Attorney-at-Law

FBAR OR FUBAR? – REDUX

In Uncategorized on 11/18/2016 at 16:48

We can all recite in unison, even on a Friday afternoon, Judge Lauber’s mantra: FBAR penalties are Title 31s, whistleblowing payoffs are Article 26, and never the twain shall meet.

And if you can’t so recite, read my blogpost “FBAR or FUBAR? – Part Deux,” 3/14/16.

OK, but is there between Title 31 FBARing and Title 26 collection alternatives (such as Section 7122 OICs) “…a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence,” as a far greater authority put it?

Remember IRS often settles FBAR infractions with Title 26 type penalties, rather than going for the eviscerating 31 USC §5321s, as Judge Lauber points out in the subject of the aforementioned blogpost.

But again, he was talking about Section 7623 whistleblowing.

On this Friday afternoon, with not a lot cooking at 400 Second Street, NW, we speed cross-country to the City of the Angels, where this conundrum is being unpacked by The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Implacable, Irrefragable, Ineluctable, Ineffable, Incontrovertible, Indefatigable and Indomitable Foe of the Partitive Genitive, and Old China Hand, Judge Mark V. Homes.

We have Jean Louis Rubin & Marie F. Charrier, a.k.a. Marie F. Rubin, a.k.a. Marie Rubin, Docket No. 26604-14, filed 11/18/16.

Lou (“Too Bad About the Spelling”) & Marie were facing an FBAR penalty, and wanted a doubt-about–collectibility OIC. But between their April trial date and their most recent teleconference, there fell the shadow of an assessment of FBAR penalty.

So now what?

Time to punt.

“Respondent [IRS] doesn’t think this’ll make an OIC processable; petitioners disagree. All agreed to see if petitioners are right. The Court is willing to keep the case on a status-report track….” Order, at p. 1.

Stay tuned.

Update 7/9/17, from your indefatigable “Quick Draw McGraw of Tax Court,” as Mr Peter Reilly of forbes.com styled me. Seems back on 6/30/17, Judge Holmes asked for another status report in a couple months, in his inimitable style, “…stating whether Ms. Charrier has in fact requested innocent-spouse relief, any their success in submitting an offer in compromise, and any other progress in settling the case.” Order, at p. 1. The OIC is dragging, and Ms Charrier is allegedly kicking poor Lou to the curb.

As Hank Longellow put it, I’m “hanging breathless on her fate.”

 

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: