Attorney-at-Law

‘TOO SWIFT ARRIVES AS TARDY AS TOO LATE” – REDUX

In Uncategorized on 03/02/2018 at 13:43

Our Nation’s Capital, s/a/k/a The Swamp, is being slammed by the cyclobomb, wherefore teletubby is the order of the day. My e-mail is out because aol.com has been down for hours, so I can’t even teletubby. And my tolerance for cutesy names for weather events, as well as statutes, is at an all-time low.

So with only four (count ‘em, four) orders, and no opinions, out of The Glasshouse today, I was going to shut up and shut down, and go have a tassie or two with my old chum Fred.

But Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel absolved me from my vow of silence. Unhappily, that’s not good news for Roger W. Guge & Susan A. Guge, Docket No. 25443-17L, filed 3/2/18.

Rog & Sue really have a sad tale. Rog & Sue got a notice of decision in their equivalent hearing, and petition. A year earlier, they had sent in Letter 12153, asking for a CDP, but at that point no NITL or NFTL had been issued. When they got the CP90, which gave them a chance to send in a new 12153, they sent in the old one.

“Petitioners contended that they had been improperly denied a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under section 6330(d)(1), I.R.C., through operation of constitutionally inadequate IRS notice procedures. They argued that the February 13, 2017, Notice CP90 did not sufficiently advise that an already submitted Form 12153 would be ineffective to serve as a timely request. (In that connection, petitioners also offered copy of an email in support of a claim that they re-sent the November 2016 Form 12153 to IRS in December 2016 as well.) Petitioners further stressed that they were not disabused of such misunderstanding until too late to respond in a timely manner. Specifically, they attached an IRS Letter 4473C, dated March 13, 2017, stating that they were not entitled to a CDP at that time on the basis of the earlier Form 12153, because that IRS had not yet issued an underlying notice of lien filing or intent to levy when it was submitted. Petitioners highlighted that the period for filing a timely Form 12153 expired on March 15, 2017, only two days after the date of the Letter 4473C.” Order, at p. 3.

Talk about being scrod, if I may use the pluperfect subjunctive.  Another little game from IRS’ cubby of dirty tricks.

“Unfortunately, despite the sympathetic nature of petitioners’ circumstances, the bona fides of their extensive efforts, and the facial appeal of their arguments, the potential efficacy of a premature Form 12153 has been thoroughly considered and rejected by this Court. In Andre v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 68 (2006), the taxpayers’ attempts to rely on a Form 12153 that predated the underlying notice of intent to levy were held unavailing. Petitioners regrettably fall into the same situation here, and the Court is convinced that the reasoning in Andre v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 70-74, remains valid.

And to top it off, Sue’s name is misspelled as “Gage,” Order, at p. 1.

The “People’s Court,” the sixty-buck-ticket-to-justice, right? Yeah, roger that.

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: