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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT