Good answers, guys! Thanks.
Famspear wrote:
Very good questions.
The simple answer is that the party that is proceeding pro se is now the Estate. The Estate (or the fiduciary of the Estate) is now the "proper party." It's just that no one has gotten around to filing the proper motion to formally recognize that point.
Rule 63(a) of the Tax Court rules:
If a petitioner dies, the Court, on motion of a party or the decedent’s successor or representative or on its own initiative, may order substitution of the proper parties.
Thus, there would be no need to close the case. Just obtain an order for the substitution.
Hang tight. The wheels of justice grind s-l-o-w-l-y.
I guess I didn't look close enough at the rule. That answers it!
notorial dissent wrote: This is what is know as a disaster waiting to grow up to be a catastrophe.
Whatever the IRS interests were in the ex-parrot, are now transferred to the estate of the aforementioned ex-parot, as well as any estate taxes now due. I think the IRS is at the front of the line regardless but not 100% sure. He still owes all the taxes plus any new ones that will accrue. That, of course, always presumes there will be anything done when the IRS gets done with round one. I haven't read the original tax case in a while, and am not bored enough to go back and do so now, but I seem to remember that he got nailed with all sorts of penalties when he was playing shell games with the funds he was playing with as well as the ones he hadn't been paying taxes on, and I am pretty sure they won't go away either. I haven't seen any figures yet, but I am betting that the putative state will most likely be expressed in unfunded liabilities. I just don't see this ending well for the estate or residuaries, I think that is a word....
I have a feeling this is going to be what we called a stone estate, as in stone on PR's desk with sign, "If you want something, feel free", in red pointing at the stone.
I agree that Cryer STILL owed taxes even though he escaped criminal sanctions.
The tax deniers STILL do not understand that! And, I think a lot of the hot air has come from Cryer and Becraft trying to raise money to support Cryer's litigation costs (i.e., Becraft's fees)
And, I pretty well agree with your presumptions regarding the case. As I remember, he had placed his assets and income in trusts for the support of his incapacitated wife. Is that right?
Kestrel wrote:In a nut-shell, from knowing him personally:
He didn't file returns for some 20 years. He didn't get W-2s, since his whole income came from his law practice. In later years he probably got some 1099s, if he accepted any non-TP clients who were likely to issue 1099s. Once the IRS realized he existed and was a big-mouthed TP, they went looking for everyone who paid him settlement money. It's entirely possible that a lot of that Gross Income money was comprised of funds which flowed through to clients, leaving him with a modest Net Income after paying clients and office rent and utilities and his secretary. But since he was such a clever boy and refused to produce the records showing that he had businesses expenses, the IRS got to declare that his Net Income equalled his Gross Income, slap him with a massive tax bill and just as massive penalties, then charge interest on the lot. What a clever boy he was. Arrogant, too. Verrryyyyy arrogant. I really despised his self-righteous attitude and clever twisting of reality.
As to the rest of it, he did everything possible to be a typical judgment-proof jerk with nothing in his pockets weightier than dryer lint. He made sure that the only asset in his name was his house. Maybe his car too, I'm not sure. But that's it. I'm told that his wife dutifully filed returns every year, Married Filing Separately, so she wouldn't get barbecued. Of course, Louisiana is a community property state, so she could still be suspended over the cookfire for her community share of his tax debt before this is all over. Who knows. The only thing she's got going for her in that department is that she is his second wife, so her marriage doesn't cover all the years under investigation.
Now about that trial October 22nd. My guess is that Cryer's heirs and/or representative(s) were no-shows. The IRS counsel unceremoniously firmed up the date and time on the docket with an order the week prior; I'm not accustomed to such orders, but the wording on that sounds a little curious. With the high visibility of the TP, his big mouth, and the size of the tax bill, the IRS probably didn't want to dismiss outright. So it seems they're going through the motions to have a default judgment entered.
And, the default will be that his estate STILL owes the taxes? I suspect you're right otherwise.
Thanks for sharing your insights, guys. As I said, tax deniers are still citing Cryer as an example of how they're right about not being liable for the income tax, and they're SO wrong!
I remind them there's a difference between criminal and civil liabilities. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and the fat lady in this case doesn't sing for peanuts! She demands full compensation.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
