In Uncategorized on 10/06/2017 at 15:41

It’s a Tax Court cliché that once a petitioner drops the sixty bucks in the Glasshouse pushke (please pardon the technical term), the money is gone, even if the case is dismissed. The sixty bucks defrays the costs and expenses of the hard-laboring intake clerks, flailing datestampers, and the odd cup coffee for the judges working long into the night (hi, Judge Holmes).

At best, if a case is dismissed for duplication, the sixty bucks might be credited against the unpaid fee for the unduplicative case. Both got into the Glasshouse.

But maybe so, in a rare instance, the credit might go beyond duplicity.

Here’s Oralia Vargas, Docket No. 14334-17L, filed 10/6/17, to tell you all about it. Or rather, Oralia’s story is the springboard for Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel.

Oralia apparently got slugged with a bunch of Section 6694 preparer chops. She got Notice LT11, telling her she was on deck for a levy (NITL), and sent in a Letter 12153 requesting a CDP. These she attaches to her petition.

What’s wrong with this picture?

No SNOD? No problem. Preparer chops are not subject to deficiency procedures, per Section 6696(b).

No NOD. Oralia ponied up the sixty bucks and lays out her sad story that she wasn’t liable for the chops aforesaid, but no NOD. And the NITL only talks about Years X and Y, but Oralia says she’s been chopped for Year Z also.

“Furthermore, as to any notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to the civil penalties for [Year X] and [Year Y] as a result of petitioner’s request for a collection due process hearing, it appears that petitioner filed the petition in this case prior to the issuance of any such notice of determination. Finally, respondent has not assessed any civil penalty with respect to petitioner’s [Year Z] and, thus, petitioner has not been issued any notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to a civil penalty for [Year Z].” Order, at p. 3.

This is the old leg-before-wicket, when the petitioner petitions before the SNOD or NOD is issued. And Oralia has a shot at underlying liability in the CDP, as she had no chance to contest before.

So Ch J Iron Fist has a deal for Oralia.

“Petitioner is advised that, if respondent’s Appeals Office issues to her a notice of determination with respect to the civil penalties assessed for tax years [Year X] and [Year Y] following a collection due process hearing, then petitioner should timely file a petition if petitioner wants to challenge the proposed collection action. In view of the fact that petitioner paid the filing fee in the instant case, petitioner may request that the Court waive the filing fee in such a subsequent case.” Order, at p. 4.

Takeaway- Practitioner, in an oddball case you might want to try the “I gave at the office” gambit. And tell ‘em Oralia sent you.


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: