Attorney-at-Law

IT’S PERSONAL

In Uncategorized on 03/23/2017 at 16:36

That’s the message Judge Paris has for Lindsay Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 148 T. C. 9, filed 3/23/17. LMNH claims late payments from Medicaid and Medicare forced it to use FICA/FUTA money to pay for its sick residents. Therefore the proposed levy would toss the old and sick in the street. Therefore, levy should be vacated because of “economic hardship,” per Section 6343.

Section 6343, which, per regulations, requires IRS to release liens for economic hardship. But does “economic hardship” mean economic hardship for nonindividuals?

Negatory, says Judge Paris, per regulations IRS has made clear that Section 6343 release is for individuals, not corporations.

The language of the statute itself uses the term “taxpayer” eight (count ‘em, eight) times, but inconsistently as to an individual or a nonindividual.

After tearing the stuffin’ out’n de dictionary (the abridged dictionary) and canvassing all the legislative history in sight, Judge Paris determines that the “taxpayer” to be benefitted by the Section 6343 deliening is ambiguous.

Thus Chevron. Chevron allows a permissible interpretation of the statutory language when Congress hasn’t made it clear enough. And restricting Section 6343 to individuals is certainly permissible.

Besides, the application of Section 6343 is directed at releasing a lien. But here Judge Paris is dealing with a NITL, a notice of intent. No levy yet.

LMNH claims nonindividuals can submit OICs, but Judge Paris says economic hardship isn’t available to nonindividuals in an OIC. The proposed OIC regs did have a business example, but that was discarded because IRS should not be deciding which businesses were viable or not.

Anyway, “…the foreclosure of nonindividuals from ‘economic hardship’ relief does not foreclose relief for reasons found in subparagraph (B) (release of the levy would facilitate collection of the liability), (C) (the taxpayer entered into an installment agreement), or (E) (the fair market value of the property exceeds the levy and release would not hinder collection of the liability) of section 6343(a)(1).” 148 T. C. 9, at p. 40.

Levy sustained.

Footnote: See Lindsay Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 2017 T. C. Memo. 50, filed 3/23/17. LMNH is a habitual nonfilter and nonpayer. “Petitioner has a long history of noncompliance with its Federal employment tax obligations dating back to the mid-2000s. On multiple prior occasions petitioner was given an installment agreement which the IRS revoked for noncompliance with either the terms of the agreement or its Federal tax filing and payment obligations.” 2017 T. C. Memo. 50, at p. 3 (Footnote omitted).

But then again, it’s another Sam Jewell enterprise. Remember Sam? No? Then see my blogpost “The Corporations Unveiled,” 12/29/16. Judge Paris is losing patience with Sam.

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: