CSTJ Peter Panuthos is befogged by IRS’s counsel’s riding off in two directions at once, and I must say I’m equally befogged. Hence this headline.

I don’t know how James B. Cannon & Jeanmarie Cannon, Docket No. 30077-14SL, filed 7/22/15, feel about this, but if they’re as confused as CSTJ Peter and I, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Ya see, IRS moved to dismiss Jim’s & Jean’s petition off a NOD because Jim & Jean didn’t timely request a CDP. OK, no biggie, so let’s look at the mailing dates.

But IRS then “…filed a motion for summary judgement. In his motion respondent [IRS] asserts that the underlying liability is not in issue and further, that as a matter of law respondent did not abuse his discretion in that petitioners have not requested a collection alternative.” Order, at p. 1. (Emphasis by the Court).

By now my readers, those few, those happy few, know to respond to such an anomalous move with “Mein! Was ist das?”

CSTJ Peter is more demure. “The Court is perplexed by respondent’s position in this case. The filing of respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment presumes jurisdiction in this case and would appear to be entirely inconsistent with the position taken in the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” Order, at p. 1.

So, IRS, are you dropping the “no jurisdiction, so dismiss” motion? Or are you saying the two are consistent?

If the latter, please explain how a court can grant a motion when it has no jurisdiction.

Or more simply: is you is, or is you ain’t?