I’ve often discoursed about the obliging nature of Judge David Gustafson.  I’ve said before, “(H)e’ll try your case in the slammer; he’ll draft your pleadings; he’ll do everything but bring doughnuts and coffee to calendar call and feed the parking meter while you wait.” See my blogpost “Obliging? This Beats All,” 3/6/19.

But Arthur Bialer, Docket No. 6983-16W, filed 10/11/23, finally crosses the red line.

Arthur tried twice for reconsideration. He lost those, but now wants to compel IRS to produce documents on all of the dodges Arthur denounced with respect to Target. No. All that is relevant is what pertains to Arthur’s claim about Target, not everyone else who tried the same move. And everyone else would involve taxpayer information beyond what Section 6103(h)(4)(A) allows; that section only lets in taxpayer information relevant to parties to the proceeding.

He does get to expand the time period for which IRS must produce pre-claim correspondence.

Judge Gustafson chose an arbitrary six-month window because the parties didn’t specify any. IRS claims this is yet another motion to reconsider and it’s outside the thirty-day Rule 161 cutoff.

“We acknowledge that this 6-month period was not based on any mandatory principle, and that the timeframe Mr. Bialer proposes … is reasonable. Furthermore, as to the procedural defects of Mr. Bialer’s motion raised by the Commissioner, we agree to entertain Mr. Bialer’s motion and reconsider the timeframe stated in our order … because our … cut-off was new matter, and we are reconsidering it now for the first time.” Order, at p. 5.

But that’s it for Arthur.

“From the Court’s perspective, we have bent over backwards to be sure that we have given him the opportunity to clarify (and even repeat) his contentions and that we have fairly entertained those contentions. The window for reconsideration is now slammed shut, and we do not expect to entertain (but rather to summarily deny) any further motion to compel or to reconsider.” Order, at p. 6.