I noted the other day that my colleague Peter Reilly CPA was seeking blogfodder in the tsunami of petitions flooding The Glasshouse in the City-NonState; see my blogpost “Draining The Swamp,” 8/17/21.

He and I spoke by telephone yesterday, and we agreed that Mark Twain was right again. “One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

It could be the shutdown that preceded the roll-out of DAWSON. It could be the early days of DAWSON. It could be the economic effects of the pandemic, as the only relief accorded was some permissible delays in filing, but not in paying. It could be something “between Heaven and earth, not dreamt of in your philosophy,” or mine.

I’m offering no prizes for the most imaginative guess, or even the correct answer.

It’s entirely possible we may never have an answer.

But I do know this much. Once the petitions are all logged in and docket numbers assigned, we will still have petitioners like Anthony Andrews, Docket No. 14029-17*, filed 8/19/21. And deploying what few resources Tax Court may have on such as this.

“Throughout this case, petitioner has failed to directly address his entitlement to the EIC that he claimed for 2015, which in part depends on whether he had qualified dependents during 2015. He has claimed that his constitutional rights have been violated, that the EIC issue was settled, and that respondent’s counsel was guilty of misconduct. His claims have been analyzed and rejected in the Court Order dated May 2, 2018, denying petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 30, 2017, and Court’s Order dated April 10, 2019, denying petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents filed January 28, 2019. Petitioner refuses to accept the Orders of the Court, instead filing repetitive documents and motions and attempting a premature appeal.” Order, at pp.1-2.

Oh, and are you surprised by this?

“Petitioner has been incarcerated during the pendency of this case and apparently will be for some time. On August 4, 2021, he filed a notice of change of address indicated that he is now in a Federal Correctional facility in Florida. By maintaining only previously rejected positions, he has failed to pursue reasonable means of resolving this case. Unless he indicates an intention to abandon his meritless arguments and address the EIC issue in this case, the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution is well taken and may be granted. See Rules 123 and 149(b).” Order, at p. 2

Judge Nega, I agree that everyone is entitled to his or her day in Court. But it’s a “day in court,” not four years.

*Anthony Andrews 8 19 21