Tax Court interviews continue

September 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Dan Carwile
Dan Carwile discussed how his national moot court competition prepared him for arguments and his role as an Indiana Law Review editor demonstrated his writing skill. He said that his experience in the banking world as well as his activities it the United Church of Christ pension boards prepared him for this kind of job. He emphasized his hard work and ethics as being important. Carwile added that he’d be sensitive to pro se litigant issues and the small-claims issues.

Hon. Carol Comer
Spending her entire legal career in administrative law, Judge Carol Comer highlighted her experience handling all types of tax issues at various levels and for judicial review as administrative law judge for the Utility Regulatory Commission and the Board of Tax Review. She worked in 2007 on reworking the tax board’s procedural rules that was necessary because of the assessment law and agency structure changes five years earlier. As the most dynamic and energetic interview of the day, one member observed her behavior and asked how she’d handle the isolation of being a judge. She said the solution is to get involved in other judicial activities outside of what’s before the court and find that passion. She also said it’s important to be mindful of caselaw exemptions that can build up and prevent a big ruling like Town of St. John, and that the court could work with the legislature to ensure that it understands constitutionality. While foreign jurisdictions’ precedent can be instructive, she wouldn’t automatically rely on it because circumstances may dictate something different.

Randle Pollard
Randle Pollard said his dad calls him a “tax nerd,” but emphasized how that designation shows his passion for this area of law. He pointed to his more than 20 years of experience practicing law and how well-rounded he is, with experience in the private and government sectors but he also now teaches tax law at Harrisburg School of Law. He thinks that every lawyer everywhere should be at least minimally familiar with tax law because it’s so important to everyone. In response to a question about what more the Tax Court could do, Pollard suggested an open house for constituents and lawmakers about what the tax court does and what the law says. Law students should also be exposed more to the tax arguments, he said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT