Tax Court judge with a sense of humor

[Kestrel]

Nothing really profound in this case. I just like the way this judge writes.

ALLISON T. O’NEIL, Petitioner, AND MICHAEL J. O’NEIL, Intervenor, 28711-09

The O’Neils met over drinks at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and soon married. [Summary of their married life, eventual separation, husband's profitable business dealings, and the business bust which followed.] What he didn’t do was set aside enough for the IRS.

The O’Neils’ Colorado gold soon turned to straw... The IRS, impatient to collect the O’Neils’ large tax debt, also began circling.

[Burnaby49]

Your Tax Court website is pretty pathetic. I clicked on the case link and got this;

Access frequency exceeded. Please try again later

[AndyK]

Your Tax Court website is pretty pathetic. I clicked on the case link and got this;

Access frequency exceeded. Please try again later

That response is related to the Tax Court's "New, Improved Electronic Filing System."

In theory, all tax case-related documents can be accessed by all registered (with the court) parties to the case.

However, fearing an overload of their Internet support infrastructure, the Court's Information Technology organization (which consists ENTIRELY of contractors -- no government staff) restricted ALL the plaintiffs and the Respondent (IRS Commissioner as represented by the Chief Counsel) in a specific case to three "looks" at any document.

The Tax Court does not impose user fees or charge to view, save, or print documents. Each registered party may electronically view each document three times through eAccess. If twelve attorneys who are registered as practitioners for eAccess file a petition or enter appearances on behalf of a petitioner, such as an individual, business, or estate, all would share three views of each document in the case. Further, a petitioner who is represented by a practitioner may register for eAccess, but he and his practitioner would share three views of each document. Registered attorneys representing respondent would also share three views of each document in a case.

After a party has viewed a document three times through eAccess, the document is no longer accessible to that party through eAccess. A document may be saved or printed, however, and parties are encouraged to do so. Documents available to the public through Docket Inquiry or Opinions Search--opinions, orders, and decisions--may be viewed an unlimited number of times.

E.G., If two spouses are parties to a tax case, but have retained separate Counsel, (that makes four people) only three of them will be able to look at any of the electronic documents.

To make a long story short, for some reason, the Court's Internet site has determined that YOU, a member of the public, aare subject to the restriction and have violated it. However, if you go back a few hours later, the Court's computer usually forgets about your prior visits and opens the document for you.

[Burnaby49]

However, fearing an overload of their Internet support infrastructure, the Court's Information Technology organization (which consists ENTIRELY of contractors -- no government staff) restricted ALL the plaintiffs and the Respondent (IRS Commissioner as represented by the Chief Counsel) in a specific case to three "looks" at any document.

One problem with this explanation. I got this message on my first and only attempt to view this document, it was an immediate rejection. Maybe your Tax Court limits access to only American based requests. The Canadian Tax Court website has no limitations on access.

[AndyK]

[Sarcasm on] The Tax Court computer system considers everyone north of the 48 states to be a single party, thereby limiting all of Canada to 'three looks.'[/sarcasm]

The Court's system needs some serious work. However, since it is serving the court's needs... Perhaps some time after hell freezes over?

[Kestrel]

Does the court's website still give you the error message when you go the roundabout route, through the Docket Inquiry page?

The case number is 28711-09 and the order was docketed 12/04/2012.

[AndyK]

Depends on the phase of the moon and the hour at which Congress recessed yesterday.

The specific formula is classified several levels above 'need to kow'

[Burnaby49]

As you and the Tax Court website recommended I tried again later and got in. Makes no sense to me. I can see being shut out if the entire system is overloaded but the Tax Court had the capacity to allow me access on my first try. However it denied access and instead made me try again before it let me see the document. This seems entirely arbitrary and pointless. Apart from irritating me what did they gain by this foolishness?

Happily I deal in Canadian tax law where the courts actually work on the assumption that their decisions should be available online to anyone.

[Burnaby49]

After reading it I find myself in an alien environment in respect to the tax issues since we don't have joint filings for married couples. Under the Canadian Income Tax Act all taxpayers are required to file separately so married individuals are only responsible for their personal tax issues. Individuals are not responsible for their spouse's tax bill except when a spouse has transferred assets to the other spouse to evade collections.

[Kestrel]

Mrs. O'Neil had some interesting complications to face if she had tried to file separately. She is a resident of a California, which is probably the most far-reaching community property state in the country. But most of the time Mr. O'Neil lived in and earned his money in Colorado, which is NOT a community property state. We're never told which state he considers his residence.

Canada's income division rules sound a lot easier.

[Burnaby49]

A married or separated couple living in different Canadian provinces wouldn't have a filing problem in respect to each other even though all of the provinces also impose personal income tax. Rather than set up separate tax bureaucracies the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, decided to piggy-back on the feds. They accept the federal Income Tax Act for provincial purposes (I believe Quebec has its own Act but I stand to be corrected, I live 3,000 miles away and don't have a clue what goes on there) and just let the federal government do the administration and collection work. The provincial income taxes are calculated as a percentage of the federal tax that provincial residents pay. The federal government collects both then remits to the provinces. The only real control the provinces have is in picking the percentage of the federal tax they impose.