TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Tracy Landow
Docket Number: 4361-15
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/12/2016
Pages: 6

CMS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 TRACY LANDOW, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4361-15 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at New York, New York, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. It is further ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Jonathan Landow in care of James O. Druker, Kase & Druker, 1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 225, Garden City, NY l 1530-1667. Taking into account representations contained in a letter to the Court filed June 27, 2016, and in accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order will be issued. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 12, 2016 SERVED Jul 12 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 23, 2016 Tracy Landow v. Commissioner Docket No. 4361-15 The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Unless otherwise noted, section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. A stipulated decision allowing petitioner relief under Section 6015(c) was entered in this Section 6015(e) case on November 9, 2015. The matter is now before the Court on Jonathan Landow's (petitioner's former spouse) motion to vacate that decision, which motion was filed December 9, 2015, and supplemented on January 4, 2016 (subsequent references to the motion are to the motion as 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 supplemented). In separate orders, each dated June 8, 2016, the motion was set to be heard in New York, New York, on June 21, 2016. See Rule 50(b)(2). The hearing on the motion took place as scheduled. James O. Druker and Paula Schwartz Frome appeared on behalf of Jonathan Landow and argued in support of the motion. Frank Agostino and Jairo G. Cano appeared on behalf of petitioner and opposed the 10 motion. Christopher Davis appeared on behalf of 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 respondent and also opposed the motion. Evidence was introduced through a stipulation of facts filed at the hearing, and with respect to evidence deemed not relevant, the Court allowed an offer of proof to be made by Jonathan Landow consisting of: (1) documents included in the stipulation of facts but not specifically admitted into evidence; (2) the testimonies of two witnesses; and (3) statements made by counsel for Jonathan Landow as to what evidence would be submitted if the 21 motion was granted and Jonathan Landow was permitted 22 23 24 25 to intervene in this proceeding. The stipulated facts are so found, but because of a concession made by Jonathan Landow, we need not burden this bench opinion with a detailed 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 recitation of those findings. Suffice it to note the following three things either not disputed by the parties or firmly established as a matter of law or by the evidence presented. First, Jonathan Landow had a legal right to intervene in this proceeding. See Section 6015(e)(3)(4). Second, he was appropriately notified by respondent of his right to intervene. See Rule 325. Third, he intended to intervene, but failed to take the necessary action to do so. Jordan Belfort, the author of The Wolf of 12 Wall Street, notes in his book, "Without action, the 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 best intentions in the world are nothing more than intentions." As noted, there can be no question that Jonathan Landow intended to intervene in this proceeding. It is equally as clear that he considers that petitioner is not entitled to relief under Section 6015 and that he believes that he is in possession of sufficient evidence to support his position in that regard. But his reliance upon an individual not admitted to practice before this Court to take the necessary action to allow for his intervention, coupled with that individual's mistaken belief that his communications with respondent's counsel were sufficient to do so, is not a substitute 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 for the filing with the Court, and I emphasize the 2 words, "filing with the Court" of the notice of 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 intervention (or its equivalent) timely forwarded to him by respondent. As indicated by the above-quoted language, as far as the Court and the parties were concerned, during the pendency of this case, Jonathan Landow's intentions to intervene, although made known to respondent, amounted to "nothing more than intentions." Prior to the entry of decision in this case, Jonathan Landow did not in any manner notify the Court of his intention to intervene, and respondent's counsel clearly had no obligation to do so on his behalf. Nothing in the record remotely suggests that counsel for the parties colluded to deny Jonathan Landow his right to intervene, a point he acknowledged at the hearing. We note that the stipulated decision was entered well after the period for intervention expired. Even if, as Jonathan 20 Landow asserts, respondent has been defrauded in some 21 manner or another by petitioner or the stipulated 22 23 24 decision does not, in some manner or another, reflect a fair disposition of the issues raised in this case, neither would be a sufficient showing of fraud on the 25 Court that would allow for the decision to be 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 vacated. Other than allowing him to intervene, Jonathan Landow advances no other reason that would support his motion to vacate the decision, and we are not inclined to vacate the decision merely to allow him to do so. It follows that his motion must be denied. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com