ILNews

  • Home

Tax judge declines to require attorneys represent LLCs in court

Jennifer Nelson
August 20, 2012
Keywords
Business Law, Court opinions, Courts, Government, Indiana Tax Court, Laws, State agencies
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Department of State Revenue asked the Indiana Tax Court to create a rule requiring limited liability companies be represented by attorneys in court, similar to a rule pertaining to corporations, but Judge Martha Wentworth declined to “invent such a rule where one does not currently exist.”

Wireless Advocates LLC appealed the revenue department’s final determination denying its claim for refund of adjusted gross income tax for the 2006 tax year. Thomas Gaisser, a member, vice president and chief financial officer of the company, signed the verified petition for judicial review and notice of appearance filed with the clerk’s office. An attorney appeared on behalf of Wireless Advocates after the department filed its motion to dismiss.

The revenue department wants Wentworth to dismiss the case because Wireless Advocates as a company couldn’t initiate the appeal itself but needed an attorney to file it. Gaisser, as a non-attorney, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by signing and filing the verified petition and notice of appearance, the government argued.

Wentworth declined to create a rule for LLCs similar to that of corporations. She noted that she didn’t need to determine whether Indiana Small Claims Rule 8(C)(3) applied – which requires LLCs be represented by attorneys in matters of more than $1,500 – since neither attorney mentioned the rule. She also pointed out in the footnote that UPL determinations are for the Indiana Supreme Court to decide.

Corporations proceeding pro se are given an opportunity to retain counsel when its opponent contests the party proceeding pro se. A corporation must refuse before dismissing the action, Wentworth noted.

She rejected the government’s argument that Gaisser – over the advisement of the clerk’s office and a certified public accountant to consult with an attorney before appealing – attempted “to game the system and get additional time to hire an attorney.”

Wentworth pointed out Wireless Advocates hired an attorney just nine days after the department filed its motion to dismiss, and its petition reveals nothing to defeat an equitable result. The revenue department will have 30 days to file its answer to the complaint.  

 

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer

  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT