Attorney-at-Law

ANGST

In Uncategorized on 11/04/2013 at 16:32

Should your immigration status (or lack thereof) cause you angst in Tax Court? That’s Judge Laro’s question to IRS and Lee Ang, Docket No. 13309-12L, filed 11/4/13.

I blog this Order (which of course has no precedential value; see Rule 50(f)), because it  at least raises a novel legal question of general application, rather than the three fact-intensive, substantiation-burdened small claimers, and the similarly burdened designated hitter, out of Tax Court today.

Lee petitions a NOD from a CDP, and IRS moves for summary judgment. One can hardly concoct a noteworthy cocktail from the usual run of such motions.

But IRS takes a novel tack, apparently as a make-weight argument, because it shows up late in the game.

I’ll let Judge Laro tell the story: “Respondent’s motion includes a statement on pages 41 and 42 that respondent has determined that ‘petitioner is living in the United States illegally’.”  Order, at p. 1.

OK, but does IRS have jurisdiction to make such a determination? In the absence of an averment that Department of Homeland Security or a Court of competent jurisdiction has done so, Judge Laro says “So what? And mind your own business, IRS.”

Only he does it more elegantly, in the form of a homework assignment.

“…each party shall by November 15, 2013, file with the Court a Memorandum of Law that sets forth his position as to the following matter: Assuming that the Court were to eventually find that petitioner is in the United States illegally, what (if any) is the relevance to this proceeding of such a finding? What is the Petitioner’s current status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service? Is Petitioner a ‘fugitive’? Has an arrest warrant been issued for Petitioner? Among other things, each party shall specifically address whether an individual who is illegally in the United States is precluded from prosecuting a case in this Court and, if so, whether the Court, if we were to make the referenced finding, should dismiss this case on those grounds.” Order, at p. 1.

Can’t wait to see the answers.

  1. wheres the answer??

    Like

Leave a reply to lee Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.