Court Opinion

ID: 9483618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:26:38.403124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:44.213977
License: Public Domain

HILL, Senior Circuit Judge,
Specially Concurring:
“Another such victory ... and we are undone.”
Pyrrhus, after the Battle of Asculum, 279 B.C.
What is in this record — supplemented by what is not in this record — persuades me that the following is what happened in this case.
When it appeared that the physically and domestically unfortunate Mr. Sanford had not timely filed his tax returns nor paid his taxes for the years in question but had reconstructed his income situation and made late filings, the attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service took note. Even though it seemed that there was ample cause for the defaults, government counsel, in something of a knee-jerk reaction to such belated filings, asserted the right to all penalties (additional taxes) that appeared in the statutes.
When the case came on for decision, the government made no effort to dispute or refute any of the proof offered of reasonable cause. The conduct of the government indicates, at least, that its representatives expected such reasonable cause to be found and the penalties denied.
To the apparent surprise of everyone, the bankruptcy judge gave the government a partial victory. Initial joy at winning anything by way of penalty in this case quickly gave way to chagrin; if the government could obtain partial wins in these penalty cases it was exposed to partial losses in future cases.
With its own bullet thus lodged in its pedal extremity, the government limped, via the district court which affirmed, into this court. On the face of the record, it appeared as a litigant which had been denied a substantial part of the penalties it sought. Its advocacy, however, is that of a litigant offended by having won a substantial part of the penalties it sought. The government asserts that its appeal (the taxpayer did not cross-appeal) presents, as error, the award in its favor of substantial sums of money against its litigation adversary. The government won a part of its case. It should prefer to be found entitled to none of it. Whether discussed as winning part or as losing part, the “lick-log” is “part.” The prospect of the intrusion of equity to temper the hand of the tax collector is frightful, indeed.
Our opinion and judgment is a victory for the appellant even if, upon remand, it should lose what it carelessly won the first time around.
I .concur.