In Uncategorized on 12/03/2021 at 12:25

While the United States of America has no official language (despite various attempts to legislate one), and while the question whether there should be such a one has great political philippic potential, nevertheless and notwithstanding, the United States Tax Court conducts its proceedings in English. See Administrative Order 2020-02, 5/29/20, which provided, in pertinent part: “All Court proceedings are conducted in English. All documents must be filed in English or include a certified English translation. You should let the Judge know as early as possible that you require help with English. It is generally the responsibility of each petitioner to bring an interpreter. If you give advance notice, the Court may have one available.”

However, this Admin Order was terminated by Administrative Order 2021-01, 8/27/21, which omits the above cited language.

My readers will doubtless recall Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber dealing with German in my blogpost “The German Invasion,” 9/17/20; Judge Elizabeth A (“Tex”) Copeland dealing with Spanish in my blogpost “LITC and VITA,” 8/20/19; and Judge Mark V Holmes being bemused as the Golden Gophers’ interpreter tries to translate “negative amortization” into Oromo, which is “an Afro-Asiatic language, of the Cushitic branch, and is the most widely spoken language in Ethiopia.” For that gem, see my blogpost “The Golden Gophers Win One,” 5/6/14.

Be all the foregoing as it may, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley eschews the role of polyglot in Justino Hernandez Larios & Teresa Salazar Barranco, Docket No. 18751-21, filed 12/3/21*.

Justino & Teresa filed “an imperfect petition written entirely in Spanish. Petitioners did not attach a Notice of Deficiency to the Petition.” Order, at p. 1.

Ch J Mighty Mo tells them to amend in English, concisely and clearly setting forth assignments of error and facts in support of each thereof. And send in the sixty bucks.

Think maybe so it might could be time for a Rule about languages, Ch J?

*Justino Larios & Teresa Barranco Docket No 18751-21 12 3 21

  1. The Docket shows the petitioners are now represented by attorney Khorsandi, while IRS boasts the tag team of Demirjian and Hagopian. They managed to file an Answer by 9/29/21 – presumably in English. But it brings to mind the NAEA slogan, “We Speak Tax.”


  2. Please clarify, as BOTH orders contain language, “Copies of Standing Pretrial Orders consistent with these policies are attached”, and you’ll see that those forms, again on both orders, contain a “Language Barriers” section stating “All Court proceedings are conducted in English. All documents must be filed in English or include a certified English translation.”.


  3. Mr/Ms Halen, No need for me to clarify, as your comment does that. But my point remains: neither the order in Larios-Barranco nor the Standing Pretrial Order has any basis in statute or Rule. Ipse dixit is no basis. A Court Rule would provide a proper basis.


Leave a Reply to Spanky (@SpankyHalen) Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: