Attorney-at-Law

YOU COULD LOOK IT UP – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 05/04/2018 at 16:02

Judge Holmes reiterates the wisdom of that great American C. D. Stengel that heads this blogpost in a bunch of designated hitters. I’ll choose Frank W. Dollarhide & Michelle D. Dollarhide, et al., Docket No. 23113-12, filed 5/4/18.

The Dollarhides lost late last year, and decision was entered. And they’re not disputing those numbers.

But the Rule 162 vacation they want is based on some overpayments they claim from 2006, although they didn’t file their 2006 return, wherein they claimed said overpayments, until 2011.

Section 6511(b)(2) says three (count ‘em, three) years for refund claim from date of filing return.

“The Dollarhides claim, however, that they never would have agreed to the stipulation of settled issues if they knew they weren’t going to get that refund. Is that enough?” Order, at p. 2.

Well, let’s see.

“In ruling on Rule 162 motions, we look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. FRCP Rule 60(b) is the rule that’s applicable here, and the Dollarhides point us to FRCP 60(b)(3) which requires a showing of ‘fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.’ The fraud or other misconduct that the Dollarhides argue the Commissioner engaged in is not telling them about the legal requirement that they had only three years from the due date of their 2006 tax return to file a claim for refund of any overpayment.” Order, at p. 2 (Citation omitted).

Well, that’s a nonstarter.

As set forth at the head hereof, “you could look it up.” The IRC says what it says. And the text is available in many places for free.

Second, “The Dollarhides do also complain that the only reason that they didn’t file their 2006 tax return within three years of its due date is that the revenue agent examining that year insisted that they submit it to her. The records that they attach to their motion, however, do not show that there was even an ongoing audit of this year for themselves as individuals (in contrast to their corporation, Dollarhide Enterprises, Inc.) within three years of that return’s due date.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Finally, when the Dollarhides petitioned, they never mentioned the refund, so when the stip of settled issues said it resolved the issues in their case the stip was correct, as the refund question was not on the table at that time.

No vacation.

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: