Attorney-at-Law

CERTIFY TO BE CERTAIN

In Uncategorized on 06/20/2017 at 18:17

A rule that should be graven in stone on the walls of 1111 Constitution Ave, NW, and every outpost thereof is the source of defeat for IRS’ summary J motion in Security Management and Integration Company, Docket No. 15248-16L, filed 6/20/17.

This is a petition from a CDP NOD. IRS claims that the Decision Letter here isn’t a NOD, but CSTJ-in-waiting Lewis (“A Name Denoting Chieftainship”) Carluzzo doesn’t let technicalities deter him from proceeding as if the Decision Letter was in fact a NOD.

That said, was the petition timely?

“Because the letter was not sent by certified mail, respondent relies entirely upon the date shown on the letter, April 6, 2016, to establish the date it was sent, and therefore the date the period prescribed in section 6330(d) began to run. Using that date, it is obvious that the petition, filed July 5, 2016, would not be treated as timely. Although petitioner does not identify a specific date that he received the letter, petitioner claims that he mailed the petition to the Court within 30 days from the date he received it. Without a certified mailing list, or any other information regarding the date the letter was mailed, we are reluctant to find that it was mailed as dated. See Magazine v.Commissioner,89 T.C. 321(1987). Without being able to determine the date the letter was mailed to petitioner, we are left only with his claim that he mailed the petition within 30 days of its receipt. That being so, we find that the petition was timely.” Order, at p. 2.

IRS gets summary J, but it goes against them.

Lest the Security Managers and Integraters feel too elated, they also sought summary J, prohibiting collection during the pendency of the proceeding, and they too lose.

“The record shows that petitioner is a Federal government contractor. See sec. 6330(h)(2). Section 6330(f)(4) somewhat limits the rights otherwise provided to taxpayers by section 6320 and 6330 in the case of a taxpayer who is a Federal government contractor. See Bussell v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 222,237(2008); Dorn v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 356, 359 (2002). For example, the prohibition against collection during the pendency of the section 6330(d) proceeding does not apply. See sec. 6330(e)(1).” Order, at p. 2.

Takeaway- Use certified mail. Use even Priority Mail. Save receipts and screenshots from USPS website.

Takeaway 2- When representing government contractors, expect the unexpected. Come to think of it, that’s a good rule in any case.

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: