Attorney-at-Law

SCAR TISSUE

In Uncategorized on 04/14/2017 at 16:12

No, my practice does not include personal injury, whether plaintiffs’ or defendants’; rather, today we have a discussion of Scar, an opinion often cited.

For those tuning in late, Scar v Com’r, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), rev’g 81 T.C. 855 (1983) dealt with a SNOD that dinged the taxpayer as a member of an entity with which taxpayer had never dealt, and IRS had never examined the return in question. Moreover, the deficiency used the top marginal rate, rather than the graduated rate.

So the SNOD got tossed, along with the case.

But today, though he reviews Scar, His Honor Big Julie, Judge Julian I Jacobs, hereinafter HHBJJJIJ, refuses the benefit thereof to Lewis Teffeau, et al., Docket No. 27901-10, filed 4/14/17.

Not a good Friday for Lewis, even though he spells his name right.

Lewis claims he is a Virgin (Islander), but IRS says he’s a phony per Notice 2004-45 Meritless Position Based on Sections 932(c)(4) and 934(b), torpedoing various dodges to export US onshore income to our Insolvent Islands in the Sun.

I’ve blogged any number of these, so I won’t repeat myself.

Lewis claims IRS never “determined” a deficiency. But the SNOD did state Lewis never filed with IRS (so his IRS return is deemed to show zero), and the SNOD discussed the items in Lewis’ VIBIR return, which IRS got through the TIA (Tax Implementation Agreement between IRS and VIBIR; the master-snitch deal). The SNOD and the items therein clearly relate to Lewis.

I’ll spare you the FRCP argument. Section 6212 overrides FRCP. At best, a SNOD is the tax analogy to a complaint per FRCP. But FRCP is out as far as mandating the contents of a SNOD.

But there’s a further point HHBJJJIJ makes, although it’s truly boilerplate. But it expounds a rule that can be extremely mischievous. In fact, it’s the nearest analogy I can find to a well-contrived and expertly-placed IED.

“It is well settled that no particular form is required for the notice of deficiency to be valid. See Benzvi v.Commissioner, 787 F.2d1541,1542(11th Cir. 1986); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 655 (1982). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable barring a stipulation to the contrary, has held that the notice will be treated as valid if the Commissioner demonstrates that ‘the IRS has determined that a deficiency exists for a particular year and specify the amount of the deficiency.’ Stoecklin v. Commissioner, 865 F.2d 1221, 1224 (1 l th Cir. 1989) (quoting Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d at 1542), aff’g. T.C. Memo. 1987-453.” Order, at p. 4.

OK, then how is a litigant or his/her/its/their counsel to know what the Commissioner will demonstrate when they get one of IRS’ multifarious billets doux?

I won’t rehash the number of cases I’ve blogged, which were tossed when a pro se who sends in the sixty bucks and Forms 2, 4 and 5 gets told that the billet doux in question wasn’t really a SNOD.

And this, even when the billet doux says that a deficiency was determined and a SNOD sent, even when it wasn’t. See my blogpost “Fake Out,” 12/16/14.

But see also my blogpost “Fake Out – Part Deux,” 6/23/15, where I proposed sending in a petition and immediately repetitioning when IRS claims “no jurisdiction.” And of course asking for the sixty bucks to be waived on petition number 2.

But rather than wasting time, effort, postage and carbon on this stupidity, why not mandate a form of SNOD?

Permit me to suggest that the top of that document, in 16-point type, there appear a legend: “THIS IS THE STATUTORY NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. IF YOU WANT A COURT TO REVIEW YOUR CASE, FILE A PETITION NOW. THERE ARE NO EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE. GO TO http://www.ustaxcourt.gov AND CLICK ON “NEED HELP?”

 

 

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: