Do not simply stare at a problem or be intimated by authority if you have a different analysis.
Dear Bank of Prairie Village Community~
Recently I was sent a funny anecdote picture. Not only did it make me laugh, but it also sent my brain into a reminiscent whirl.
The picture took me back to a morning when I was in law school. The class was corporate law. The day before, Mr. Gutman, a nationally known corporate tax law professor, had assigned a case to discuss.
Specifically, the case was, “How an assigned corporate tax code provision applied to a fact pattern involving two entities.”
I knew I was going to be called on to explain the situation. Try as I might, I could not see how the assigned tax code section applied to the fact pattern.
Before class, I went to Mr. Gutman’s office hoping to catch a break. My goal was for him 1) to either tell me the answer beforehand or 2) have mercy and call on someone else.
Mr. Gutman said, “Mr. Bolen, if you look at the situation long enough and really analyze it, the answer will be self-evident.”
I assured Mr. Gutman I had thoroughly analyzed the problem, but I could not determine how the assigned tax code applied to the assigned facts.
Mr. Gutman responded he was not going to tell me the answer, “But he would not embarrass me in front of the class.” I took his answer to mean I was in the clear. Mr. Gutman would call on some other, presumably smarter, law student.
To my shock and dismay, the first thing Mr. Gutman did when class began was to call on me. He asked I explain “how the assigned tax code provision applied to the assigned fact pattern?” I felt betrayed.
I muttered I could not give a good explanation and asked to be passed over for another student. (Asking to be passed over in law school was most humiliating.)
Instead of graciously passing over me, Mr. Gutman bore in~“Mr. Bolen are you saying you do not believe the assigned tax code provision applies to this fact pattern? Is that your conclusion?”
My world stopped as well as my breathing. The eyes of the class bore into me. In a raspy voice I weakly said, “Mr. Gutman, I assume the assigned tax code applies to this assigned fact pattern, but I just can’t articulate the answer you are seeking as to why.”
In a nasty voice Mr. Gutman stated, “Mr. Bolen do not give me a milquetoast answer. If you can’t articulate why or how the assigned tax code applies to the assigned fact pattern you must take the position it does not apply.”
Mr. Gutman adjusted his tie, stuffed his hands in his suit pockets, surveyed the room and asked, “Does anyone in this class agree with Mr. Bolen’s conclusion the assigned tax code does not apply to the assigned facts? Anyone? I take it no one in this room agrees with Mr. Bolen’s non-application hypothesis. Last chance.”
The complete silence in the room was unnerving. My stomach started doing flips. My mouth went dry. All available oxygen was swiftly leaving my brain.
Mr. Gutman then grabbed the podium, and with a wicked smiled, boldly stated, “The irony is that poor Mr. Bolen, is actually correct. ~ although he lacks the conviction to compellingly state his conclusion. The assigned tax code provision does not apply to the assigned fact pattern.”
Mr. Gutman continued. “You see class, Mr. Bolen’s logic was not faulty regarding the tax code. His mistake was faulty assuming, since I asked how and why the assigned tax code applied to this fact pattern-- it simply must apply, otherwise as the allknowing tax professor why would I assign it?
Clearly Mr. Bolen was intimidated by my title as professor, my knowledge of the subject, and my position of authority. Accordingly, Mr. Bolen went out of his way mentally trying to twist and turn the facts into an answer he thought I wanted to hear-- instead of clearly stating the correct answer based on his own analysis of the facts at hand.
Now class, this is an important lesson. Throughout your legal career you will be intimidated by people in positions of authority and peer pressure. You will be tempted to twist, enlarge, discard or otherwise misinterpret the facts just to give such people in authority the answer you think they want to hear. Never do this. Do not be intimidated by authority or peer pressure. Thoroughly analyze the facts yourself and then give your conclusion based on the actual facts, regardless of what you think someone wants to hear or not hear.
Stand your ground, trust your analysis and your gut. You might not be popular, but you will be respected. In the end in the legal profession, peer respect is better than peer pressure and popularity”
After class, Mr. Gutman thanked me for letting him make his point based on my milquetoast answer. (I felt like saying~ you mean at my expense?) I was not sure whether I wanted to slug Mr. Gutman or hug him. I simply said, “Thank you Mr. Gutman~ Lesson learned.”
As we go into this short month of February, with the media, social networks, people in authority and academic elites all trying to intimidate us into giving answers they want to hear, let’s trust our own reasoning and our own conclusions based on our own analysis. If nothing else, let’s choose respect over popularity.
As the cat in the above photo will learn, if you stare too long at a problem and don’t do a thorough independent analysis~ you might miss the obvious solution
Dan Bolen ~ Chairman
Bank of Prairie Village
913~707~3369 Cell
Dan.Bolen@BankofPrairieVillage.com
“The Bank of Prairie Village ~ Home of Blue Lion Banking” ~ cited March 2020, April 2021, April 2022, April 2023 and April 2024 by the by the Kansas City Business Journal as one of the “Safest Banks in Kansas City for Your Money.”
Small Batch Banking ~ Once Client at a Time.
