See my blogpost “Net Worthiness”, 1/10/14, for a quick refresher on Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), which in turn incorporates the requirements of 28 USC §2412(d)(2)(B); and 28 USC§2412(d)(2)(B) describes an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed.

Clear? Thought not.

And our search for truth and justice today involves not our old friend Section 7430, with its largesse for those who prevailed over IRS, but rather the right of a taxpayer, pursuant to Section 6404(h) to contest IRS’ failure to abate interest as an abuse of discretion.

You see, to be able to mount a Section 6404(h) attack, you have to show a net worth less than $2 million.

Now abatement of interest is itself a study. See my blogposts “Abuse Means Abate”, 2/3/12, “A Case of Interest”, 8/9/12, and “An Interest(ing) Question – Or Two”, 6/11/13.

But Maryann Larkin & Thomas Larkin, Docket No. 13515-11, filed 1/17/14, might actually have a valid Section 6404(h) claim, if they can limbo under the $2 million.

Remember our friend Karen Q. Pierce, from my blogpost “Net Worthiness” abovecited, who missed the cutoff, and was thrown out by Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton?

Well, Maryann and Tom got Judge David Gustafson, who authors this designated hitter. But neither they nor IRS can show that Maryann and Tom are on the impoverished side of $2 million.

Maryann and Tom move for summary judgment (final, not partial), making the unsupported statement that their net worthlessness is below the mark.

IRS counters: “Despite their assertions in the petition, Petitioners provided no evidence to prove they comply with the net worth requirements set forth in section 7430(c) (4) (A) (ii). Two parcels of property owned by Petitioners – a home in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida and a condominium in Aspen, Colorado – have values asserted by county property appraisers totaling almost $1.9 million ($714,399.00 for the Palm Beach Gardens property and $1,185,400.00 for the Aspen condominium). The extent of Petitioners’ total assets is unknown.” Order, at p. 2.

OK, so $1.9 million is still less than $2 million.

And what “county property appraisers” (I presume IRS means local tax assessors) and their assessments of value have to do with the matter is at best obscure, and at worst irrelevant. See my blogpost “Quanto? Il Prezzo”, 7/24/12, when Judge Ruwe gives the local tax bill and the tax billers the right-about-face.

And in the case I blogged in “Quanto”,  the taxpayers actually produced the bills, where here IRS has nothing but the bare assertion. And even if the properties were so assessed, and that assessment was the actual free-and-clear FMV, no evidence has been offered to show what liens or encumbrances exist on the properties. There’s plenty of real estate with big AVs that’s subacqueous, as the high-priced lawyers would say.

While IRS doesn’t know Maryann’s and Tom’s total assets, neither do they know their total liabilities.

And Maryann and Tom ain’t tellin’–so far, anyway.

So Judge Gustafson sends Maryann and Tom back to set forth in detail their assets and liabilities. Of course, they can always stipulate with IRS.

Yeah, roger that, as we used to say.