Nope, not the 1904 Kerry Mills and Andrew B. Sterling tune reprised by Judy Garland and Company in the 1944 MGM feel-good, but rather news of the cancellation of the Tax Court’s roadshow in St Louis, MO, on Monday, January 6, 2014.

It seems that the weather has turned nasty. Parties will be “renotified” of the new date(s) for their trials and tribulations.

For those who tuned in late, the partitive genitive is a grammatical form extruded into English from Latin, whereby that which is the part of a greater whole is indicated by the genitive declension, as in “a cup of coffee” or “filet of sole”.

The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, Judge Mark V. Holmes, has long been at war with the partitive genitive, being fond of such solecisms as “couple rounds of briefing”; see my blogpost “The $2000 Misunderstanding”, 6/12/12.

But he has enlisted a most unexpected ally in Judge Joseph Robert Goeke. In witness whereof, see Qinetiq U.S. Holdings, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 14122-13, filed 1/3/14.

Remember that Judge Wherry laid a blast on Judge Holmes as a grammarian, as to which see my blogpost “The Great Dissenter – Part Deux”,  2/15/12. And Judge Goeke got all kinds of lexicographical when Judge Holmes went off on a rant; see my blogpost “Swift, Light and Unattached”, 12/19/12.

Anyway, Qineteq is about the irrelevance of the Administrative Procedures Act. Qineteq wants to strike the SNOD; no dice.

“Petitioner argues that the notice of deficiency was arbitrary and capricious because, despite the substantial sum involved, the notice consisted of only a couple sentences explaining the basis for the deficiency. However, the size of the deficiency is irrelevant to the size of the notice’s explanation of adjustments. We have procedures for analyzing the validity of notices of deficiency, but we do not hold a notice invalid just because it is succinct.”  Order, at p. 2 (Citations omitted).

“Ve haff our vays of givink you notice,” as the late great Conrad Veidt might have said.

Besides, the administrative record is not the only basis for review of a SNOD. Per Sections 6213 and 6214, Tax Court reviews the deficiency do novo, so Qineteq can duke it out with IRS and bring in whatever evidence it has.

But my point is found two paragraphs back. Judge Goeke, what is this “only a couple sentences”? Have you enlisted in Judge Holmes’ war on the partitive genitive? What is wrong with “only a couple of sentences”?

Will the luncheon menu in the Judges’ cafeteria at 400 Second Street, NW, now feature “soup day”, “filet sole”, “slice pizza” and “leg lamb”? How about “piece pie” and “cup coffee”?

No, not the 14-season television series rated number 43 on the all-time list by TV Guide, rather the extraordinary set of Orders out of Tax Court today, Friday, January 3, 2014.

Fridays are usually dull down at 400 Second Street, NW, and given the snowstorm and announcement that US gov’t workers could come in or stay home and work, as they chose, I expected little. I wasn’t surprised the designated hitters were rather poor, two stalls and another exegesis of Section 152 and related familial carryings-on.

But then I went a little farther on.  So here’s the potpurri of gems extracted from the dross by the unremitting toil of yours truly.

First up, Sumner Redstone, the Viacom king. Sumner was having a set-to with IRS over a 1972 gift of stock, as to which he never filed a 709. See my blogpost “The Flavor Du Jour”, 12/9/13. Judge Lauber blew off Sumner’s laches defense (delay of game doesn’t stop the US of A). So now IRS wants summary judgment. And Judge Lauber gives Sumner and his legal team until February 3 to find some material facts in dispute, and lay them bare. Read all about it in Sumner Redstone, Docket No. 8097-13, filed 1/3/14.

Next up, echoes of Jerry Rawls. Remember Jerry? No? Well, see my blogpost “Hail, All Hail Cornell”, 12/5/12. But this Order isn’t about Jerry’s case, only citing it for authority. This lofty Order (sorry, guys) can be found in Edge Lofts Master Tenant, L.P., A Missouri Limited Partnership, Edge Lofts MT GP, LLC, A Missouri Limited Liability Company, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 424-11, filed 1/31/4.

This was a Section 47 rehab credit case; that’s the historic structure thing. “Respondent had determined that petitioner improperly included more than $2 million in developer fees as qualified rehabilitation expenses for 2006. Respondent then mailed a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment to petitioner (Limited FPAA). Respondent also mailed a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment to Loft’s tax matters partner (Loft FPAA). The Limited FPAA purports to give effect to only the qualified rehabilitation expenditure adjustments respondent determined in the Loft FPAA. The Limited FPAA adjusted no independent partnership item of Limited for 2006.” Order, at p. 1 (Footnote omitted, but it’s important).

Here’s the omitted footnote: “The partnership-level proceeding involving the partners of Loft, Tax Court Docket Number 425-11, has not been completed.” Order, at p. 1, footnote 2.

So both IRS and Limited move to dismiss the petition, as the only result of the FPAA is a computational numbers shift. Judge Kroupa: “An FPAA containing solely computational adjustments of partnership items of a source partnership that respondent issues before completion of the source partnership-level proceeding is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Rawls Trading, L.P. v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 271 (2012).” Order, at p. 2.

But wait–there’s more. If I were doing a separate caption for this one, it would be “Do The Math Before You Send the Check”. This is Chief Judge Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s advice to Christopher Cruz, Docket No. 26650-13S, filed 1/3/14, but that “S” won’t be there long.

Chris was over the $50K brightline, so his “S” was in jeopardy. His attorney-in-fact, Allgood, sent in a check for $500, hoping to take Chris under the radar. Unfortunately, it wasn’t all good (sorry, guys).

Ch J Iron Mike: “John Allgood filed a Response on behalf of petitioner. Although this response was filed by the Court, petitioner should note that this Court does not recognize powers of attorney, and all filings should be made by petitioner or by a practitioner admitted to practice before this Court.” Order, at p. 1.

And see my blogpost “Powerless”, 9/14/12.

Anyway, even if John Allgood were a practitioner admitted to practice before Tax Court, he can’t add. “The Response to the Court’s Order To Show Cause states that petitioner paid $500.00 to respondent to bring the amount in dispute for tax year 2007 below the $50,000 jurisdictional maximum for small tax case procedures. For the small tax case election to be valid, the ‘amount of the deficiency placed in dispute’ may not exceed $50,000 for any one taxable year. I.R.C. sec. 7463(a), (e);  Kallich v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 676, 679-680 (1987). The ‘amount of the deficiency placed in dispute’ includes the deficiency and any additions to tax and penalties determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency upon which the case is based, I.R.C. sec. 7463(e), less any concessions made by petitioner. The amount of deficiency (when including additions to tax and penalties) for tax year 2007 exceeds $50,000, even if petitioner’s $500.00 payment is viewed as a concession.” Order, at p. 1.

So Chris loses his “S”. For the right way to deal with the problem, see my blogpost “Who Says It’s a Small-Claimer?”, 8/1/13.

The next one deserves its own blogpost, as Judge Holmes finds an unlikely ally in his war on the partitive genitive. Stay tuned.

No, not Antoine Domino’s and Dave Bartholomew’s 1955 classic, or even Pat Boone’s cover thereof, but the sad tale of Onetha A. Gilliard, Docket No. 8620-13S, filed 1/2/14,  with STJ Lew (That Man Can Spell) Carluzzo stepping up to start the 2014 Tax Court season.

Onetha claims IRS credited to a prior year’s liability (which liability Onetha contests) certain refunds she was owed for subsequent years.

But even if everything Onetha says is true (which the Court doesn’t decide), STJ Lew can’t help Onetha out.

Back on 11/13/13, Tax Court issued an Order tossing Onetha’s petition for untimely filing, on the ground that she was two years too late. She now writes a letter asking for reconsideration.

“For what it is worth, we note that as a general matter, respondent [IRS] is authorized to deny a taxpayer’s claim for refund of overpaid Federal tax for one year and instead credit that overpayment against the taxpayer’s Federal tax liability owed for a different year. See §6402(a).  (Furthermore, this Court is without overpayment jurisdiction to review respondent’s actions in that regard. See sec. 6512(b)(4)). But more importantly, for the reasons explained in the Order, we are without jurisdiction over petitioner’s 2007 Federal income tax liability.” Order, at p. 1.

By “the Order”, STJ Lew means the 11/13/13 Order tossing Onetha’s petition. Onetha had her chance, and she missed it. Once past ninety days, game over.

“In her letter, petitioner describes the series of personal family misfortunes that she suffered during the relevant time that her 2007 liability was being examined by respondent, but nothing in her letter suggests that the ruling embodied in the Order is in anyway erroneous.” Order, at p. 1.

Of course, there’s the usual cold comfort; Onetha can file for a refund and sue in USDC or CFC, and best of luck with that. “We sympathize with petitioner, but as previously explained, have no jurisdiction in this proceeding over her 2007 Federal income tax liability. Petitioner, of course, is free to explore whatever remedies might be available to her administratively or judicially through the refund procedures. See §7422; McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).” Order, at p. 2.

No, I haven’t joined the Spanish Army; I gave at the office here, 47 years ago. And the title is slightly misleading, I confess.

It’s not that I don’t want to write, but that, if you want to write to me, or comment on a post of mine, you have to be registered with wordpress.com and logged in.

The reason for this stonewalling is that the Akismet spam filter that my publisher wordpress.com has provided me has been overwhelmed, so that I am being deluged with spam, that the filter isn’t catching. I’m not surprised; the hackers and spammers and internet criminals routinely outwit the guardians.

Sorry for the inconvenience.