Rob Wood, San Francisco, responds to Suzanne Duvall's letter, arguing
she misinterpreted some of his statements regarding Tax Court procedure.
July 31, 2000
Robert W. Wood Responds
Dear Ms. Duvall:
I am responding to your July 31, 2000 letter concerning my article
in Tax Notes, "Even Tax Court Itself Divided on Attorneys' Fees Issue,"
July 24, 2000, p. 573. Obviously, you were quite unhappy with much of the
article, so let me address only your major objections.
I did not say, nor mean to imply, that the Tax Court and/or the Chief
Judge decide on "pure whim" whether a given case will be sent to "conference
for review by all the judges." I am aware that there is an effort made
by the Tax Court judges to promote uniformity in the court's decisions,
although I admit that I do not know all of the mechanics for insuring same.
For a second time in your letter you indicate that I was suggesting that
consistency was left "to the whim" of individual judges. I did not so state.
I do understand (and your letter does not convince me to the contrary)
that a "court-reviewed decision" is still quite an uncommon occurrence.
Although you do not state the percentages, the last IRS-released statistics
I saw said that court-reviewed cases made up less than 2 percent of the
decided Tax Court decisions. I'm sure you are right that there are other
rigorous procedures, but a court review seems likely to be the most effective
in helping the judges focus on a particular matter.
In any event, I do think that the Kenseth case makes clear that there
are differences of opinion on the Tax Court. I fail to see how this is
even debatable, much less how it could move you to such ire. And, although
you state that "Mr. Woods does not appear to have a clue that Judge Beghe
was obviously the original author of the opinion in Kenseth," I did note
in my article that Judge Beghe was the trial court judge (and yet he was
a dissenter).
Finally, you were apparently upset with Tax Notes (and with me) over
usage of what you felt was inappropriate language. I occasionally try to
lighten up my writing with colloquial expressions. The one you objected
to was "yuck!" after I noted that the Kenseth judges lined up 8-5 on the
case. I thought my meaning was clear: that I would have rather seen the
judges line up 5-8 (favoring excludability). There was no disrespect meant
to either the court or Tax Notes readers.
Apparently you did not object to my equally colloquial statement
which concluded the article. I said "Fortunately, the dissenters in Kenseth
-- all five judges who partticipated -- are now taking this stuff seriously.
Hallelujah!" (p. 576). At another place in the article, I used the word
"Amen." Maybe you don't like this, but I have been writing in this style
for many years, and neither Tax Notes (nor any reader I know of) has complained.
To sum up, I honestly don't think my article suggested that tax cases
are decided on whim, or that Tax Court procedure is inadequate. I was not
making fun or using inappropriate language about Tax Court judges or the
process. Had I felt this way, I suspect I would have simply responded to
your letter with one word: "Yuck!"
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Wood
Robert W. Wood Responds, Vol. 88, No. 7, Tax Notes (August
14, 2000), p. 949.
San Francisco