Attorney-at-Law

“OH NO, IT ISN’T! “OH YES, IT IS”

In Uncategorized on 06/03/2014 at 17:04

It was on a June day some 32 years ago that I was standing in Covent Garden, watching my spellbound daughter at Percy Press, Jr.’s, Punch-and-Judy show. Junior was a son of Percy Press, Sr., who was one of the all-time masters of the ancient craft, revered in his day.

And as the time-honored puppets shouted “Oh no I didn’t!” “Oh yes you did!”, disputing an alleged theft of sausages, I remember the delighted yelps of the little children gathered round on that sunny afternoon. A happy memory, and I hope my daughter, the international transfer pricing expert at a Big Four accounting firm, remembers it as well.

Well, there aren’t any happy yelps, I imagine, from IRS, and I doubt there are too many from Chenery Management, Inc., even though their cry of “Oh yes, it is!” prevails, in Docket No. 23888-13L, filed 6/3/14, a designated hitter from CSTJ Panuthos.

IRS sent Chenery a letter stating “You are entitled to judicial review of my determination to sustain lien filing regarding all applicable periods raised in your Collection Due Process appeals . . . .” Order, at p. 1.

Chenery petitions at once, but IRS moves to dismiss, claiming that its letter wasn’t a NOD enabling Tax Court jurisdiction. IRS later does issue a NOD.

CSTJ Panuthos holds a hearing, at which IRS’ counsel unceasingly maintains that the letter wasn’t a determination.

However, discretion being the better part of the cliché, IRS’ counsel asks to submit a post-argument response.

Naturally, IRS folds (and they should be sanctioned for wasting scarce judicial resources). It takes IRS seven (count ‘em, seven) paragraphs to come to the point, but here it is:

“Respondent now asks the Court to deny respondent’s Motion. Respondent concedes the Court’s jurisdiction over the letter… because that correspondence resolved petitioner’s issues and stated that petitioner was entitled to judicial review, therefore, the letter should be treated as a notice of determination.” Order, at p. 1.

Oh yes, it is!

Advertisements

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: