Attorney-at-Law

A FREE AND FRANK EXCHANGE OF VIEWS

In Uncategorized on 03/28/2018 at 16:34

Tango Charley Juliet has ended. Hon. Eugene P. Rossiter, C J of the Canada Tax Court, added a burst of fresh northern air with his brusque but engaging commentary. I was very glad to hear from him.

The electronic controversy goes on apace. PACER doesn’t, of course, hand out personally identifiable information. And I don’t think any of us who lobby for greater on-line access want to trudge through every unsubstantiated, unredacted, pro se Sched A or Sched C or EITC. But the petitions, motions and briefs of the Fortune 100 are another story. To the extent unsealed, expert counsel have purged the public versions. So why not let us see those on-line?

Finally, just as I was ready to close up Sir Andrew for the trip down the jetway, up pops a first-class silt stir. Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel may be rebuking me for my frank exchange of views by not designating this one, and dropping it in my lap just as I turn for home.

Anyway, here’s Lori J. Manroe, Docket No. 21590-17, filed 3/28/18, trying to get IRS to un-levy or disgorge, because the SNODs she got need partner-level proceedings.

You won’t remember Lori unless you’ve been reading my blog for years. See my blogpost “It’s A Sham,” 9/25/12.

Once again it’s the phony partnership, in which one has zero basis. Petaluma, Tiger Eye, and Randy Thompson all do reprises, but Woods has supervened, except it really hasn’t.

“As to whether partner-level adjustment of outside basis incident to a deficiency determination should also be merely computational, Woods provides no direct answer. In dicta, however, the Court addresses the amici’s suggestion that its decision will permit the Internal Revenue Service to directly assess a penalty on a tax underpayment that cannot itself be assessed without deficiency procedures. Noting that ‘an underpayment attributable to an affected item [such as outside basis] is exempt’ from deficiency procedures where partner-level determinations are unnecessary, the Court observes that ‘it is not readily apparent why additional partner-level determinations would be required before adjusting outside basis in a sham partnership.’” (Order, at p. 4)(Citations omitted).

So let both Lori and IRS hand in their essays, and “…set forth and discuss fully her/his position as to: (1) whether additional partner-level determinations of outside basis and/or other partner-level determinations are required in this case; (2) if so, what specifically are those additional partner-level determinations of outside basis and/or other partner-level determinations; and (3) to what extent, if any, this Court has jurisdiction in this partner-level proceeding as to the income tax deficiencies and/or penalties for 2001 and 2002 determined in the notice of deficiency.” Order, at p. 5.

Now I’m getting on the plane.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: