Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Practical and Practice issues for Professionals who practice in the area of taxation. Moral, social and economic issues relating to taxes, including international issues, the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, state tax issues, etc. Not for "tax protestor" issues, which should be posted in the "tax protestor" forum above. The advice or opinion given herein should not be relied on for any purpose whatsoever. Also examines cookie-cutter deals that have no economic substance but exist only to generate losses, as marketed by everybody from solo practitioner tax lawyers to the major accounting firms.
User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Kestrel » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:34 am

KENNETH W. BOND might have been a fairly unremarkable case, except that Mr. Bond is an attorney admitted to practice law in New York and before the U.S. Tax Court, AND an adjunct law professor at Albany Law School. The fun parts of this case are not really the issues he tried to litigate, the disallowance of improper deductions. No, the fun parts of this case are that a professional tax attorney and law school professor tried to make those deductions, then had the nerve to file a tax court case to fight the disallowances, and then completely mishandled his own case. If he were representing anyone else, doubless he would be facing a major disciplinary complaint.

Word to the wise: Anyone who is a client of this fool should probably get a new lawyer. I feel sorry for his students.

Petitioner had still not complied with the Court’s December 28, 2011, order [to answer interrogatories or produce documents] when his case was called for trial on February 6, 2012, and had not cooperated with respondent to prepare for trial in accordance with the Court’s standing pretrial order. When his case was called on February 6, 2012, petitioner orally moved for a continuance, which was denied. The Court set the case for trial on February 8, 2012. Petitioner promised to submit a pretrial memorandum “in the next day or two” and to exchange documents with respondent’s counsel.

When the case was recalled for trial at 3:05 p.m. on February 8, 2012, petitioner informed the Court that he still was “not ready for trial”, he had not provided respondent with all of the documents that he intended to rely on for preparation of a stipulation of facts, and he had not cooperated or complied with respondent’s requests for information. Petitioner still had not submitted the pretrial memorandum that he had promised to submit on February 6, 2012. Petitioner stated that he was not ready for trial because “I had obligations in my law practice and with clients”.

There followed this colloquy:

THE COURT: You didn’t make any allowance five months ago that the trial was going to be this week and rearrange appointments?

[PETITIONER]: Your Honor, I apologize. I have no excuse for that. I received correspondence. I didn’t give it the proper attention that it deserved. I have no excuse, but I’m doing my very best right now.

Petitioner admitted that he had not even reviewed his own exhibits.

Petitioner again orally moved for a continuance. There followed this colloquy:

THE COURT: I mean, I think I’m perfectly justified in dismissing your case at this point.

[PETITIONER]: I think you probably are, Your Honor, except the prejudice to me would be huge and I would really have never had an opportunity. We really have not had an opportunity to discuss--

THE COURT: Well, that’s not true. You had the opportunity. You just didn’t take advantage of it.

In the "a tax attorney has a duty to know better" department, the court really unleashed both barrels. The court's ruling used the word "negligent" nine times.

Respondent contends that the underpayments of tax are attributable to either negligence or substantial understatements of income tax. Respondent’s contentions necessarily reflect alternative grounds for imposing the section 6662 penalties because only one section 6662 accuracy-related penalty may be imposed with respect to any given portion of any underpayment, even if the underpayment is attributable to more than one of the types of listed conduct. See New Phoenix Sunrise Corp. v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 161, 187 (2009), aff’d, 408 Fed. Appx. 908 (6th Cir. 2010); sec. 1.6662-2(c), Income Tax Regs.

For purposes of section 6662, the term “negligence” includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Code, and the term “disregard” includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard. Sec. 6662(c); see also Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985) (negligence is lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances); sec. 1.6662-3, Income Tax Regs. Negligence also includes any failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax return or any failure to keep adequate books and records and to properly substantiate items. Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

Petitioner claimed deductions for self-employed health insurance expenses for the years at issue. However, petitioner failed to substantiate that he had health insurance coverage and that he paid for any health insurance. Failure to properly substantiate deductions constitutes negligence under section 6662(b)(1). See Cook v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-167, 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 167, at *8-*9; sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

Petitioner also deducted personal expenses as business expenses. For example, petitioner reported nonpassive losses of $62,350 and $94,875 on Schedules E for the taxable years 2005 and 2006, respectively. These amounts, which were actually paid before the years at issue, related to litigation with petitioner’s ex-wife and include attorney’s fees, past due income support, and other payments to petitioner’s ex-wife. Petitioner claimed that these amounts were “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under section 162. Petitioner’s attempt to deduct personal expenses in contravention of the plain language of section 2626 constitutes negligence. See WSB Liquidating Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-9, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 9, at *23.

Petitioner claimed charitable contribution deductions on Schedules C for amounts paid to political campaigns, despite section 162(e)(1)(B) explicitly disallowing such deductions. Petitioner’s claiming of deductions that are explicitly disallowed by the Code constitutes negligence.

We find that respondent has met his burden of production with respect to negligence. Respondent introduced evidence that petitioner failed to properly substantiate deductions, deducted personal expenses, and failed to comply with the plain language of the Code.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby LaVidaRoja » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:37 am

I found it amusing(?) that at points, on direct questioning by the judge, he admitted his own negligence!
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Famspear » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:39 pm

I think it's pretty obvious that an individual in this situation generally should sue himself for malpractice.

Except, of course, that it's possible, based on past experience, that he might neglect to prosecute that lawsuit.

Which would mean that the lawsuit would be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Um, except that he might forget to file the motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution.

Oh, now I'm really confused.....

:Axe:
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3877
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am
Contact:

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby webhick » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:11 pm

He should sue his strawman for malpractice. Or would his strawman sue him?
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby AndyK » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:42 pm

webhick wrote:He should sue his strawman for malpractice. Or would his strawman sue him?


The MAN ON THE LAND sues the strawman in a legitimate Constitutional court with a jury composed of his peers (High school education is a mandatory disqualifier). That way, the MOTL, notarized judgement in hand, can collect from the trust fund (created by monetizing his birth certificate) held by the Department of the Treasury. The specific Treasury office is located in Washington Dc (Domestic Corporation) at the confluence of the Archimedes spiral generated from the locations of the Freemason's hall, the National Cathedral, and the last remaining White Castle restaurant.

However, he must be sure that every dollar collected has the magic stamp on it to prevent it becomong taxable income.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Famspear » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:40 pm

AndyK wrote:
webhick wrote:He should sue his strawman for malpractice. Or would his strawman sue him?


The MAN ON THE LAND sues the strawman in a legitimate Constitutional court with a jury composed of his peers (High school education is a mandatory disqualifier). That way, the MOTL, notarized judgement in hand, can collect from the trust fund (created by monetizing his birth certificate) held by the Department of the Treasury. The specific Treasury office is located in Washington Dc (Domestic Corporation) at the confluence of the Archimedes spiral generated from the locations of the Freemason's hall, the National Cathedral, and the last remaining White Castle restaurant.

However, he must be sure that every dollar collected has the magic stamp on it to prevent it becomong taxable income.


But the strawman writes the words "refused for cause" on every document served on him and, if that doesn't work out, he asserts that he is not liable because he was not engaging in an activity connected to the exercise of a federal privilege.

Or something like that.

:?
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Famspear » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:44 pm

Famspear wrote:....But the strawman writes the words "refused for cause" on every document served on him......


Oh, wait, I forgot. He must write "refused for cause" using a red crayon.

Man, this stuff gets complicated!......

:shock:
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby AndyK » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:09 pm

You have not been paying attention.

The strawman is a creation of the corporate government. He must follow the established contractual procedures which DO NOT include refusal for cause by anything other than a flesh-and-blood person. A corporate creation can not do so.

Next, since the strawman is a creation of corporate government, his very existence is an exercise of federal prilivege, thereby constraining all legal activities which he instigates to courts waving a gold-fringed flag.

I fail to comprehend how, after we've been over this again and again for at least the last five years, it has not sunk in. Perhaps it's time for Webhick to reactivate the re-indoctrination machine. (Contributions towards fuel for the generator and feral ferret food would be greatly appreciated)
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Famspear » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:40 pm

AndyK wrote:You have not been paying attention. .....we've been over this again and again for at least the last five years......


Five! Five! (5!)

See??!!? See??!? It's that math! I always have trouble when there's some sort of math involved.....

(......said the Certified Public Accountant......)


AArrrrrrgggggg!

:Axe:
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Mider
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Mider » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:24 pm

We have had some strange and dubious deductions for business expense on Schedule C, but this is the first time I have seen someone deduct his own personal legal problems. I hope he he was including his hourly rate for billing when doing his own thing, but he was doing it pro bono. We had a lawyer last year try to deduct his World of Warcraft subscription as dues and subscription and another try to do the same as employee benefits.

User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3877
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am
Contact:

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby webhick » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:28 pm

Mider wrote:We have had some strange and dubious deductions for business expense on Schedule C, but this is the first time I have seen someone deduct his own personal legal problems. I hope he he was including his hourly rate for billing when doing his own thing, but he was doing it pro bono. We had a lawyer last year try to deduct his World of Warcraft subscription as dues and subscription and another try to do the same as employee benefits.


Once had a client try to explain to me why he thinks getting a full body massage is a business expense. At one point, he actually argued it was because that running a business took up so much of his time that he couldn't get a girlfriend.

The stupid, it burns.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby AndyK » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:29 pm

When I worked for one of the Big 8 accounting firms, one of the partners deducted her subscription to Sports Illustrated as a business expense.

She actually won the audit of that item, explaining that she needed to be current on sports to converse with her male clients.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3877
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am
Contact:

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby webhick » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:31 pm

AndyK wrote:When I worked for one of the Big 8 accounting firms, one of the partners deducted her subscription to Sports Illustrated as a business expense.

She actually won the audit of that item, explaining that she needed to be current on sports to converse with her male clients.


By that logic, she should be able to expense transgender procedures.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie

User avatar
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Cathulhu » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:37 pm

Once spoke to a part-time band guy that wanted to write off his "hair club for men subscription". Another time it was a nice lady who was sad to learn she wasn't allowed expenses against her marijuana grow income.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby AndyK » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:03 pm

webhick wrote:
AndyK wrote:When I worked for one of the Big 8 accounting firms, one of the partners deducted her subscription to Sports Illustrated as a business expense.

She actually won the audit of that item, explaining that she needed to be current on sports to converse with her male clients.


By that logic, she should be able to expense transgender procedures.


"RHIANNON G. O’DONNABHAIN v. Commissioner" 134 T.C. No. 4

"Held: P’s gender identity disorder is a “disease” within the meaning of sec. 213(d)(1)(A) and (9)(B), I.R.C."

To summarize, petitioner was allowed to deduct his/her costs of gender correction therapy and hormone therapy. Petitioner was not allowed to deduct the accompanying breast augmentation procedures as they were ruled to be cosmetic surgery.


Split decision by the full Tax Court. See http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... TC.WPD.pdf
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby NYGman » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:25 pm

AndyK wrote:To summarize, petitioner was allowed to deduct his/her costs of gender correction therapy and hormone therapy. Petitioner was not allowed to deduct the accompanying breast augmentation procedures as they were ruled to be cosmetic surgery.



Althought if she was a stripper, there was a rulling that would allow for the breast augmentation deduction.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

User avatar
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Cathulhu » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:40 pm

There was a famous tax law case (tax court, I think) Cynthia Heisman vs. Commissioner or something like, argued by Mark Manning on the IRS side. She was a stripper who managed to keep her depreciation deduction for her augmented boobs. And created much innocent hilarity in formerly dull tax law meetings.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby Arthur Rubin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:22 am

REGINALD R. HESS AND CYNTHIA S. HESS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER, TC Summary Opinion 1994-79.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby AndyK » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:43 am

Cathulhu wrote:There was a famous tax law case (tax court, I think) Cynthia Heisman vs. Commissioner or something like, argued by Mark Manning on the IRS side. She was a stripper who managed to keep her depreciation deduction for her augmented boobs. And created much innocent hilarity in formerly dull tax law meetings.


I bet the hearing reviewing the evidence received more than the usual number of spectators.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Tax attorney neglects his own tax court case

Postby jcolvin2 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:41 pm

LaVidaRoja wrote:I found it amusing(?) that at points, on direct questioning by the judge, he admitted his own negligence!


His negligence got him suspended from practice in the Tax Court as of June 21, 2013.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/press/062513.pdf
(Third order in the document)


Return to “Tax Practice & Policy and Tax Shelters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest