Attorney-at-Law

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 05/26/2016 at 16:05

Although his cursus honorum on the Tax Court website doesn’t state his undergraduate major, it may have been physics, because STJ Lewis (“Honor That Name”) Carluzzo is a real fan of the uncertainty principle. See my blogpost “The Uncertainty Principle,” 1/30/13.

And today it defeats IRS’s move for summary J in Ronda Robinson, Docket No. 1417-16SL, filed 5/26/16.

Ronda claimed at her CDP she never got the SNOD that gave rise to the collection action she’s fighting, so she wants a chance to fight on the merits.

IRS ripostes that they mailed the SNOD and it came back “unclaimed.”

Sounds open-and-shut enough not to merit a designated hitter, but STJ Lew has a point to make.

“…nothing in respondent’s [IRS’s] motion suggests that petitioner received the notice, or deliberately refused to retrieve it from the post office.” Order, at p. 1. (Citation omitted.)

So STJ Lew is not so sure he agrees with IRS that Ronda is out on contesting liability.

Remember, a late petition from a received SNOD, or a claim the SNOD wasn’t received, doesn’t work in a deficiency proceeding if IRS can prove mailing to last known address, or willful failure to claim the SNOD from USPS.

But in a collection proceeding, non-receipt, if credibly asserted, might carry the day. See Section 6330(c)(2)(B).

No summary J for IRS.

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: