Stupid Acts

Been busy with some interesting (and somewhat remunerative) adventures, which likely will continue to curtail my blogging posts.

I tell my students that when cases go to court, more often than not they are there because somebody did something stupid -- and that the stupid act was not necessarily done by the losing party (or even a party to the lawsuit).

With that in mind, the case of Bishop v. Commissioner (T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-33) from the United States Tax Court is noted. Here, the abused ex-wife was granted innocent spouse relief from joint and several liability for the taxes on the joint income tax return.

What caught my attention, though, was the following background regarding her ex-husband (denoted in the case as the "intervenor") who unsuccessfully opposed the motion, thus being saddled with the entire amount of the taxes:


"Intervenor has a college degree in accounting, and during the years at issue worked as an auditor for the Texas Workforce Commission. He now performs auditing services as a consultant on an hourly subcontract basis. He was previously a revenue agent who conducted income tax audits for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 1994, intervenor was indicted for bribing a public official in 1992 and 1993. He pled guilty to the charges. On January 6, 1995, U.S. District Court Judge H.F. Garcia entered the judgment in the criminal case, which imposed a special assessment of $50 on each of two counts and a fine of $1,000 on each count and sentenced intervenor to 28 months of imprisonment in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. He was released from prison in 1997, at which time he rejoined his wife and children. Sometime thereafter he began working as an auditor for the Texas Workforce Commission."


Let's get this straight: He did Federal prison time for bribing a public official, and then the Texas Workforce Commission hired him as an auditor?

He may be a loser, but what does it say about the shmucks at the Texas Workforce Commission?