In Uncategorized on 09/08/2016 at 15:53

Judge James S. (“Big Jim”) Halpern takes as his text for today’s designated hitter the words of Bert Bacharach’s 1964 hit, but Judge Big Jim leaves me puzzled. Let’s see if you’re the same.

Rhonda T. Jones, Docket No. 14933-15, filed 9/8/16, looks like a routine summary J for IRS, as Rhonda didn’t respond to the motion, despite being given thirty days to do so.

But IRS’ counsel throws a curveball in her declaration in support.

“We recognize that the notice of deficiency reflects a deficiency of $2,043.00…. Please note that this amount does not take into account the withholding $1,530.00 that will be treated as a payment toward the balance due…. Accordingly, the balance due…is actually $513.00, plus interest.” Order, at p. 1.

OK, so the SNOD was wrong on the numbers. And IRS counsel admits it was. That’s a concession, no? Or did I miss something?

Now what does Judge Big Jim do?

He orders and decides a deficiency of $2,043.00.

And he adds a pious hope. “We assume that the facts stated in that paragraph will be taken into account in any collection action.” Order, at p. 1.

How the collections people are supposed to understand this, and take it into account, when the decision says $2,043.00, is nowhere stated. Telepathy?

And why burden collections with this?

Didn’t IRS concede that the actual tax due was $513.00, plus interest? So why not state that amount in the decision directly?

I’m confused.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: