If you remember the debut of The Fleetwoods’ hit thus entitled, you definitely qualify for Social Security. Today we have a reprise of Rule 34(a)(1), 11/30/18 amendment, as it maybe applies and maybe doesn’t, as more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “The Stealth Rule,” 8/2/21.

Once again, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is insisting upon paper filing of amended petitions. Once again, I am confused.

Here’s Jenny A. Stewart, Docket No. 16161-21, filed 8/3/21.

“…petitioner shall, on or before September 14, 2021, file with the Court in paper form (not electronic) a Ratification of Petition bearing an original signature (not a photocopy), preferably in blue ink….” Order, at p. 1.

Can petitions and amendments thereto be filed electronically? If so, does the rule we learned so long ago, that any permanent mark a person makes, however they make it, that evidences an intention to be bound, is a valid signature, still apply?

Or in Tax Court, do we call you Mister Blue?

The biennial balloon has descended, and those wishing to clamber aboard on November 17 can read all about it.

Here’s the skinny: https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/resources/forms/Admission_Nonattorney_Info_and_Form_18A.pdf

Note the fees. It isn’t cheap, and the pass rate is way less than any Bar exam I know of.

Anyway, it’s open season for applications. So study hard. Time management and knowing the FRE cold are the keys.

Best of luck to the candidates.

I had noted before now the speed at which Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler undertook his duties; see my blogpost “Fastest Promotion on Record,” 9/10/20. Today he has a full-dress T. C., Mary T. Belair, 157 T. C. 2, filed 8/2/21, but I’m not sure what in this case is so novel that a full-dress T. C. is called for.

The Robinette-Keller clash (de novo 8 Cir v record-rule 9 Cir; see 157 T. C. 2, at p. 3, footnote 3) seems to have been settled by van Bemmelen (the link here is to the opinion reported on a general freebie internet site, as the Genius Baristas (or 18Fs) at DAWSON have blocked it on the Tax Court site). C ‘mon, guys, get it together.

Maybe Judge Speedy Weiler wants to make it clear that the van Bemmelen summary J rationale applies to CDP cases, since van Bemmelen was a whistleblower. See 157 T. C. 2, at p. 11.

Anyway, Mary Belair is out. She hadn’t filed a couple delinquent returns (hi, Judge Holmes), and that would be enough to torpedo her IA, and even the OIC that SO gratuitously suggested she try, unless she filed the returns.

The only real novelty here is Mary Belair’s story about the “corrupt” AUSA in CT and her $20 million judgment, but I’ll leave that for you to read.

I note that Tax Court website announces today that the website guidance for self-representeds (pro ses) is now available as a PDF download. While this is doubtless a help, I fear it is just an addition to the “those who need it won’t read it, and those who read it don’t need it” file jacket.

Nevertheless, I breezed through it, and found this entry at p. 10 thereof: “You may also file a petition electronically. Efiled petitions will be submitted electronically through the DAWSON case management system.”

And the Case-Related Forms page likewise lists Form 2 (the simplified petition) and its pendant forms (Forms 4 and 5) as Efilable.

Moreover, today’s orders feature the usual plethora of “File an Amended Petition”, but none seems to require paper filing.

Can it be that Rule 34(a)(1), as amended 11/30/18, has been finally implemented?

I echo words from a much more exalted personage even than Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley: “Can any good thing come out of DAWSON?”

Edited to add, 8/2/21: Maybe I spoke (or wrote) too soon. Check out Fred J. Flanders & Twylla G. Flanders, Docket No. 15804-21, filed 8/2/21. Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley still wants wet ink and paper, notwithstanding the new, improved (ha ha ha), jim-handy DAWSON electronic filing largesse.