How many times before now have I complimented Judge David Gustafson for his obliging nature. He’ll visit you in the slammer to try your case, hunt you down if you go MIA, correct your papers (but not do your research for you), give you a new hearing if you have any evidence, do everything short of bringing coffee and Krispy Kremes to calendar call and feeding the parking meter while you wait.

When IRS’ counsel get themselves imbrangled with exhibits and objections to introduction thereof in Marc Forschino, Docket No. 13967-22, filed 11/1/23, Judge Gustafson refrains from tossing IRS’ Rule 91(f)(1) OSC because of the whiteness of the shoes of Marc’s trusty attorneys (and they are the first team of a heavy-duty whiteshoe).

But he does admonish IRS’ counsel to play nice. By the book.

“In the experience of the judge signing this order, stipulations of fact filed in the Tax Court that include exhibits do sometimes relegate to the preamble general assertions about the exhibits (sometimes addressing authenticity, admissibility, and reservation of objections). However, exhibits are generally identified in paragraphs to the stipulation; and this practice facilitates the stipulation process by giving an occasion for the responding party to note an objection or propose a revision by reference to a paragraph number. We think that this general practice accords with Rule 91(b) (‘The stipulation must be clear and concise’) and Rule 91(f)(1)(A) (‘The motion must: (A) identify with particularity and by separately numbered paragraphs each matter that is claimed for stipulation’) better than referring to only some but not all of the exhibits in numbered paragraphs of the proposed stipulation. We think that petitioner’s counsel is capable of responding to the motion despite its imperfections; and therefore we will not vacate our order, strike the motion, and require the Commissioner to start over; but we do ask that, in future filings, counsel follow the instructions given here.”

So, IRS’ counsel, file a supplement to this motion for an order to show cause, to include copies of the exhibits. And Marc’s trusty attorneys can deal with the preamble in their reply.

Taishoff says Judge Gustafson uncharacteristically gave said trusty attorneys only a week to do so. Maybe they are capable of tossing off the reply “and for a hundred visions and revisions, Before the taking of a toast and tea,” but it seems a bit short, coming from an obliging jurist.