In Uncategorized on 03/23/2018 at 17:25

Lose Your Advanced Premium Assistance Credit

Although damaged, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act drives on, and like Juggernaut’s Car of legend, runs over the unwary taxpayer-beneficiary. Here’s the story of Eliot M. Gray & Susan C. Gray, Docket No. 28011-16S, filed 3/23/18.

Eliot & Susan exchanged vows at midyear. By year’s-end, Susan, who had started the year with estimated income below the 400% of poverty line and $3K of advanced premium assistance credit, found herself in the happy position of having nearly double that income on her joint return with Eliot.

But she also has a deficiency, as the credit is wiped out.

Sue claims that only her prenuptial income should count, but Judge Buch gives IRS summary J for the whole shebang.

Judge Buch explains: “When a taxpayer marries during the year they can elect the alternative computation of additional tax liability. Under this computation each spouse individually computes the alternative premium assistance amounts for the time they were unmarried using one-half of the actual household income and their family size prior to the marriage. The taxpayers add the alternative premium assistance amounts from the time they were unmarried with the premium assistance amounts the taxpayers were entitled to when married to calculate the alternative marriage year credit. The alternative marriage-year credit is then reconciled with the actual credit received to determine if excess credit was paid on behalf of the taxpayer. Mr. and Mrs. Gray did not elect this alternative computation on their Form 8962.” Order, at p. 4. (Footnotes omitted, but they cite to the relevant regulations).

Eliot & Sue are apparently so far over the cut-off that this computation doesn’t help them.

And so it’s off to Chicago and Tango Charley Juliet, the Tax Court Judicial Conference. Watch this space.



In Uncategorized on 03/22/2018 at 15:46

It’s a guarantee that one is a genuine fogey when one begins a sentence with “In my young day.” So be it.

In my young day, we had motions to require one’s adversary to “separately state and number” allegations in pleadings, so one could respond without exhuming and copying the allegations one wished to controvert.

Nowadays, anything goes.

But not in Tax Court, when we have such stalwarts as CSTJ Lew (“Nom d’un nom!”) Carluzzo (see my blogpost “Legal Writing As She Is Writ,” 12//11/15), and today, that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson.

Judge David Gustafson is a true friend of the hapless pro se, seeking justice in the sixty-buck arena but with no legal assistance. Here’s Gwendolyn L. Kestin, 18254-17L, filed 3/22/18, confronted with nine or so pages of unnumbered (emphasis by the Court) paragraphs, to which IRS claims Gwen stipulated, and a motion for summary J.

True, Rule 121 doesn’t say that movants for summary J have to separately state and number. They needn’t even have separate paragraphs. But Judge Gustafson isn’t down with that.

“The Tax Court Rule 121 does not require that a movant’s statement of undisputed facts be set out in numbered paragraphs; however, Rule 121(d) does require the non-movant who opposes such a motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial”. Our experience is that—particularly where (as here) the non-movant is self-represented–it is expedient for the proposed undisputed facts to be stated in numbered paragraphs, so that the non-movant can be directed to specify by number any fact that is in dispute (and to oppose the asserted fact with appropriate evidence). We will therefore order respondent to supplement his motion with a statement of facts in numbered paragraphs.” Order, at p. 1.

Then Gwen can paint-by-the-numbers, challenging the facts she disputes.


In Uncategorized on 03/21/2018 at 15:56

No closing announcement on the Tax Court website, just the usual “nothing happens before 3:30 p.m. Eastern” on the opinions and designated orders pages, and no orders today, 3/21/18.

The flailing datestampers and hard-laboring intake clerks are conspicuous by their absences.

I guess the Snowman has put the Glasshouse Gang on teletubby again.

But take heart, O ye procrastinators and deadline-beaters, frozen like statues on the Glasshouse steps, with un-efileable paper in your chillblained hands. Remember Felix Guralnik and Octavia.

What, you don’t? I know it was two years ago, but still and all…Check out my blogpost “Neither Equity Nor Designation,” 6/2/16, for what to do when “the weather outside is frightful, but the fire’s so delightful,” as Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne put it.

Me, I’m taking the day off.