In Uncategorized on 06/19/2017 at 20:25

Judge Paris steers her footsteps into those of Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller, as she echoes their 1957 hit, in the endless Tax Court search for jurisdiction.

Today, Judge Paris breaks new ground in Corbin A. McNeill and Dorice S. McNeill, 148 T. C. 23, filed 6/19/17.

Corb and Dori started a case in USDCDCT when engaged in a fistfight over a shelter they unwisely espoused, but after IRS hit them with a NFTL, which Corb and Dori petitioned after Appeals tells them they can’t contest the chops, Corb and Dori dismiss the USDC case with prejudice, with the FPAA which gave rise to the deficiency admitted but the Section 6662 accuracy chops never considered.

Corb and Dori already paid the deficiency to get to USDCDCT, so all that remains are chops.

Judge Paris bifurcates the case. All that’s on the table here is jurisdiction; the actual liability for the chops is for another day.

“At issue is whether, notwithstanding the specific jurisdictional provisions of TEFRA, the general jurisdictional provision of section 6330(d)(1) provides the Court with jurisdiction to review this case.” 148 T. C. 23, at p. 7 (Footnote omitted, but it says IRS concedes Corb and Dori never got a chance to fight the chops).

Prior to 2006, if there was no deficiency, chops were off the table in Tax Court after a CDP. The chopped had to go to USDC. But Congress amended Section 6330(d)(1) to provide that any petition from a NOD was fair game at 400 Second Street, NW.

Of course, if prior chance to contest, game over.

Nonetheless, “Congress created the CDP process to provide taxpayers who are confronted with a lien filing or a proposed levy the opportunity to contest that collection action before the Internal Revenue Service proceeds to collect the outstanding tax liability. It follows that when Congress amended section 6330 in 2006–making the Tax Court the exclusive venue for review of CDP cases–its intent was not to preclude from review certain issues not subject to the Tax Court’s deficiency jurisdiction. With respect to petitioners’ section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty, this penalty is another example of an item not subject to the Court’s deficiency jurisdiction under section 6221 but nonetheless reviewable by the Court in the context of its section 6330 jurisdiction.” 148 T. C. 23, at pp. 13-14. (Citations omitted).

Corb and Dori, stand by. There’s another opinion coming, that will determine your penalty.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: