That’s the title of the case; conveniently, it’s also the title of this blogpost. The case is W.T.F., Inc., Docket No. 2833-19, filed 6/2/22. It’s a handy springboard to a further rant anent Boechler and the Supremes’ idea of bringing rationality to Tax Court’s jurisdictional prerequisites.

Brief timeline: Petition filed 2/19. IRS moves to toss for lack of prosecution, 11/20. On return of OSC, W.T.F.’s representative (title unstated) shows on second call, and case continued. Although W.T.F. filed an ownership disclosure four (count ’em, four) days later, they filed nothing else then or since. So special remote trial set for 8/21. Again W.T.F.’s rep shows, IRS’ counsel moves to toss, but nothing happens. Meantime, IRS’ counsel has filed four (count ’em, four) status reports.

So Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris orders that W. T. F. “…shall file a written response why this case should not be dismissed and decision entered against petitioner for the amounts and years set forth in respondent’s motion.” Order, at p. 1.

It hardly matters if equitable tolling is now permitted in deficiency cases, so that assessment and collection can be stayed months after the 90-150 day statutory deadline has passed, per Section 6213(a).

Here we have a stay of assessment and collection since 2/19, a mere three-and-a-quarter years, during which petitioner has filed one (count it, one) single-page form and a change of address.

I shall again note that, in Our Fair State’s courts, to get such a stay of proceedings one must show a meritorious claim, and may be required to post a bond.

Oh yes, response to Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris’ latest order is due in ten days. Any takers for a bet on what happens?