Charles Dickens’ creation, to which I’ve referred before now, may be a misnomer. The word “circumlocution” means talking around, using a lot of words to avoid making an exact statement. Dickens’ creation did that, but also concocted spurious legislation, which purported to solve a problem, but left matters just as they were before.

Today we have a fine example of many words talking around the point.

Shielder Evondra Pressley, Docket No. 9471-22L, filed 5/8/24, petitioned something, possibly a NOD, judging from the “L” suffix. Shielder is pro se, hence her petition may be slightly less than perfect. IRS deploys three (count ’em, three) attorneys, all presumably adroit at drafting pleadings. Their efforts are not much better.

It falls to Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan to unscramble this frittata.

IRS moves for judgment on the pleadings.

“Given the relief sought in the Motion, that is dismissal, and the ground for that relief, that is that the Petition was not filed within the period of limitations prescribed by I.R.C. section 6330(d)(1), respondent’s Motion will be recharacterized and treated as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Order, at p. 1.

Of course, obeisance to Boechler, P. C., must be paid.

“Respondent’s Motion relies upon the undisputed facts in the record that show that the Petition was not filed within the period of limitations prescribed in I.R.C. section 6330(d)(1). Petitioner has not claimed, much less established, that equitable tolling extended that period to the date that the Petition was filed.” Order, at p.1.

One must ask what happened to the good, old-fashioned motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Not to mention how a pro se like Shielder would know to plead equitable tolling.