Attorney-at-Law

INFORMATION PLEASE

In Uncategorized on 06/01/2017 at 16:00

No, not the 1940s radio quiz show that was the first prerecorded show (to permit it to be aired on the West Coast in prime time simultaneously with East Coast prime time).

This is the factual issue raised by Kenneth A. McRae, Docket No. 21799-016, filed 6/1/17, a designated hitter off the bat of Chief Special Trial Judge In Waiting Lewis (“Wotta Name!”) Carluzzo.

Ken may be “impertinent, if not frivolous” (Order, at p. 2), but CSTJIW Lew finds that Ken has a valid point.

Ken didn’t bother to file, so the SNOD from which he’s petitioning is based on SFRs, which in turn are based on Information Return Documents.  The exact nature of these InfoReDs aren’t specified, but might be W-2s or 1099s from third parties.

Ken claims “on information and belief” these were “based on inaccurate and unreliable records.” Order, at p. 1.

Now IRS claims Ken only raised legal questions, and these were at best dubious. But CSTJIW Lew isn’t handing IRS summary J just yet.

“The details of the information reported on the ‘Information Return Documents’, however, are not set forth in the copy of the notice attached to respondent’s motion, which is the only copy of the notice currently in the record. That being so, and giving petitioner the benefit of every doubt as we are required to do in our consideration of respondent’s motion, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the above-referenced allegation gives rise to a justiciable issue, that is, whether the information return reports relied upon by respondent are accurate and reliable. Consequently, resolving this case in summary fashion, as respondent’s motion would have us do, is inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

But lest Ken be too elated, CSTJIW Lew prunes the impertinent and/or maybe frivolous material from his petition.

Takeaway- When you’re fighting SFRs and InfoReDs, make sure IRS has properly noticed and pled them, and sweat the client for whatever s/he may have gotten. Review same, and if any are dubious, you know what to do.

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: