Attorney-at-Law

A JURISDICTIONAL PRIMER

In Uncategorized on 04/11/2017 at 18:13

Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel is truly modest. While her order in Crystal N. Hardiman, Docket No. 298-17, filed 4/11/17, may be just a rehash for Tax Court admitted attorneys and USTCPs, it’s a useful introduction to Tax Court jurisdiction.

It really should have been a designated hitter, rather than requiring me to go fishing through a plethora of orders, some of which came close to Crystal N.’s, but none of which covered as much ground.

I respectfully suggest that designating an order is not an act of self-aggrandizement. We’ve seen a lot of that within less than fifty miles from the Glasshouse at 400 Second Street, NW (I remind myself that this is a non-political blog). Designating this order would not be one such.

I’m not going to copy or paraphrase Ch J Iron Fist’s prose extensively. I must assume perforce that all who read this far have at least a nodding acquaintance with written American English, legal subdivision.

That said, there are two excerpts worth repeating.

“…the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with attempts to work administratively with the IRS but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that none of the IRS communications supplied by petitioner to date constitute, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., or a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C, regarding 2014 and 2015, or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court. Further, even if a notice of determination had been issued…as suggested by petitioner, this case would be premature with respect to any dispute of such a notice. A petition cannot precede notice issuance.” Order, at p. 3.

And once again, Congress has created a court that does everything but provide cheap and expeditious relief.

“In summary then, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner’s…taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner’s complaints.” Order, at p. 3.

 

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: