I will not comment on the quality of the officiating at the recent World Series, at least not in print. I comment instead on Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro’s rebuke to the dilatory counsel in Sheriadia Thomas, Docket No. 11474-20, filed 11/1/24.

“Motion for Continuance DENIED – The case has already been continued four times.” Order, at p. 1.

A docket search shows each of the previous four (count ’em, four) continuances was requested by petitioner’s trusty attorney, but none of the three (count ’em, three) IRS counsel assigned to the case chose to object.

Judge Eminent Toro is apparently the only one not allergic to work. But why should it fall to the assigned judge to waste time, however minimal, on such stuff? Here in State court we have administrative judges, who ride herd on the calendar, encourage the diligent and rebuke the dilatory. Tax Court should have one, reprising the role of convoy commodore, those brave wartime captains who, through storm, shot, and torpedo, shepherded those who delivered to the battlefields the products of the “great arsenal of democracy.”

When appointed, the administrative STJ should take as his/her motto: “No litigant left behind.” Or perhaps “Marche où crève, mes enfants.”

Speaking of which, consider Maureece Parker, Docket No. 13390-23L, filed 11/1/24. Maureece never submitted the Form 656 and backups for the OIC he wanted during the four months Appeals gave him to do so, so Judge Tamara W. Ashford has no choice but to sustain the levy.

But read Maureece’s story.” I was in touch with two people regarding the IRS. One of which was sending me letters and another on the phone. I was originally on a payment plan but whom ever [sic] I was in contact with said my income and bills were too much so I can pause payments and just pay what I could. Then I’m getting letters from someone else who doesn’t seem to know anything I’m talking about and just telling a bunch of stuff and no one is giving me any clarification. I tried submitting an offer in compromise and it was rejected stating I needed a 1040. I’m confused on this process[.” Order, at p. 4.

How is it that no one at IRS, whether customer service or Appeals, thought to send Maureece to a LITC? Trial was scheduled in Philadelphia, PA (now not happening because summary J to IRS). Both Temple University and Villanova University boast prestigious law schools, with LITCs standing by, in that city.

IRM 13.8.1.1.1 (4) (10-01-2021) provides, in pertinent part: “IRS employees may refer taxpayers to LITCs, per section 1402 of the Taxpayer First Act. LITCs are independent from the IRS and represent individuals whose income is below a certain level and need to resolve tax problems with the IRS. This may include audits, appeals, and collection alternatives or U.S. Tax Court.”

Get with the program, guys.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) should appoint me administrative STJ to sort this stuff out. Heaven forbid!