I don’t remember in which panel discussion on Tuesday the “secret subpoena” was mentioned. Of course, this was a reprise of the Rule 147 vs FRCP 45 joust, that I’ve been chronicling for the last three years. If you tuned in late, read my blogpost “The Stealth Subpoena is Alive and Well,” 12/2/16, which chronicles the tale as I told it.

Always eager to rush in where angels et cetera, I corrected the panelist viva voce with “it’s the stealth subpoena.”

Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel seemed to think that I, or perhaps the panelist, had imputed to Tax Court some nefarious motive, and rushed to defend the Court.

I certainly did not suggest at any time that the divergence of third-party subpoena issuance practice arose as a result of anything other than what Judge Holmes called it back in 2015: “it’s just an example of the two sets of rules drifting apart over time.”

I hope Ch J Iron Fist did not take my remark as being either disrespectful, or worse, derogatory to the Tax Court.

But the drifting apart has consequences, as I pointed out in my above-referred-to blogpost. IRS, seeing that Rule 147 doesn’t require a view halloo to opposing party or counsel when they subpoena third parties, doesn’t give it. And there is no sanction.

Discontinuities, divergences over time, unintended consequences, the gentlest of finger-fehler, all provide opportunities for gamesters.

I ought to have raised this back when ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton requested proposals for rule changes back in January, 2016. I didn’t, raised something else, and got a dope-slap from the ABA Tax Section, to which august body I do not belong. And now I know the fulness of my gain.

Tango Charley Juliet has ended. Hon. Eugene P. Rossiter, C J of the Canada Tax Court, added a burst of fresh northern air with his brusque but engaging commentary. I was very glad to hear from him.

The electronic controversy goes on apace. PACER doesn’t, of course, hand out personally identifiable information. And I don’t think any of us who lobby for greater on-line access want to trudge through every unsubstantiated, unredacted, pro se Sched A or Sched C or EITC. But the petitions, motions and briefs of the Fortune 100 are another story. To the extent unsealed, expert counsel have purged the public versions. So why not let us see those on-line?

Finally, just as I was ready to close up Sir Andrew for the trip down the jetway, up pops a first-class silt stir. Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel may be rebuking me for my frank exchange of views by not designating this one, and dropping it in my lap just as I turn for home.

Anyway, here’s Lori J. Manroe, Docket No. 21590-17, filed 3/28/18, trying to get IRS to un-levy or disgorge, because the SNODs she got need partner-level proceedings.

You won’t remember Lori unless you’ve been reading my blog for years. See my blogpost “It’s A Sham,” 9/25/12.

Once again it’s the phony partnership, in which one has zero basis. Petaluma, Tiger Eye, and Randy Thompson all do reprises, but Woods has supervened, except it really hasn’t.

“As to whether partner-level adjustment of outside basis incident to a deficiency determination should also be merely computational, Woods provides no direct answer. In dicta, however, the Court addresses the amici’s suggestion that its decision will permit the Internal Revenue Service to directly assess a penalty on a tax underpayment that cannot itself be assessed without deficiency procedures. Noting that ‘an underpayment attributable to an affected item [such as outside basis] is exempt’ from deficiency procedures where partner-level determinations are unnecessary, the Court observes that ‘it is not readily apparent why additional partner-level determinations would be required before adjusting outside basis in a sham partnership.’” (Order, at p. 4)(Citations omitted).

So let both Lori and IRS hand in their essays, and “…set forth and discuss fully her/his position as to: (1) whether additional partner-level determinations of outside basis and/or other partner-level determinations are required in this case; (2) if so, what specifically are those additional partner-level determinations of outside basis and/or other partner-level determinations; and (3) to what extent, if any, this Court has jurisdiction in this partner-level proceeding as to the income tax deficiencies and/or penalties for 2001 and 2002 determined in the notice of deficiency.” Order, at p. 5.

Now I’m getting on the plane.

I Draw the Line at Peanut Butter and Mayonnaise

Here I am at Tango Charley Juliet, the United States Tax Court Judicial Conference, the first to be held in a time zone other than Eastern (as we were reminded by Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel in her opening remarks).

And I’m soaking up learning from the sages and savants, both on and off the Bench, at a rate so furious my fingers can’t type quickly enough.

Moreover, even over a hasty lunch, the conversations of experts filled the air. The journalistic front-bench included Tax Notes’ gifted analyst Nathan Richman, and at the back The Jersey Boys held court, with promises of great blogfodder to come.

So here am Little I, a mere “general practitioner with very limited experience and mediocre qualifications,” as a much finer writer than I put it, throwing down the gauntlet to a much more distinguished member of the Bar from a high-class NYC semi-white shoe.

Contrary to my usual practice, I’ll name the gentleman: Bryan C. Skarlatos, Esq.

Mr. Skarlatos spoke of the novel jurisdiction of Tax Court under Section 7623, critically examining the limited “abuse of discretion” review and suggesting something broader. It may be his analysis will draw legislative or judicial attention, but I still make “abuse of discretion 8 to 5″, as I said in my blogpost “A Hotly-Burning Quesiton What Has Swept The Continent – Redivivus,” 7/28/17.

But my real quarrel with the distinguished counselor is over a much humbler subject. He denounced Tax Court whistleblower jurisdiction as an improper mixture, like peanut butter and mayonnaise.

I love peanut butter and mayonnaise!

Today STJ Daniel A. (“Yuda”) Guy, about to lecture to us anent the Section 7623 whistleblower statute, its cause and cure, has an undesignated order in a CDP that seems mundane, but whose offspring and siblings we will see more and more.

I take my title from G. K. Chesterton, but this is not a sequel to “The Man Who Was Thursday.” This is the sad tale of Friday O. James, Docket No. 12911-15SL, filed 3/27/18.

‘The record shows that petitioner is currently being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Pennsylvania. Petitioner is prosecuting an appeal of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that he be deported from the United States. The Court has been unable to arrange a conference call with the parties and is unable to determine whether petitioner has the financial resources to pay for transport by the United States Marshals Service to a facility where the Court could receive his testimony (by electronic means) with the aim of resolving this case.” Order, at p. 1.

So Friday gets an order to file a status report next month. He can’t make a phonecall, apparently, but perhaps he can send STJ Yuda a letter.

It’s not clear from where.

Here at Tango Charley Juliet, about to breakfast with the greats and near-greats of Tax Court law and practice, I haven’t been “smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo,” as Lew (“He Spelled It Right”) DeWitt wrote at just about the same time I was admitted to the Bar of Our Fair State.

It’s been a deck of Fifty-One indeed. Today is the fifty-first anniversary of that admission. Fifty-one years of a wonderful ride.

And no ride is worthwhile that hasn’t some hairpin turns, gut-wrenchers and near-crashes.

More to follow, if time permits.

Here I am in the Windy City. While there aren’t any hog butchers in evidence, nor stackers of wheat, and there’s no stormy, husky or brawling in evidence (yet, but they haven’t started serving drinks), the luminaries of USTC are around and about.

It was great to say “hi” to Judge Buch, and to wave at CSTJ Lewis (“That Man Knows How to Spell”) Carluzzo. I’m sure more of the judiciary will be sharing their insights with us.

I’m disappointed that Judge Posner of 7 Cir. won’t be speaking. He would certainly add a distinct perception.

But even more surprising is that today we have no opinions, rather only two designated hitters, both from Judge David Gustafson, and both examples of how that Obliging Jurist tries to lead the recalcitrant and the befuddled among the self-represented who find themselves enwrapt in the anfractuosities of Tax Court practice.

Dorothy L. Anderson, Docket No. 30766-15L, filed 3/26/18, may not be getting all her Tax Court mail. When you read Judge Gustafson’s order, it’s not surprising. So Judge Gustafson launches a bombardment to every address Dorothy might have or had, to encourage her to play nice with IRS counsel.

And Judge Gustafson once again tries to help out Douglas Stauffer Bell & Nancy Clark Bell, Docket No. 1973-10L, filed 3/26/18. This time Judge Gustafson gives Doug & Nancy a list of local clinicians, without guarantee, warranty or representations, of course.

Doug & Nancy have been befuddled before, and Judge Gustafson came to their aid. See my blogpost “Forms and Letters,” 6/5/17. After chronicling in some detail Judge Gustafson’s generosity, I gently suggested we have another Judicial Conference, to talk things over.

And so we have.

Lose Your Advanced Premium Assistance Credit

Although damaged, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act drives on, and like Juggernaut’s Car of legend, runs over the unwary taxpayer-beneficiary. Here’s the story of Eliot M. Gray & Susan C. Gray, Docket No. 28011-16S, filed 3/23/18.

Eliot & Susan exchanged vows at midyear. By year’s-end, Susan, who had started the year with estimated income below the 400% of poverty line and $3K of advanced premium assistance credit, found herself in the happy position of having nearly double that income on her joint return with Eliot.

But she also has a deficiency, as the credit is wiped out.

Sue claims that only her prenuptial income should count, but Judge Buch gives IRS summary J for the whole shebang.

Judge Buch explains: “When a taxpayer marries during the year they can elect the alternative computation of additional tax liability. Under this computation each spouse individually computes the alternative premium assistance amounts for the time they were unmarried using one-half of the actual household income and their family size prior to the marriage. The taxpayers add the alternative premium assistance amounts from the time they were unmarried with the premium assistance amounts the taxpayers were entitled to when married to calculate the alternative marriage year credit. The alternative marriage-year credit is then reconciled with the actual credit received to determine if excess credit was paid on behalf of the taxpayer. Mr. and Mrs. Gray did not elect this alternative computation on their Form 8962.” Order, at p. 4. (Footnotes omitted, but they cite to the relevant regulations).

Eliot & Sue are apparently so far over the cut-off that this computation doesn’t help them.

And so it’s off to Chicago and Tango Charley Juliet, the Tax Court Judicial Conference. Watch this space.

It’s a guarantee that one is a genuine fogey when one begins a sentence with “In my young day.” So be it.

In my young day, we had motions to require one’s adversary to “separately state and number” allegations in pleadings, so one could respond without exhuming and copying the allegations one wished to controvert.

Nowadays, anything goes.

But not in Tax Court, when we have such stalwarts as CSTJ Lew (“Nom d’un nom!”) Carluzzo (see my blogpost “Legal Writing As She Is Writ,” 12//11/15), and today, that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson.

Judge David Gustafson is a true friend of the hapless pro se, seeking justice in the sixty-buck arena but with no legal assistance. Here’s Gwendolyn L. Kestin, 18254-17L, filed 3/22/18, confronted with nine or so pages of unnumbered (emphasis by the Court) paragraphs, to which IRS claims Gwen stipulated, and a motion for summary J.

True, Rule 121 doesn’t say that movants for summary J have to separately state and number. They needn’t even have separate paragraphs. But Judge Gustafson isn’t down with that.

“The Tax Court Rule 121 does not require that a movant’s statement of undisputed facts be set out in numbered paragraphs; however, Rule 121(d) does require the non-movant who opposes such a motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial”. Our experience is that—particularly where (as here) the non-movant is self-represented–it is expedient for the proposed undisputed facts to be stated in numbered paragraphs, so that the non-movant can be directed to specify by number any fact that is in dispute (and to oppose the asserted fact with appropriate evidence). We will therefore order respondent to supplement his motion with a statement of facts in numbered paragraphs.” Order, at p. 1.

Then Gwen can paint-by-the-numbers, challenging the facts she disputes.

No closing announcement on the Tax Court website, just the usual “nothing happens before 3:30 p.m. Eastern” on the opinions and designated orders pages, and no orders today, 3/21/18.

The flailing datestampers and hard-laboring intake clerks are conspicuous by their absences.

I guess the Snowman has put the Glasshouse Gang on teletubby again.

But take heart, O ye procrastinators and deadline-beaters, frozen like statues on the Glasshouse steps, with un-efileable paper in your chillblained hands. Remember Felix Guralnik and Octavia.

What, you don’t? I know it was two years ago, but still and all…Check out my blogpost “Neither Equity Nor Designation,” 6/2/16, for what to do when “the weather outside is frightful, but the fire’s so delightful,” as Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne put it.

Me, I’m taking the day off.

Whistleblower 23711-15W, filed 3/20/18, should have known better. This is the third time I’ve blogged the sad tale of One-Fifteen Whiskey (check out my blogpost “The Second Time Around – Part Deux,” 8/1/17 for the previous two).

Of course IRS collected nothing, so One-Fifteen Whiskey is another casualty in the frontal assault on The Castle at the Ogden Sunset. But why they never used One-Fifteen Whiskey’s data dump comes out, finally.

IRS claimed the info was “tainted,” but never said why.

Turns out that Supervisory Special Agent S called up Criminal Tax Counsel Naamloze (names changed), who said “the stuff is protected by client-attorney privilege.”

There’s a lot of argy-bargy about the state of the administrative record and IRS’ attempts to backfill the same. And One-Fifteen Whiskey attempts to rule out the IRS’ Integrated Data Retrieval System on hearsay grounds, but they’re business records enough for Judge Lauber to let a subsequent Sunseteer rely on the notes of her predecessor preserved therein.

So poor One-Fifteen Whiskey is relegated to could’a-would’a-should’a arguments that couldn’t cut a warm frozen Margarita.

I’ve heard a lot. I mean, a lot. But I can’t tell anybody without the client’s consent. And I’m sure Judge Lauber is similarly situated.