I had mentioned that I contacted DAWSON support at the same time I contacted Public Affairs, concerning the publication of daily Tax Court orders. Here is Support’s reply in its entirety.

“Hello,

“In fact that feature is coming soon to DAWSON. We don’t publicly comment on our roadmap of features, but we do hope to have this available in the very near future as others have similar requests a well. We are keeping this ticket open, and we will update you when this feature is available.”

I am delighted that mine is not the only voice crying in the wilderness. I should very much like to know who else raised a similar question. Perhaps we can gather for a combined assault on The Rock of Svithjod.

I forget who wrote it, or to whom s/he referred, but the gist was “she could have lived in quiet old age, rather than engaging herself in futile controversies.”

So could I. When I started blogging ten (count ’em, ten) years ago, I had already reached full retirement age. I was still able to enjoy practicing law, and had the long-desired luxury of being able to say “no” to a client or matter I didn’t want.

Not since my days as copy editor, and a sometime columnist and music reviewer, on the college newspaper had I given any thought to a journalistic sideline, much less a career. So when, at my daughter’s suggestion, I started blogging as an extension of my practice, I hardly intended it to become a second career.

Like Topsy, it “just growed.” Thus, the full realization that I had turned an unexpected corner wasn’t brought home to me until a fanatic’s attack in a foreign country shook me, and I wrote in my blogpost “Je Suis Charlie,” 1/9/15, “I am a journalist. The Cyber Age has made every blogger a journalist, quite as much as our colleagues of the hard copy and radio/television.”

So if my reaction to the Orders blackout on the new, improved (ya, you betcha), jim-dandy Tax Court website seems a bit much, it’s because we journos are getting hammered for telling the truth, especially to those who don’t want to hear it or read it or see it.

I need not find examples from Malta, the People’s Republic of China, or the Russian Federation. I need only look at my own country, my own city, to find plenty.

As I wrote in 2015, “This being a non-political blog, I did not want to jump into a fray that I can fight elsewhere. And that we all should fight, wherever and whenever.

“The matter here, however, transcends politics. I want to add my voice in this place to ‘Je Suis Charlie’.”

So, instead of living in quiet old age, I will now embitter my life with futile controversies. Because I never much cared for living in quiet old age.

Those of us whose loyalties to sports teams approach religious fervor are well-acquainted, it may be too well-acquainted, with the words that appear at the head hereof.

The new, improved (????)(yeah, roger that), jim-dandy Tax Court website rolled out today. I eagerly logged in (after a couple tries; hi, Judge Holmes) to see what the Genius Baristas had wrought.

The Opinions link told me there would be no opinions today. I was surprised.

But that was nothing to my astonishment that the dropdown for Opinions & Orders had no link to Orders. Apparently the new, improved (ya gotta be kidding), jim-dandy Tax Court website makes no provision for listing each day’s orders and providing the texts thereof. It seems the only way one can find out if any order has issued is to search by name of petitioner.

How one is to know if there is a new petitioner is nowhere stated.

I inquired of Public Affairs, who did timely return my phonecall, if the old system of posting each day’s orders would return. I was told possibly early in 2021. There were additions and improvements under consideration.

I asked if the public generally had been asked before the present system (giving it the benefit of the doubt) was inaugurated. I was told that selected pro ses, certain Chosen Few practitioners, and the American Bar Association were consulted. No journalists.

I somewhat forcefully suggested that the next time Tax Court elects to fix what isn’t broken they might ask those of us who cover the Court, or whose practice depends upon being up-to-date whether or not they practice in the Court, whose shoes may not be as white as those of the Chosen Few, but who are in the trenches every day.

In the meantime, I am out of business. I’ll be back. Maybe next year.

I know my readers are expecting some comment on the new DAWSON website from me. I must ask their indulgence. I am awaiting a callback from Public Affairs, and an e-mail response from dawson.support@ustaxcourt.gov, in answer to some questions I have about the new, improved (?), jim-dandy electronic system.

In absence of either reply, it would be premature for me to comment.

But I promise a Taishoff blogpost by close of business New York time today, whether or not I receive either.

My colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, thus-entitled a suggested entry in his “Best Tax Court Decision of 2020” competition. See my blogpost “The Reilly Award,” 12/1/20. I think he may have meant “Opinion”, as Decisions are final judgments with numbers attached, whereas Opinions are statements of the legal bases therefor. Howbeit, there now seems to be three (count ’em, three) entrants.

But US Tax Court, not to be outdone, has a literal last-minute filing of its own.

At 1:05 p.m., EST, this date, there arrived in my inbox a missive thus entitled: “An account has been set up for you with the U.S. Tax Court”.

Logging on, meeting with only slightly less difficulty than installing Big Sur, I discovered I had arrived at the headwaters of Dawson’s Creek, and did a “stout Cortez.”

With fewer than twenty-four hours before Monday’s scheduled opening of the floodgates, I await with bated breath the tsunami from The Glasshouse.

Log on, tune in, and stand back.

This is a common affliction of judges, when confronted with a motion to disqualify opposing counsel. ABA Model Rule 3.7 flashes before their eyes, and, like “stout Cortez,” they look “with a wild surmise.” But unlike stout Cortez, they are not silent, whether on “a peak in Darien” or anywhere else.

I’ve blogged this before. See my blogposts “A Non-Christmas Carol,” 12/23/13, “The Worthless Affidavit,” 9/8/14, and “Read the Whole Thing,” 9/25/17.

As USTC is still locked-down and locked-up until some unspecified time on December 28, 2020 (cf. Mark 13:32), I turn to one of our four (count ’em, four) New York State intermediate appellate courts, this one being the busiest appeals court in the United States, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Footnote: Don’t try to figure out our New York State court system. It is impervious to logic. Our lowest court of general jurisdiction is the Supreme Court; there is one in and for each of our sixty-two (count ’em, sixty-two) counties. Appeals from these (and some other courts, like Surrogate’s and Court of Claims) go to one of the Appellate Divisions. Our highest State Court is the Court of Appeals. Second Department covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties, or jurisdictions comprising rather more than one-half the State’s population.

Howbeit, here’s Empire Med. Svcs. of LI, P.C. v. Sharma, 2020 N.Y. Slip. Op. 07545, 12/16/20. The plaintiff’s attorney is an MD and an attorney, and is representing himself. It’s not a tax case, so the particulars are irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the other side objects.

While right to counsel is not unlimited, a party seeking to toss must show the testimony of the opposing party’s counsel is necessary to his or her case, and such testimony would be prejudicial to the opposing party.

In this case, the defendants failed to show what testimony they would need from plaintiffs’ counsel, and that it would hurt the MD attorney’s clients if he did testify. The clients said otherwise.

“Moreover, in opposition to the motions, C averred that disqualification of X would cause a substantial hardship on him, which constitutes an exception to the rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct….” Empire Med. Svcs., op. cit. (Names omitted).

Maybe so Tax Court Judges might could consider if the harm to the petitioner’s case might outweigh the possible impact of the attorney’s testimony. Especially where there’s no jury to be confused or misled.

To save time, see my blogpost “Best Holiday Wishes,” 12/24/19.

From the IRS’ eNews for Tax Professionals 2020-52, 12/23/20:

“Stein Agee of Canton, Ga., and Corey Agee of Atlanta, Ga., pleaded guilty for their roles in a wide-ranging abusive tax scheme to defraud the IRS. According to court documents, from at least 2013 through 2019, S. Agee and C. Agee, then partners at an Atlanta accounting firm, marketed, promoted, and sold together with co-conspirators, investments in fraudulent syndicated conservation easement (SCE) tax shelters. However, the partnerships were a sham, as S. Agee, C. Agee, and their co-conspirators marketed the SCE tax shelters by promising investors that for every $1 invested in the partnership, the investor would receive more than $4 in charitable tax deductions.

“Two defendants pleaded guilty today in the first-ever criminal case by IRS-CI involving conservation easements,” said IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. “It should be considered the next step in the IRS’ battle against abusive SCEs. The defendants and their co-conspirators used conservation easement donations to personally enrich themselves and allow wealthy tax clients to evade their tax obligations. The charges and guilty pleas demonstrate that participation in abusive SCEs will not be tolerated. Once again, the IRS recommends that anyone who participated in an abusive SCE consult independent counsel about coming into compliance.”

“S. Agee and C. Agee both pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. They also face a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties.”

According to a three-month-old Google review, purporting to be from a satisfied client, “Corey and Stein Agee are very professional and responsive to all of our needs. Their quality of work and attention to detail is unmatched!” I’ll say!

Ten years and ten days ago, I brought forth on this continent a new blog, conceived in the principle that judicial proceedings require public participation, and dedicated to the proposition that litigants and the public deserve equal consideration.

We are now met on the eve of a great new electronic era, where we shall test whether a blog so conceived and dedicated can long endure.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to the challenge, and, if you have technical questions, contact Tax Court Public Affairs office at (202)  521-3355, and tell ’em Taishoff sent you.

The floodgates open December 28, 2020. We are no longer up Dawson’s Creek (with or without paddles). DAWSON goes online. As an authority even more exalted than Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley put it, “all flesh shall see it together.”

The old system shall pass away at 1700 Eastern on December 30. I invite my readers, few in number but loud in voice, to join me in a chorus of “Auld Lang Syne.” Bring your own whiskey.

I have confirmed with the Office of Public Affairs at the locked-down Glasshouse that opinions and orders will be public knowledge on the new, improved, jim-dandy system.

For those who crave official confirmation, here it is.