Attorney-at-Law

FAKE OUT

In Uncategorized on 12/16/2014 at 16:56

Another sporting term indicating a feint or ruse employed by a team or a player to confuse, mislead or dupe the opponent, giving advantage to the faker.

Well, IRS has such a feint or ruse on tap for Oola Mar & Marlin D. Johnson, Docket No. 19805-14, filed 12/16/14, a designated hitter off the bat of STJ Lewis (“Love That Spelling”) Carluzzo.

Oola Mar & Marlin petition in response to Letter 4314C, which I never heard of before either, but apparently is on the top shelf in IRS’ cubby of happy tricks, feints and ruses.

IRS answers “no SNOD.” Oola Mar & Marlin say “but your Letter 4314C says there was a SNOD you sent ‘earlier’, and we thought we hadn’t received it for some reason.”

Moreover, say Oola Mar & Marlin, your billet doux states we should “’…petition the United States Tax Court for a re-determination of the amount of the tax you owe’ if they did not agree with that amount. The letter, a copy of which is attached to the petition, apparently prompted petitioners to commence this proceeding.” Order, at p.1.

Well, I don’t know about y’all, but it would have prompted me to spring for the sixty bucks and fire off a petition. And remember, there is no specific form for a SNOD.

See my blogposts “Got Your Ticket?”, 12/13/12, and “Oh No It Isn’t! Oh Yes It Is!”, 6/3/14.

IRS says, oh well, it isn’t a SNOD, and there wasn’t a SNOD. “Respondent [IRS] identifies the letter as a ‘Letter 4314C’ and explains that from time to time, a Letter 4314C is issued to a taxpayer even though a notice of deficiency had not ‘earlier’ been issued to the taxpayer for the year referenced in the Letter 4314C. According to respondent, that describes the situation before us. Otherwise, respondent’s reply confirms the position taken in his motion, that is, that a notice of deficiency has not been issued to petitioners….” Order, at p. 1.

Just IRS’ little joke, apparently. Because STJ Lew doesn’t explain how he reaches this conclusion. “We see little point in challenging respondent’s view in this case, as it is clear that respondent’s view presumes that the letter does not provide the basis for the assessment of the ‘amount of tax’ the letter claims petitioners ‘owe’.” Order, at p. 2.

Fortunately Oola Mar & Marlin were pro se, else they would have incurred legal fees. But they’re still out the sixty bucks.

How any non-professional is supposed to guess that Letter 4314C is sometimes issued when there is no SNOD, despite the letter’s explicit statement to the contrary, is a question I leave for the Court.

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: