Attorney-at-Law

IS YOU IS OR IS YOU AIN’T? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 10/24/2017 at 23:16

CSTJ Lewis (“Spell It Right”) Carluzzo finds the above-quoted query asked and answered in Christian Ewoh, Docket No. 2938-17, filed 10/24/17, a designated off-the-bencher.

IRS wants summary J tossing Chris for late filing of petition from SNOD. Chris says he did mail it timely.

IRS’s retort evokes the above-quoted question.

“At the hearing respondent advised that the facts relied upon by petitioner in opposition to respondent’s motion, although not necessarily agreed to, were not disputed. According to those facts, the petition in this case was mailed to the Court prior to the date that the petition was due to be filed. See secs. 6213(a), 7502; sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)iii)(B), Proced. & Admin. Regs.” Order, Transcript, p. 3.

Well, IRS, if you don’t dispute something, you agree, no?

IRS’ cubby of little tricks has an undistributed middle.

“Respondent now agrees that the elapsed time between the date that petitioner claims the petition was mailed and the date the petition was received and filed by the Court did not exceed the ordinary course of mail between Houston, Texas, and Washington, D.C.” Order, Transcript, at p. 3.

So, petitioner, if claim you beat the posted deadlines, you’re in. Maybe. This is an off-the-bencher and not precedent.

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: