Attorney-at-Law

ELECTED, DEPRESSED AND DISABLED

In Uncategorized on 11/12/2014 at 17:13

I’ve pointed out many times that this is not a political blog, so Sarah Kurko’s problems aren’t political. No, Sarah needs mental and emotional help, and that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, is just the man for the job, as proven by Sarah Kurko, Docket No. 24040-13L, filed 11/12/14, a designated hitter.

Sarah was in an accident, unable to work, became depressed and unemployed, sought SSDI, was denied, reapplied (case pending), and in the interim was behind in her income tax filings.

IRS handed her a SFR for one year, but Sarah filed a belated 1040, showing a credit, and IRS agreed she overpaid. However, when Sarah tried to claim a credit elect per Reg. 301.6402-3(a)(5) for the next year, as to which she was again tardy in filing, IRS claimed she still owed them money, and  claimed she was too late for the credit.

See my blogpost “Lookback In Anger”, 12/12/11, wherein I go over the rules on refunds.

But Sarah has an out. She claims she was “financially disabled”, thus tolling the lookback period for the time she was “too long in that condition”, as they say in the Highlands.

And Appeals didn’t consider that wrinkle at Sarah’s CDP, although Sarah claimed thereat that she needed legal help, psychiatric help, and couldn’t handle paperwork.

I know plenty of people who can’t handle tax paperwork even without the additional ills that plagued Sarah.

Sarah’s claims at the CDP are enough to establish that she did raise liability for tax issues, and the credit elect claim is enough to give Tax Court jurisdiction.

Now Sarah might have been late with her claim, but Judge Gustafson lays out the Section 6511(h) escape hatch. Briefly, any time periods are suspended (tolled) if the taxpayer is”… unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual … which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months….” Order, at p. 6.

So if Sarah can proffer a doctor’s note that complies with Rev. Proc. 99-21,  for the 14 months at issue, she might slide under the tag; and her credit elect would therefore be timely and she wouldn’t owe IRS.

In any event, Appeals never considered the financially-disabled status Sarah claimed, and that might be abuse of discretion. So maybe so there should be a remand.

Wherefore, let IRS decide if there should be a remand, or whatever else they want to do, and tell Judge Gustafson and Sarah. Sarah must answer IRS promptly and clue in Judge Gustafson. To that end, since Sarah has no lawyer and is clearly under some kind of disability, maybe she should get a “next friend” on the case.

A Taishoff  “good going” to  Judge Gustafson.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: