In Uncategorized on 10/03/2016 at 15:51

Krishnaiah Janumpalli, Docket No. 31879-15SL, filed 10/3/16, wants to try to use some past losses to offset his unpaid, self-assessed tax. The Judge With a Heart, STJ Armen, can’t help him, and IRS gets summary J.

Kris got a NITL, fires off a 12153, saying he can’t pay and wants an OIC. The SO tells him to provide 433-A and 656 with $186 and first payment. He doesn’t, but sends in a 1040X, claiming his past losses offset current tax.

IRS sends him a SNOD. Kris petitions but doesn’t pay the sixty bucks (or ask for a waiver). So he gets tossed.

Kris appoints Jon as his POA. Judge Armen, as do many of his judicial colleagues, conflates a piece of paper with a human being (a human being is known as a “representative” per Form 2848, or as an “agent” under our State’s General Obligations Law, but you could also call Jon an “attorney in fact” and that would do as well; what he isn’t is a “power of attorney”). Once again, a power of attorney is a piece of paper.

If someone has a “power of appointment” in an estate tax case, do you call that person a “power of appointment”?

Well, that never stopped a judge yet.

“…, respondent’s SO contacted petitioner’s POA stating that the assessment…had posted and offered the option of an installment agreement.

“… petitioner’s POA faxed a Form 433-D, Installment Agreement, to respondent’s SO. Petitioner subsequently contacted respondent’s SO informing her that: (1) his POA was mistaken and that he did not want to enter into an installment agreement; and (2) he disputed the underlying liability.

“…petitioner’s POA left a message for respondent’s SO informing her that petitioner decided to file for audit reconsideration.” Order, at p. 3.

The SO confirms the NITL, and Kris petitions.

Kris wants to fight about his underlying liability, but he blew that when he didn’t pay the sixty bucks (or seek a waiver). And he didn’t give the SO the 433-A or the 656 or the $186 or the first payment.

“Here petitioner failed to provide a completed Form 433-A or Form 656. Furthermore, petitioner explicitly told respondent’s SO that he did not want to enter into an installment agreement. Under these circumstances it would not be an abuse of discretion to deny petitioner a collection alternative.” Order, at p. 4.

And audit reconsideration is as administrative matter within IRS, as to which Tax Court has no jurisdiction.

BTW, Kris, “Also, merely as an observation, the Court notes that in the case of an individual sec. 1211(b) generally limits the allowance of a capital loss to $3,000 per year.” Order, at p. 4, footnote 2.

Net operating losses are another story, Kris, but this is a nonpolitical blog. Therefore this will be the only tax blog not commenting upon the tax posture of a certain candidate for public office.

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: