Attorney-at-Law

SHOULD YOU PETITION EVERYTHING?

In Uncategorized on 08/15/2017 at 15:31

I’ve blogged before about pro se petitioners mistaking certain IRS billets doux for SNODs and wasting sixty bucks and a dash to the post office, only to find out the IRS was having them on.

See my blogposts “SCAR Tissue,” 4/14/17, and “Fake Out,”12/16/14, among others.

Here’s another example. Yolanda W. Bentley & Omar A. Jones, Docket No, 20337-16S, filed 8/15/17. Yo & O have numerous beeves with IRS over the SNOD.

They claim IRS didn’t follow the IRM. Tough table tennis, says STJ Armen, usually The Judge with a Heart. The IRM gives taxpayers no rights. Besides, “…upon review of the totality of the documentation in the record, the Court is satisfied that the irregularities in the certified mail list do not preclude a conclusion of proper mailing of the duplicate copies of the notice of deficiency.” Order, at p. 4. The USPS track-and-confirm site seems to seal the deal.

Yo & O claim neither they nor their representative got the SNOD.

Mox nix, it was mailed to last known address, and that suffices. Collection isn’t yet in play, so Yo & O can claim what they like at the CDP, when and if.

STJ Armen almost gets it right, but stumbles at the last fence; the Form 2848 doesn’t designate the representative as the power of attorney; the power of attorney designates the representative. It’s a piece of paper, Judge.

Yo & O claim the SNOD is defective because it misdesignates the form of return they filed, and that leads me to my point (yes, dear friends and followers, there is a point).

“The notice [SNOD] ‘is only to advise the person who is to pay the deficiency that the Commissioner means to assess him; anything that does this unequivocally is good enough…. [M]istakes in the notice which do not frustrate its purpose, are negligible.’ O’Rourke v. United States, 587 F.3d 537 (2nd Cir. 2009), quoting Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937).” Order, at p. 3.

Therefore, anything from the IRS that says, “you owe so much tax for such a year” might be a SNOD. Must the word  ”assess” or “assessment” be found in the communication? Not according to STJ Armen, nor his colleague CSTJIW (Chief Special Trial Judge in Waiting) Lewis (“Glorious Spelling”) Carluzzo, as more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “Fake Out,” above cited.

There, you’ll remember, even though the Letter 4314C says there was a SNOD when IRS claims there wasn’t, Oola Mar & Marlin got the heave-ho. And CSTJIW Lew didn’t bother to complain.

But I sure did. How does a taxpayer know what is a SNOD, and what isn’t? Without engaging an EA, USTCP or attorney? And how are we supposed to know?

IRS can solve this simply. Atop everything they want to assert is a SNOD, put these words in bold-faced capital letters: STATUTORY NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY: PETITION TAX COURT, NOT IRS, IN 90 DAYS FROM DATE BELOW. SEE www.ustaxcourt.gov NOW.

But until they do, consider petitioning everything.

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: