Attorney-at-Law

“THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE”

In Uncategorized on 02/26/2016 at 18:19

Now Go Away

Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton is not dismissive toward X, Docket No. 29460-15, filed 2/26/16, but Congress certainly was. Name removed at petitioner’s request.

IRS gave X a CP504. This is a notice that IRS has grabbed X’s State tax refund, but accords no Section 6330 rights to a CDP, “except that the taxpayer shall be given the opportunity for the hearing described in this section within a reasonable period of time after the levy.” Section 6330(f).

X has been in what seems to be a running fight with IRS, and demands the sixty-buck-ticket-to-justice. IRS moves to toss X’s petition. No NOD, no jurisdiction.

X objects. “The brief document stated in its entirety: “I am writing to object to the IRS’ motion to dismiss this case. I would like the opportunity to present my case to the United States Tax Court. Dear United States Tax Court, thank you for your time and assistance on this matter.” No reference was made to any further notices that might support an exercise of jurisdiction.” Order, at p. 2.

In the words of a much more highly exalted Personage, “’Grant me justice against my adversary.’”

Alas, Tax Court cannot.

“The earlier petition had detailed difficult personal and financial circumstances and the role therein played by IRS activities. It also recounted repeated, and frequently unsuccessful, attempts to communicate with the IRS, noting that the IRS had been unhelpful and had further compounded problems by refusing an offer in compromise. Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with attempts to work administratively with the IRS but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Unfortunately, suffice it to say a parsing of the record reveals that, while it is clear petitioner has been engaged in ongoing efforts and correspondence to deal with the IRS, respondent’s jurisdictional allegations stand unrebutted. Critically, no communication reflected in the record of this case constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212, I.R.C., or a notice of determination issued pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C. Only a narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS can open the door to the Tax Court. An IRS Notice CP504, the sole notice offered by petitioner to date, does not fall into that class.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

And X’s stand-alone OIC gives no jurisdiction either, unlike one made at Appeals in a CDP.

“Therefore, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s situation and holds great respect for his military service, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to 2014. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner’s complaints.” Order, at p. 3.

What about that Section 6330 hearing “within a reasonable period of time after the levy?” Who enforces that?

 

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: