Attorney-at-Law

THE GRAEV – SET IN CONCRETE

In Uncategorized on 08/03/2017 at 15:17

2 Cir. really knew how to hurt IRS. When they tossed ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s dictionary chewfest back in March, they heaved a concrete block into the IRS’s chopper.

If the foregoing leaves you befogged, see my blogpost “The Jersey Bounce – Part Deux,” 3/22/17.

I trust you can see clearly now, the rain has gone, right?

OK, so here’s STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden, the taxpayers’ friend (offer of proof for the foregoing, my blogpost “Straight From the Sidewalks of New York,” 3/24/16), laying it on IRS with the Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss gambit, subsection (b)(2) electronic variation.

The order is Great Lakes Concrete Products LLC, Docket No. 15602-15L, filed 8/3/17. The Great Lakers blew a bunch FICA/FUTA/ITW 941 quarterlies (hi, Judge Holmes), got chopped therefor, got slugged with NITLs, and lost the CDP.

The SO, as usual, confirmed, as George Shaw put it, “that the administrative departments were consuming miles of red tape in the correctest forms of activity, and that everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”

So IRS wants STJ Di to give IRS summary J, telling the Great Lakers to jump in the cliché.

But STJ Di notes that there was no mention of Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery.

“If respondent wishes to pursue summary judgment as to the entirety of this case, he shall file a supplemental memorandum in support of his motion including a declaration that attaches any relevant documents. If respondent believes that the Appeals Office was not required to verify compliance with section 6751(b)(1)-e.g., in light of the exception in section 6751(b)(2) (“paragraph (1) shall not apply to * * * any other penalty automatically calculated through electronic means”)–he shall set forth those arguments in his supplemental memorandum. Alternatively, if respondent concludes that the failure to deposit penalties were not properly assessed, he should consider abating those penalties, in which case the Court will consider the motion as it applies to the balance of the unpaid tax liabilities for the tax periods at issue.” Order, at p. 3.

I tell ya, STJ Di is as obliging as Judge David Gustafson; ask politely, and she’ll draft your papers for you. Even if you’re the IRS.

 

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: