rounder First Class With Oak Leaf Cluster award.

Greg has appeared so often in this my blog that I no longer catalogue these. And today’s efforts show Greg has lost none of the moves and maneuvers that have brought him to the heights of rounderdom.

Here’s that patient jurist, Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber to explain. Greg wants summary J and IRS’ papers stricken. And his trial continued (that’s “adjourned,” for us State courtiers).

“In their Motions petitioners urge that respondent ‘has perpetrated fraud upon this Court by alleging that the Petitioners have evaded taxes for the years 2003, 2004, and 2006.’ They ask us to strike ‘all briefs, documents, and other papers’ relating to those tax years and to dismiss the case with respect to those years.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Scholar Al isn’t even looking, much less buying.

“We will deny both Motions. Petitioners’ assertion that respondent has ‘perpetrated fraud upon this Court’ is frivolous. Petitioners appear to contend that they cannot be liable for tax deficiencies for 2003, 2004, or 2006 because the Government, in petitioner husband’s criminal case, withdrew the counts that alleged tax evasion under I.R.C. sec. 7201 for those years, in exchange for a guilty plea by petitioner husband with respect to 2005.” Order, at p. 1.

So just maybe Greg was playing the Fiore gambit, for which see my blogpost “Lawyers Can’t Add,” 1/17/13, by copping to one year only so as to duck issue preclusion for “pattern of fraud” to support civil fraud chops per Section 6663. I told you Greg is a top-drawer rounder.

Judge Scholar Al plays what I will call the Scholar’s countergambit to the Fiore gambit.

“Needless to say, a taxpayer need not have been convicted of a tax crime in order to be liable for a tax deficiency. Respondent does not allege that either petitioner ‘evaded taxes’ for 2003, 2004, 2006, the gravamen of a criminal offense under I.R.C. sec. 7201. Rather, respondent contends that petitioners underpaid their income tax for those years and that petitioner husband is liable for civil fraud penalties under I.R.C. sec. 6663(a).” Order, at pp. 1-2.

But la partie continue, because Greg isn’t done yet. As the COVID reshuffle caused trials to go remote, Greg’s trial was first set for Los Angeles, then moved at Greg’s request to Denver, and then moved for administrative purposes only back to Los Angeles.

“Petitioners now assert ‘that the place of trial is improper’ and that they ‘cannot proceed until this egregious occurrence is corrected.’ To the extent petitioners are seeking a continuance of their October 4 trial date, that request is denied. Because the calendar call and any ensuing trial during that session will be conducted remotely, it is immaterial whether petitioners are physically located in Denver, Los Angeles, or some other city in which they happen to be.” Order, at p. 2.

I regret I cannot furnish an actual decoration for Greg to pin on his battledress. He certainly earned Rounder First Class With Oak Leaf Cluster.