Attorney-at-Law

BIPARTISANSHIP

In Uncategorized on 06/19/2015 at 17:46

Yet again I say that this is a non-political blog. While I indeed hold strong personal, partisan views, I try most earnestly not to let these obtrude here.

As practitioners we must be neutral, objective, analytical, unemotional.

But at intervals politicians of opposite parties, and nearly diametrically opposing views, speak with a certain resonance in my old heart, positively jagged with sophistication as it is.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), 2/10/14: “…a dysfunctional, rotting mess of a carcass that we call the tax code.” See my blogpost “Mighty Tough Language,” 8/4/14.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), 6/17/15: “…the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.”

Now my readers, few but hardy, and I, all earn our cornpone from this dysfunctional, rotting, corrupt, complicated and intrusive, to say nothing of antigrowth, tax code. So guys, tread with caution, not with sound-bites.

But Judge Morrison, certainly no partisan, has a few words for IRS on the subject.

And we all, politicians and practitioners, might do well to read and heed.

IRS wants to dismiss the petition in Matthew Vincent Duckworth, Docket No. 24585-13, filed 6/17/15. IRS wants to say that there is neither tax due from Ducks, nor an overpayment by him, and proffers a decision document to that effect.

But Judge Morrison has some questions for IRS before signing off on the desired decision.

“I. Is the proposed decision document intended to reflect that the amount of the overpayment is $0?

“II. How did respondent calculate that the amount of the overpayment?

“III. (a) Did the respondent calculate the amount of the overpayment by reference to section 6401(b)(1)? (b) If so, what was ‘the amount allowable as credits under subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to refundable credits)’? (c) And what was ‘the tax imposed by subtitle A (reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A, B, D, G, H, I, and J of such part IV)’?

“IV. (a) Did the respondent calculate the amount of the overpayment by reference to the definition of overpayment in United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 604 n. 6 (the overpayment amount is the amount by which taxpayer has overpaid tax) or a similar definition? (b) If so, what was the amount of tax and (c) what was the amount of payments?

“V. Should the Court require further written submissions from either party?” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Morrison gives IRS a month to come up with the answers. Openbook, maybe so.

And the intent of this month-long march through the swamp is to get us to zero?

I suggest that both Sens. Wyden and Paul rest and cross-move for judgment.

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: