Attorney-at-Law

IT TAKES TWO

In Uncategorized on 06/01/2018 at 16:22

The Judge With a Heart, STJ Rob’t. N. Armen, has that message for IRS today in an undesignated hitter, Johnathan Jerome Parson & Sindy Maciel Parson, Docket No. 26024-17, filed 6/1/18. And he takes the words of that 1966 hit by Wm. (“Mickey”) Stevenson and Sylvia Moy to deliver it.

There are two (count ‘em, two) years at issue. IRS wants to toss Sindy for Year One, and neither she nor JJ objects. The issue is Year Two. JJ and Sindy were married throughout both years.

JJ filed MFS for Year One, Sindy filed nothing, and there’s no SFR for her.

Except JJ and Sindy filed MFJ for Year Two, and IRS riposted with a SNOD for both years. But the SNOD was a wee bit equivocal, and STJ Armen isn’t pleased.

“The letter portion of the notice of deficiency was addressed solely to petitioner Johnathan Jerome Parson, and the notice of deficiency-waiver likewise listed petitioner Johnathan Jerome Parson as the sole taxpayer. Notably, the notice of deficiency stated, under the heading ‘The law regarding married couples”, that ‘The law requires separate notices for husbands and wives.’ Nevertheless, attached to ‘the notice of deficiency were (1) a Form 4549-A, Income Tax Examination Changes, in the sole name of petitioner Johnathan Jerome Parson for [Year One] and (2) a separate Form 4549-A in the joint names of petitioners for [Year Two].” Order, at p. 2.

IRS concedes that Sindy can walk as to Year One. But IRS claims Sindy is in for Year Two.

STJ Armen wasn’t happy with this, and raised the problem of a SNOD for Sindy in an earlier order I didn’t blog (and I wish STJs and Judges would designate these orders; the public deserves to know).  So IRS supplements their previous papers, but it doesn’t help.

“Respondent contends that such jurisdiction exists, essentially because of the attachment of the second Form 4549-A to the notice of deficiency and because petitioners were allegedly not misled or confused by respondent’s approach. However, the Court views the matter differently. First and foremost, it is clear that the…notice of deficiency was addressed solely to petitioner Johnathan Jerome Parson. See I.R.C. sec. 6212(a) and (b). Second, the Commissioner is obliged, “wherever practicable, [to] send any notice relating to a joint return under section 6013 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 separately to each individual filing the joint return.” Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, sec. 3201(d), 112 Stat. at 740. This was not done in the present case.” Order, at p. 2.

So Sindy is out as to both years. For now, at least. But she’d better not secure from battle stations.

“Whether respondent might care to remedy this situation by issuing a notice of deficiency to her for such year at this time is, of course, a matter within respondent’s sole discretion. If respondent should choose to do so, then Sindy Maciel Parson is cautioned that she must, if she should wish to contest any deficiency and/or penalty determination, timely file a petition with this Court.” Order, at p. 2 (Emphasis by the Court).

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: