Attorney-at-Law

I OWE, I OWE

In Uncategorized on 05/03/2016 at 15:32

And Off to Court I Go

Thus I butcher Frank Churchill’s and Larry Morey’s 1937 classic. But Gary I. Terry, 2016 T. C. 88, filed 5/3/16, gets no joy either from Appeals or from Tax Court. Gary’s problem is he owes GSA (the United States General Services Administration), not IRS.

GSA claims Gary overcharged the fisc. “The GSA’s claim for restitution arose out of petitioner’s involvement with SCAT, Inc., his wholly owned corporation. Petitioner’s involvement with this entity has been well documented, and he has pursued numerous lawsuits seeking redress against (among others) the GSA, the Small Business Administration, various Department of Justice attorneys, various bankruptcy trustees, and at least one Federal judge. See, e.g., Terry v. SBA, 699 F. Supp. 2d 49, 50-52 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting petitioner’s various unsuccessful attempts to relitigate his GSA debt); Terry v. Sparrow, 328 B.R. 450, 453-454 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2005) (describing factual background of petitioner’s debt).” 2016 T. C. Memo. 88, at p. 2, footnote 2.

Gary got nowhere with the foregoing, so now, when IRS grabs his income tax refund and goes after some more income tax he reports, he tries Appeals and then Tax Court.

Gary tries to relitigate yet again his strife with GSA. Appeals offers him an installment agreement. He never replies. Instead, he petitions.

“Section 6402(d)(1)(A) provides that, ‘[u]pon receiving notice from any Federal agency that a named person owes a past-due legally enforceable debt * * * the Secretary shall * * * reduce the amount of any overpayment payable to such person by the amount of such debt.’ The duty imposed upon the Commissioner by this statute is mandatory and overrides any request by the taxpayer that the over-payment be credited or refunded. Because the Secretary ‘is legally required’ to make this offset, he cannot review the validity of an agency debt of which he has been properly notified. Section 6402(g) further provides that ‘[n]o court of the United States shall have jurisdiction * * * to restrain or review a reduction authorized’ by section 6402(d). To the extent petitioner has any claim for recovery, therefore, he must make that claim to the GSA.” 2016 T. C. Memo. 88, at pp. 7-8. (Citations omitted).

Judge, maybe the last-quoted sentence should read “To the extent petitioner has any claim for recovery therefor, he must make that claim to the GSA.”

Of course Gary can sue GSA in USCFC or USDC, but it seems he did that, again with no joy.

 

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: