Judges love settlements, wherever and however they originate. I’ve noted before that judges may act as catalysts in bringing the parties together, whether by sitting them down (either physically or electronically)  and banging heads, or by subtler means, like telling them to go try the case, which they are loath to do.

Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes has done this before (see my blogpost “Prolegomena to a Settlement,”11/23/20), and he does it again with Hugo S. Bernal & Paula Bernal, Docket No. 11566-20L, filed 7/28/23. Hugo & Paula want to joust about their liability for the three (count ’em, three) years at issue. Problem is, they’re petitioning a CDP, they’re Golsenized to 1 Cir, and 1 Cir is strictly record rule from a CDP, no trials, just abuse-of-discretion.

Hugo & Paula and IRS want a third continuance (that’s an “adjournment,” if you’re a State courtier), but Judge Holmes thinks it’s time to stop waltzing. So he set up a phoneathon.

“It is apparent that petitioners want very much to contest their liability for the three tax years… at issue. Because our review is limited to the administrative record, that may be difficult, as we explained. Settlements are nevertheless to be encouraged, and the parties had already set up a meeting in late August.” Order, at p. 1. (Nudge nudge, wink wink).

“To keep the case moving to a conclusion, we will not grant a third general continuance, but we will allow the parties to propose a briefing schedule that will give them some time to try to negotiate a settlement whose terms might not be achievable through litigation.” Order, at p. 1.

Word to Hugo & Paula: the deal you make with IRS may be a lot better than what Judge Holmes can give you (and what 1 Cir would buy).