Jack Donald Supinger, Docket No. 4810-23, filed 1/12/24, is back, but maybe not so polite as before (see my blogpost “Holding Out the Lamp,” 10/29/21).

Now JD wants a remote trial because “(P)etitioner has a disability which is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘the ADA’), which causes extreme pain and discomfort when sitting in a vehicle for more than a short duration of time. The time and distance to the court would be more than petitioner could physically bear and would exacerbate petitioner’s medical state and disability. Requiring petitioner to appear in person would be unduly burdensome.” Order, at p. 2.

This case, like the one discussed in my above-referred-to blogpost, is before Judge David Gustafson, who is obliging to a fault. But JD’s past performance weighs against him.

Besides frivoling, dodging, evading, and obfuscating in ’21, JD has another case for a different year pending before Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall. Judge Gustafson checks out the trial transcript in that one, and finds JD is up to his old moves.

Still obliging, Judge Gustafson would be willing to grant JD a remote trial, could he produce something beside his unsworn request, like “(A) credible and persuasive letter from a doctor, explaining the nature and effects of the disability.” Order, at p. 2. Btw, ADA doesn’t apply to Tax Court.

And for anyone alleging inability to come from away to try your case in Tax Court, here’s some words from Judge Gustafson on vesting of remoteness.

“Our system of justice presumes that the trier of fact, who must judge the credibility of witnesses and their testimony, will have the ability to observe them in person. Therefore, the great majority of Tax Court petitioners who take their cases to trial undertake the logistical burdens associated with appearing in person before the Court. Mr. Supinger’s history before us shows no reason that, while his neighbors duly appear in court for their trials, he should be granted special treatment and be excused from doing so. Where (as here) a witness’s credibility is already in question, the Court’s ability to observe in person has an increased importance. When proceedings are not in person but are remote, this ability is lost, and the fact-finding function is compromised to some extent. Moreover, converting a case from in-person to remote is not as simple as flipping a switch or checking a box. We lack the equipment and technology to conduct this case remotely from Columbia, South Carolina, during the session that we will conduct there beginning April 8, 2024. Rather, to be handled remotely, this case would have to be transferred to a different, remote session (or be scheduled as a stand-alone ‘special session’). In the right circumstances we would happily go to this trouble for a petitioner who seeks in good faith the adjudication of his sincere contentions. So far we are not convinced that Mr. Supinger is such a petitioner.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Moreover, Judge Gustafson hit JD with a $5K Section 6673 frivolity chop back in ’21, but gave him a chance to avoid the chop by forswearing frivolity. JD didn’t, and appealed to 4 Cir, which affirmed on Judge Gustafson’s opinion.

I make IRS 8 to 5 in the morning line for this one.