I make so bold as to suggest that what United States Tax Court needs is not some new, jazzy, jim-handy software, but rather an office for the self-represented. I know I’ve wearied my readers with this plea often enough; see, e.g., my blogpost “‘We Don’t Need No’ Department,” 2/15/24.

Yet another illustration, where even Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan is unable to help, Mary Addoo, Docket No. 10138-23L, filed 8/16/24, shows how thoroughly adrift pro ses consume “scarce judicial resources,” even as they are pointed at the LITCs and calendar call commandos.

Mary petitions eight (count ’em, eight) years, of which probably five (count ’em, five) are closed years, and for seven (count ’em, seven) of which IRS has issued neither SNOD nor NOD, nor has Mary properly filed Form 843 for interest abatement. Ch J TBS goes through all this stuff with painstaking diligence, which you can read for yourselves.

True, Mary has petitioned one year for which there is a NOD, so that stays in.

Again to quote the midnight telehucksters: “But wait, there’s more!”

“…petitioner seeks additional relief that the Court is unable to grant. Petitioner asks for a continuance pursuant to Rule 133. This case is not scheduled on a trial calendar, so this request is premature. Petitioner demands a ‘trial by jury,’ and requests that the Court compel the inspection of IRS and Department of State records for petitioner and issue a subpoena for her IRS file. However, the Tax Court does not hold jury trials, and petitioner’s request does not indicate that she has attempted informal discovery communication with respondent’s counsel in satisfaction of the Court’s procedures. Petitioner requests relief under I.R.C. section 7345(e)(2); however, she has provided no evidence that the Commissioner has certified to the Secretary of State that she has seriously delinquent tax debt.

“Finally, petitioner requests ‘legal assistance’ as a pro se litigant. Although petitioner is entitled to have the assistance of counsel, see Rule 24, she is not entitled to court-appointed counsel. It is true that under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an indigent defendant in a criminal case may be entitled to appointed counsel where, ‘if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty.’ However, petitioner’s physical liberty is not in jeopardy here and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has no applicability in this tax case.” Order, at p. 3. (Copious citation of precedent omitted).

Ch J TBS does tell Ch Clk Jeane to enclose a copy of the New York City LITC letter when he sends Mary the bad news.

Why the Ch J of the United States Tax Court needs to trouble herself with this stuff, when a second-year associate (given proper training; and I don’t mean one from a going-rate firm, although maybe one such might wish to consider seconding a bright youngster from the their tax department at full salary) could do this as well, eludes me.

Edited to add, 8/19/24: Ch J TBS vacates the above order 8/19/24, “Due to inadvertent clerical error and for cause.” No further explanation.

Edited to add, 8/23/24: Seems like the hereinabove aforementioned “inadvertent clerical error” is corrected today. The only errors I can find is in the docket entry for 8/16/24, where Respondent’s motion to dismiss is mischaracterized as petitioner’s motion, and the year 2018 is given as “20818.” Btw, what is an “advertent clerical error”? Isn’t every error “inadvertent”?