Attorney-at-Law

WE MAY NEVER KNOW

In Uncategorized on 11/26/2013 at 16:59

 So many questions, and so little time. Alas, we now have one more unanswered question, the impact of the immigration status of Lee Ang on his Tax Court Section 6330 review. See my blogpost “Angst”, 11/4/13, to which one styling him/herself “Lee” responded “wheres the answer??”

I of course replied “Ask Judge Laro. I haven’t got a clue.”

Well, Lee’s inquiry and my reply will have to remain buried among the mysteries of Tax Court, as Judge Laro’s pen apparently is sealed.

Judge Laro issues an order in Lee Ang, Docket No. 13309-12L, filed 11/26/13,  presumably after receiving the briefs (or the concessions) described in my blogpost aforesaid, in which he orders that the “parties shall by December 9, 2013, file with the Court a memorandum briefing the following issues:

“(1) On what date did the IRS provide petitioner with a written statement of the jeopardy levy, as required by section 7429(a)(1)(B); and,

“ (2) Whether petitioner’s letter dated September 20, 2011, entitled ‘Request for Administrative Relief of Jeopardy Levy’, is a proper request for administrative review of the jeopardy levy pursuant to section 7429(a)(2).” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Nothing about alien status or its impact on Tax Court litigation. Sorry Lee, in the immortal words of Robert Allen Zimmerman’s Number 14 all-time greatest hit “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.”

Incidentally, Judge Laro finds enough fact questions to blow off IRS’ motion for summary judgment.

And IRS (and you practitioners out there) should remember that per Rule 50(a), if you want Tax Court to help you, make a motion, don’t send billets doux.

For more to that effect, see Gregory Lane Hartwell & Sharon Marlene Shiller Hartwell, Docket No. 19383-12, filed 11/26/13, wherein that Obliging Judge David Gustafson points out in a designated hitter: “The recent filing [a status report seeking a 30-day break to file decision documents] should have been a motion-not only because the rule requires it, but also because (a) the Court’s docketing system enables it to track “Motions” (to ensure that they are acted on), whereas a request in a report may fall between the cracks, and (b) where the Court is inclined to grant a request for relief, it can do so very easily where a motion is filed by simply stamping the  motion ‘Granted’, whereas respondent’s recent filing requires the Court to prepare a separate order. We do so, but would appreciate respondent’s future compliance with Rule 50(a).” Order, at p. 1.

It was an IRS lawyer who didn’t read the rules, not a pro se who might be forgiven.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: