Attorney-at-Law

GRAEV RELIGIOUS MATTERS

In Uncategorized on 07/11/2017 at 10:10

Shirley M. Cotter, Docket No. 7644-15L, filed 7/11/17, is convinced that income taxes are sinful, even though she paid all but $350 of her self-reported liability for year at issue. IRS wants a Section 6702 frivolity chop.

Here’s Shirley: “People of the Light serving The Creator God of America’s Declaration of Independence who gives life, liberty, and the pursuit ‘virtuous’ happiness, know we can only pay taxes to legitimate governments who are God’s servants (Romans13). Taxes are gifts from We The People for God’s glory and the common good. Of course, tyrants, as tools of the Devil and traitors of God, our country, and fellow citizens will try to get tribute money for Satan’s Kingdom. However, in the United States of America tax departments can only collect taxes to produce fruits of the Holy Spirit * * *.” Order, at p. 2.

If you’re interested, there’s more at p. 3, and even more at pp. 4-5.

IRS wants summary J on the NOD from the CDP, wherein IRS invoked “a moral, religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or similar objection to the imposition or payment of federal taxes that reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws.” Order, at p. 3.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Well, if you’re a reader of this my blog, you’ll doubtless recall my blopost “The Jersey Bounce – Part Deux,” 3/22/17, wherein 2 Cir. blew off the anytime Boss Hoss, and insisted that the Boss Hoss pre-imposition signoff on penalties was de rigueur.

Unhappily for IRS, here it’s de novo review, as the chop was asserted after the CDP hearing. And Shirley didn’t raise Boss Hoss in her petition.

So what, says The Taxpayer’s Friend, STJ Diana L. Leyden.

“Respondent’s motion asserts that petitioner did not allege in her petition that SO J failed to obtain the requisite verification under section 6330(c)(1) and therefore she has conceded this issue pursuant to Rule 331(b)(4). However, the settlement officer is required by statute to verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met and must do so regardless of whether the taxpayer raised it at the CDP hearing.” Order, at p. 8. (Name and citations omitted).

IRS’ summary J motion never mentions the Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss. And it’s an interesting question who is the right Boss Hoss.

“According to the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) in effect when the section 6702(b) penalty was assessed, the ‘Appeals [Office] will not make a determination regarding assessment of the IRC section 6702(b) penalty. However, it will identify when the [CDP] request meets the criteria for penalty assessment.’ IRM pt. 5.1.9.3.16(5) (Apr.6,2010). The CDP hearing request is then returned by the Appeals Office to the collection function of the IRS, who verifies that the criteria for penalty assessment is met. See IRM pt. 5.1.9.3.16(5) and (6) (Apr. 6, 2010). The IRM further instructs the IRS collection employee to prepare a Form 3210, Document Transmittal, and states that the ‘group manager will document approval of the penalty assessment by writing [‘] Determination to assess penalty pursuant to section 6702(b) approved [‘] on Form 3210 and sign the Form 3210.’ IRM pt. 5.1.9.3.16(7) (Apr. 6, 2010); see IRM pt. 5.19.8.4.7.7(9) (Sept. 2, 2009).” Order, at pp. 8-9, footnote 7.

Collection group manager? Appeals group manager? Will the real Boss Hoss please stand up?

Now the IRM confers no rights on taxpayers, and it doesn’t necessarily have the force of law on IRS. But there’s the procedure to be followed, and it might be, could be, maybe arbitrary if it wasn’t followed. And note also that the IRM passages quoted are seven years old; YMMV.

Of course, Shirley might catch a Section 6673 frivolity chop on the trial. If the case gets that far. But I’m not betting large bucks.

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

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

%d bloggers like this: