I’ve told this story before, but it needs repeating in the case of Eric J. Geppert & Mary L. Geppert, Docket No. 946-20L, filed 3/26/25. No dispute as to tax owed. Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall remands to Appeals because the SO’s analysis, prepared in August, 2019, failed to take into account the anticipated end to certain insurance payments to Eric in 2020, and possible termination of his employment due to corporate restructuring.

Why it has taken more than five (count ’em, five) years to begin to ascertain the occurrence of events that certainly happened (or did not happen) within fewer than five years of the flawed analysis eludes me. A subpoena to insurers and employer would have yielded a response that might have elicited answers. Interest has been accruing on the tax debt. Has this delay improved the chances of collection of any or all of the tax admittedly due (to say nothing of interest)?

Take a quick peek at the order and the docket, and draw whatever conclusions you will. Or better yet, read my blogposts “When Lawyers Get Involved,” 1/20/22,  and “They Should Read My Blog,” 6/7/23.

There’s the old story of the two sailors on a life raft in World War II, after their ship had been torpedoed. One says to the other, “Could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we’d jumped overboard the first night out.”