Attorney-at-Law

HUH? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 10/05/2016 at 14:50

Y’all remember Diebold and Salus Mundi, the two leading trans-fat cats of the Section 6901 herd. I blogged the remand from Second and Ninth Circuits in passing (see my blogpost ‘Twice Burned,” 8/15/16), as I expected the trade press and blogosphere to be all over Judge Goeke’s August memo following the reverse-and-remand.

Maybe I missed the chatter, but this eight-year-old case isn’t over yet.

Instead of the Rule 155 beancount Judge Goeke ordered, Salus Mundi moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Huh?

Eight (count ‘em, eight) years ago next Sunday, SM filed its petition. While the SOL was on the table in both the reversed-and-remanded opinion and in this August’s follow-up, that’s an affirmative defense, right? It’s not a jurisdictional issue.

Unhappily, today’s order, Docket No. 24741-08, filed 10/5/16, only tells IRS to respond. I’d really like to know to what.

If there’s no jurisdiction, how is it that Tax Court (twice), Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit didn’t notice? And how come SM didn’t notice for eight years?

 

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: