Taxing Eggs: Bridget Crawford

In reading the transcript in the Perez case, Judge Mark Holmes specifically contemplated that the blogosphere would become interested in the case, or at least that one particular blog (not this one!) would become the principal means by which word of the case would spread.  After hearing the last witness, the Judge remarked to counsel and to the taxpayer:

THE COURT: Would there be problems if I inserted in post-trial briefing a provision for amicus briefs?  I know that this is going to be a landmark case, Ms. Perez.  You're the first one to actually go on trial on an egg donation.  So your name will become famous among tax lawyers and reproductive medicine people.  Once in a while, something will turn up on TaxProf Blog, you know, an order's been entered seeking amicus briefs.  Is that a problem for you?

MR. CARPENTER (counsel for taxpayer): No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.  I'm just looking if it's going to be a landmark case, I might as well get all perspectives that I can.  Is that a problem for the Government?

MS. ONORATO (counsel for IRS): No, Your Honor.

* * *

THE COURT: What's 60 days from March 10th?

THE CLERK: May 9th.

THE COURT: May 9th.  Okay. That's probably when I'll put something in a written order that can be picked up by TaxProf Blog.

And sure enough, Paul Caron over at TaxProf Blog picked up the order for amicus curiae briefs here.  I was interested in Judge Holmes's mention of a specific blog. It suggests that what professors are doing in the blogosphere -- or at least the good work that Paul Caron does at TaxProf -- does not go unnoticed by the judiciary, or at least by Judge Holmes. 

As to whether Ms. Perez is "on trial on an egg donation," I would disagree slightly with Judge Holmes.  I think Ms. Perez is the plaintiff in a tax deficiency case related to the transfer of human gametes for value. 

Comments

[Kim Krawiec]

I noticed that in the transcript as well. And, of course, as I noted in my first post on Taxing Eggs, I did first hear of the case through Paul. And here we all are. . .

[Lisa Milot]

Any idea how common this crowdsourcing of legal research/opinions is? Assuming Judge Holmes & his clerk actually read the posts he can expect to have result and not just the amicus briefs, it seems like a pretty efficient way to get exposure to what the academic community, at least, thinks.

[Kim Krawiec]

Good question, Lisa. I've never come across it before, and so wondered whether this was more common in the tax world than elsewhere. But if it is new to you too, then I guess not. Perhaps other Loungers will have some insight.