At first glance, why a motion to change caption in Arthur M. Bialer, 6983-19W, filed 2/1/24, should require five (count ’em, five) attorneys from IRS counsel to reply is truly befuddling. But the motion is unique, in that it seeks to erase Art from 4-1/2 years and 152 docket entries by simply giving him a nom de guerre in lieu of the name by which he has been known in Tax Court and on this my blog the while.

As to the latter, see my blogpost “The Whistle Blown on Summary J,” 12/2/19, “All Those Old Familiar Faces – One Mo’ Time,” 1/31/23, and “Slamming The Window,” 10/11/23.

As to the five attorneys, Judge David Gustafson elaborates why he can’t oblige.

“Where proceeding anonymously is permitted, Rule 345 requires the public filing of redacted versions of the documents. Petitioner proposes no procedure by which his name might be redacted from all prior documents in the record and replaced with a pseudonym. Theoretically one would submit redacted copies of all 152 filings in this case, on which petitioner’s name would be obscured every time it appears, and then the originally filed documents would all be sealed, and the new redacted versions would be filed, so that the Tax Court’s public record in this case would no longer disclose petitioner’s identity. But petitioner has not submitted (nor proposed a process for submitting) such redacted versions.” Order, at p. 6.

Apparently Art discovered that prospective employers could find out he was a blower with a simple online search, four-and-one-half years into the process. Blowers do get special protections from possible bad effects of blowing via Tax Court Rule unavailable to the ordinary petitioner, but blowers have to ask for them upfront. Tax Court can’t unring bells.

Mike’s trusty attorney doesn’t help. “We cannot ascribe any weight to petitioner’s counsel’s assertion that he has only just learned that Tax Court orders are publicly accessible on the Court’s website, if this is proposed as a reason that the delay should be excused. Whether he knew the particular means by which our orders can be publicly accessed on the internet, he must have known (and his first request to proceed anonymously shows that in fact he did know) that one way or another the Tax Court is a ‘court of record’ (sec. 7441) and its records are public records (sec. 7461) to which the public has access (see Rule 27(b)(2). At numerous times throughout the pendency of this case, the parties have filed and objected to, and the Court has ruled on, requests to seal specific documents.” Order, at p. 4. If these documents weren’t public, why fight over sealing or unsealing them?

And that ten (count ’em, ten) items were sealed back in June, 2021, doesn’t mean everything was sealed. Or so says Judge Gustafson, although steady readers of this my blog will recollect that back in 2021 sealing one document sealed them all. See my blogpost “Beeves,”  7/16/21.

Better the dude should read my blog; most of the time he wouldn’t even have to read the Tax Court website. Apparently his client does read somebody’s blog.

“Petitioner expresses concern that blog posts on the internet reveal information about this case. That is, he acknowledges that such information is already available on the internet, and our own simple internet search using his name yielded links to copies of orders that we issued in this case (i.e., links on non-Tax Court websites that, of course, we do not control). The toothpaste is out of the tube.” Order, at p. 5.

Modesty forbids my speculating on whether Judge Gustafson reads my blog.

Motion denied.

Takeaway, a classic “Those who read it don’t need it, and those who need it won’t read it”: Like the hockey players say, “Ya step on the ice, ya gonna get hit.” If you want anonymity, ask for it from the getgo, and tell a real good story, as clear and convincing as you can make it.