It’s thirteen (count ’em, thirteen) years and more since I first suggested that something was less than perfect about automatic admission to practice before the United States Tax Court. “The attorney need show no proficiency in Federal practice (to say nothing of Tax Court practice), or even the vaguest acquaintance with the IRC.” See my blogpost “A Book and a Modest Proposal,” 5/22/12.

US Tax Court practice is a minefield; even the adept come a cropper. Attorneys of vast reputation in other areas of the law receive comeuppances. After more than fourteen (count ’em, fourteen) years of almost daily coverage, and 4,766 blogposts, 95% of which relate to Tax Court cases, law and practice, I cannot claim expertise.

So I feel for Mr. Hawkins, Esq., as he tries to rescue Afsaneh E. Hawkins, Docket No. 10443-20L, filed 9/28/23, his spouse. Appeals had given Afsaneh a NOD sustaining a NITL, which Afsaneh petitioned. IRS predictably moved for summary J after an attempt by Afsaneh to get an OIC failed.

“…the day answering briefs were due, we got a motion to continue for one day from Ms. Hawkins. [The next day], we got a motion to continue more generally in a document signed by Mr. Hawkins who, though a lawyer, is not admitted to practice in Tax Court. Accompanying this was a contract that he had signed back in 2020 with a firm that is not a law firm but calls itself ‘American Tax Solutions.'” Order, at p. 1.

Maybe Mr. H, Esq., was going to try for another OIC; sounds like one of those midnight television commercials pitching “get rid of your tax debt,” but rather gets rid of your money, but I can’t tell.

But that’s beside the point. The general idea is, when you get a summary J motion, you answer it. At least in Judge Mark V (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes’ courtroom.

“This suggested that there was some confusion on the part of the Hawkins as to what we were requiring. We spoke with them … to try to clarify that all we need is a response to the IRS’s motion that we can also consider Ms. Hawkins’ own motion. We also explained to Mr. Hawkins that, until and unless he becomes a member of the Tax Court bar, he may not file anything on his wife’s behalf.” Order, at p. 1.

I am sure Judge Holmes told Mr H, Esq., that fifty Georges, a certificate of good standing, no more than 90 days old, from any Rule 200 Court to which he is admitted, and a completed application form (Form 30, nowhere to be found on the Court’s website, but here’s a link) would get him admitted.

So Judge Holmes resets the briefing schedule, seriatim instead of simultaneous.

Two words to Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan: Automatic admission is a mistake. And please put Form 30 on the website.