In Uncategorized on 02/25/2020 at 15:58

While the election returns have not been posted, an unsigned press release brings us the news that Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley has been re-elected as Ch J.  His term will extend to 2022.

Congratulations to Ch J Mighty Mo.

And just to show that the election hasn’t at all slowed down the Ch J, or dimmed for a moment his eagle eye, here’s Kellie Marie Yared, Docket No. 158912-19S, filed 2/25/20.

It looked like Kelly Marie and IRS had conclusively chilled Kelly Marie’s bœuf, and a joint stip decision embodying the same was awaiting the ceremonial stamp.

Little did the parties anticipate Ch J Mighty Mo’s eagle eye and well-documented predilection to toss.

“Among other things, that Stipulated Decision determines there is a deficiency in income tax of $11,430 due from petitioner…. The…deficiency notice issued to petitioner…upon which this case is based, however, asserts against petitioner a proposed deficiency of $11,429, not $11,430.” Order, at p. 1.

I don’t know about you, dear reader, but if I could get out of a case by paying an extra buck, I’d be out like a shot.

But don’t do it in USTC while Ch J Mighty Mo is on the watch.


In Uncategorized on 02/24/2020 at 12:29

If your exhibits are as voluminous as those in BATS Global Markets Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Docket No. 1068-17, filed 2/24/20, you may have to give the judge a courtesy copy in advance of trial.

Judge Kerrigan tells us how she wants them delivered.

“Electronic exhibit files must be submitted to the Court on USB media (e.g., thumb drive). All files must be provided on a single storage device. Please note: If a party needs to submit the electronic exhibits on a different media type, the party should submit a request to the Judge.” Order, at p.1.

And provide a spreadsheet listing any unstipulated exhibits. Number petitioner’s and respondent’s exhibits sequentially per Judge Kerrigan’s formatting directions.

“The USB media (e.g., thumb drive) submitted must be labeled with the following information: Docket Number, Case Name, and Party submitting the device (Respondent, Petitioner, or Joint).” Order, at p.1.

And describe any non-documentary exhibits, like videos.

There’s more, but be prepared for orders from other judges and STJs requiring courtesy copies of exhibits. And remember: thumbs up.

SECTION 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II)

In Uncategorized on 02/21/2020 at 14:36

It’s rare that one of these swims into my ken. I suppose it’s just as rare at Appeals. But today Andrea Michelle Jackson, Docket No. 13268-19S, filed 2/21/20 has one, and gets jurisdiction from Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley.

Andrea asked for interest abatement along with her stand-alone. IRS opposed abatement from the first, and ultimately wins that one. But IRS admitted they didn’t have the NOD from Appeals on the innocent spousery; they were, however, searching for same. All Andrea attached to her petition was an incomplete and unsigned NOD.

Then IRS supplemented their motion to toss the interest abatement with a motion to toss on the ground that no NOD had issued on the stand-alone.

Ch J Mighty Mo is a patient man.

“Nonetheless, despite the foregoing efforts, respondent’s motion, even as supplemented, remained inadequate to address the jurisdictional status of this case as to any section 6015, I.R.C., claim. Specifically, respondent had at no time addressed the parameters of  jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II), I.R.C., in particular whether petitioner submitted to the IRS a claim for relief from joint and several liability…and, if so, when.” Order, at p. 2.

Apparently the penny dropped, and IRS got the point. If someone claims innocent spousery timely, and six (count ‘em, six) months go by without IRS picking up on it, Tax Court has jurisdiction if petitioned within ninety (count ‘em, ninety) days thereafter. Andrea did.

“A second supplement to the motion addressing the just-described point followed…. Therein, although inartfully drafted, respondent conceded that petitioner had sent a request for innocent spouse relief to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)…, that no notice of determination had been sent to petitioner under section 6015, I.R.C., and that, consequently, the Court had jurisdiction over the spousal claim in this case under section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II), I.R.C.” Order, at p 2.

Practitioner, add this one to your toolkit.