Attorney-at-Law

HOWEVER YOU PRONOUNCE IT

In Uncategorized on 12/01/2017 at 15:42

Whether your Civil Procedure prof called it “reese judicayter” or “ray’s Judy Carter,” it avails not John C. Hom, 9778-16L, filed 12/1/17.

Y’all remember John C. Hom, whose corporation had faded away pre-petition. No? Then see my blogpost “Being and Nothingness,” 5/7/13.

Well, that wasn’t the end of John C.’s miseries. He got nailed for four (count ’em, four) years’ worth of deficiencies, and 9 Cir affirmed. John C. claims he has new stuff that would unnail him therefrom.

IRS wants summary J, bouncing John C.’s petition from the NOD Appeals gave him, but John C. claims he filed current returns, and sent stuff to Appeals. John C. claims the AO never contacted him or reviewed his papers. That suffices to end summary J on collection, but John C. is stuck with the underlying liabilities.

Judge Cohen takes up the story.

“Petitioner contends that res judicata does not apply because rules and information available subsequent to his trial of the deficiencies determined for [years at issue] would make it possible for him to establish deductions not allowed in the decision for those years. He also asserts fraud in the earlier case by questioning the credibility of the revenue agent who testified there. Petitioner is seeking a new trial in which the burden of proof would be adjusted, the notice of deficiency held invalid, and the results changed substantially.” Order, at p. 2.

IRS and John C. have a faceoff about commonlaw res judicata (however you say it), but that’s not for a petition from a CDP. Remember, the “small court” is truly limited by the IRC.

“Petitioner’s collateral attack on the final decision is inconsistent with the purpose and language of Internal Revenue Code sections 6320 and 6330 in limiting the opportunity to delay and challenge collection activities by raising specific issues by certain deadlines in “one hearing . . .with respect to the taxable period to which the unpaid tax . . . relates”. Section 6330(b)(2). Although petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing under section 6330(b), he is not entitled to raise the underlying liability because he received a statutory notice and pursued a prior opportunity to dispute that liability. Even if petitioner’s claims of change in the law and his tenuous assertion of fraud during the earlier trial could be raised in a direct attack on the decision entered by this Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, they are not an appropriate challenge in this collection action.” Order, at p. 2.

John C., you can have a remand to Appeals, because Appeals never gave you a hearing on collection alternatives, but you’re stuck on your liabilities.

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: