In Uncategorized on 05/25/2018 at 16:39

CSTJ Lewis (“That Glorious Name”) Carluzzo shows himself to be neck-and-neck with that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, obliging to the last degree, in an off-the-bench designated hitter, as his colleagues head for beach or barbecue or ballgame or all thereof.

Here’s Matthias Rykert, Docket No. 10427-17, filed 5/25/18, and Matt is not off to a great start.

Fighting about unreported income and a SNOD without a wet signature, Matt goes astray. Matt moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, claiming the SNOD is a dud.

CSTJ Lew: “Comments made by petitioner during the hearing suggest that the position he has taken with respect to the validity of the notice might be misguided based upon advice he was receiving from an organization whose status to practice law is questionable. Rather than treat his comments as a concession to jurisdiction, under the circumstances we think it better to address the concerns raised in the motion regarding the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.” Order, Transcript, at p. 5.

And CSTJ Lew does, ya betcha! Matt relies on pre-1998 IRS Reorganization law and regs, and a SNOD is valid even without wet ink or no ink. However, Matt is entitled to some ‘splainin’ from IRS about the SNOD’s genuineness, but that he got, according to IRS’ evidence.

So march out Matt?

Not with CSTJ Lew on the case.

Matt also wants a continuance. After his showing thus far, Matt seems to be backing a nonstarter.

But just as Matt is down for the Rule 155 beancount, CSTJ Lew saves the day once again.

“In support of his oral motion for a continuance of trial, petitioner requested that he be given time to obtain legal representation in connection with the substantive issues that might arise from the adjustments made in the notice, although in the petition, petitioner ass1gns no error to any of those adjustments. At the hearing respondent noted his objection to petitioner’s oral motion, and we note that petitioner has already had ample time to obtain counsel. Be that as it may, if petitioner does secure representation, as he claims he intends to do, we expect that the insertion of competent counsel on petitioner’s behalf might very well allow for the disposition of this case without the need for trial. That being so, we will grant petitioner’s oral motion for continuance, retain jurisdiction over the matter, and to the extent that a trial is necessary to resolve any remaining disputes between the parties, set the case for trial.…” Order, Transcript, at pp. 6-7.

I don’t want to chill the rejoicing, but the deficiency plus chop is $16K. I do hope competent counsel is available for a case that size.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: