In Uncategorized on 10/14/2016 at 16:19

It’s a refresher from Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel; sometimes an Appeals hearing yields jurisdiction at 400 Second Street, NW, and sometimes it doesn’t. The hapless pro se (that’s self-represented for you Anglophones) is often unaware of the difference. And that can get expensive.

Just ask Chris A. Changras, Docket No. 11994-16L, filed 10/14/16. And I wish Ch J Iron Fist would designate some orders. There were 150 on tap today, and digging for blogfodder is tough enough.

Anyway, Chris is hit with a bushelbasketful of TFRPs. She goes to Appeals, which gives her a NOD on all but two of the quarters at issue. For those two, she gets a decision letter.

Chris never picked up the certified letter with the NITL for the two outliers. She did pick up the one for the other eight or so, and there was some further epistolary back-and-forth, but finally Chris filed a 12153 for the whole shebang.

Chris was timely as to the eight, so she gets a NOD.

But all she gets is a decision letter for the outliers. “A decision letter was issued to petitioner with respect to the [outliers] levy notice because petitioner did not timely request a hearing within 30 days of the mailing of that notice….” Order, at p. 3.

Here’s the refresher from Ch J Iron Fist: “A late or untimely request for a hearing that is made within a one-year period calculated with reference to one of the notices of lien or levy just described results only in a so-called equivalent hearing and a corresponding decision letter, which is not a notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330.” Order, at p. 2 (Citation omitted).

Chris didn’t know that (after all, why should she?).

“In her opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner does not directly address the jurisdictional issues with respect to the 2009 levy notice. Rather, petitioner suggests that there might be confusion over the issue of jurisdiction resulting from the manner in which she filed her petition. However, as discussed above, because a decision letter, rather than a notice of determination, was issued to petitioner with respect to the [outlier] levy notice, the Court has no jurisdiction to review that decision.” Order, at p. 3 (Citation omitted).

Pick up those letters from IRS, guys. And, of course, watch out for the latest scams; the crooks have started mailing phony letters.


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 )

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: