Attorney-at-Law

“BETWEEN MISERY AND SUBSISTENCE”

In Uncategorized on 09/13/2016 at 14:07

If You Have Equity in Assets, You Must Pay Your Taxes

Judge Nega is sustaining IRS’s NFTL on the home in the sylvan wilderness of Maine in Harry Keller Heyl, Jr., Docket No. 5280-15L, filed 9/13/16.

And this notwithstanding HKH’s plea that he wants “…to utilize the Maine property as a home in retirement and asserts that maintaining and keeping the property free from encumbrances will be ‘the difference between misery and subsistence’ in retirement.” Order, at p. 4.

So HKH wants a partial payment installment agreement (PPIA). But he doesn’t get it from Appeals, and Judge Nega isn’t giving it up either.

“The SO examined petitioner’s PPIA proposal in light of these concerns. The SO noted petitioner’s self-reported ownership of an asset–real property–with a fair market value sufficient to satisfy the liabilities at issue. The SO observed that petitioner lives in Minnesota, but the real property is an unoccupied home located in Maine that does not serve as petitioner’s primary residence. As a result, the IRM guided the SO to decline petitioner’s proposed PPIA, absent a showing of economic hardship. While petitioner presents a legitimate view of his possible future needs, he has failed to allege any fact indicative of economic hardship. See Dostal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-264 at 28 (a delay in retirement plans does not amount to economic hardship); McClanahan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-161 (surrender of life insurance policy for cash value did not amount to imposition of economic hardship upon petitioners ‘in their older years’).” Order, at pp. 7-8.

And HKH wasn’t telling a particularly compelling tale. “Petitioner failed to allege any specific fact suggesting the sale or leveraging of the unoccupied Maine home will alter his income expense estimates and render him unable to meet his current necessary living expenses. Instead petitioner solely expresses concern with his financial status upon entering retirement. Petitioner argued that his future retirement will bring a meager social security check, and that living rent or mortgage free upon retirement may make the difference between ‘misery and subsistence.’ We also note that petitioner’s filing status is single and he has no dependents. Petitioner is in his early sixties and operates a sole proprietorship. In addition, he does not allege any disability or extraordinary circumstance prevents him from working, or continuing to operate his business. Petitioner argued that the economic downturn impeded his earning potential, but expresses a belief that his ‘piece of the economy won’t be weak forever.’

“Petitioner has not set forth any specific fact, alerted the Court to any fact in the administrative record, nor advanced any argument that would allow us to conclude that the Appeals Office deviated from published guidelines or otherwise erred in its determination.” Order, at p. 8.

BTW, HKH has a string of seven (count ‘em, seven) years of unpaid taxes. Tax Court has many a time and oft rejected OIC’s from habitual nonpayers.

So the NOD is sustained, and “between misery and subsistence falls the shadow”.

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: