Attorney-at-Law

“I’M BEGINNING TO SEE THE LIGHT”

In Uncategorized on 04/09/2018 at 14:48

Those words from a long-ago hit (Duke Ellington and Harry James in on the play) came back to me as I read Jeffrey M. McMeel, Docket No. 414/18, filed 4/9/18.

Mr Mac is petitioning seven (count ‘em, seven) years, the last of which is 2011. I’d queried this sort of thing in my blogposts “A New Gambit?” 4/2/18, and “They Paid the Sixty Bucks,” 4/3/18. As at 4/9/18, no joy from any reader.

But Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel digs into Mr Mac’s petition to find what Mark Twain called the “nub”…the whole point of the petition.

Although IRS simply responded “No SNOD or NOD for years enumerated that would grant jurisdiction,” Ch J Iron Fist digs deeper, for which this humble blogger thanks her.

“In his objection to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner states, among other things, that ‘Petitioner agrees with the grounds cited by Respondent that several required statutory notices were not issued to Petitioner by IRS employees, without which the IRS lacked jurisdiction over the Petitioner for the stated tax years. This set of facts is not in dispute. Petitioner’s contention is that Respondent failed to follow statutory and regulatory requirements resulting in damage to Petitioner’s rights to property and credit. * * * Relying on “account transcripts” to prove or disprove that the required notices were sent or not is insufficient and inappropriate.’ Petitioner’s statements reflect a misunderstanding of tax law and procedure. It appears that petitioner may have filed his petition in an effort to have this Court make a determination that, by not issuing notices of deficiency or notices of determination for the tax years at issue in this case, respondent failed to follow proper procedures and, thus, may not attempt to take any actions with respect to petitioner for those tax years. However, as discussed above, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case unless a notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner. Furthermore, because a taxpayer’s account transcripts reflect information included in official IRS records with respect to that taxpayer, reliance on account transcripts has been held to be appropriate. See May v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-194; Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-268.” Order, at p. 2.

I am enlightened; this move is an attempt at cutting off nonassessables, like refund grabs. Not bad.

Mr Mac gets a Taishoff “good try, third class.” But dodgers, beware. Someone trying this risks the Section 6673 $25K yellow card.

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: