Attorney-at-Law

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR

In Uncategorized on 06/06/2018 at 16:38

Joseph C. Gallagher, 2018 T. C. Memo. 77, filed 6/6/18, had a failed business and lots of other problems, including multiple years’ TFRPs for some of which he had NITLs and for some not, although he could contest (and did contest) them all. But Joe still had a higher RCP than he claimed.

As usual, It’s fact-specific, and noteworthy only that, although Tax Court can’t consider TFRPs or underlying tax liabilities for year for which neither NITL or NFTL has issued (thus no CDP), nevertheless, if taxpayer raises and SO considers those years, Tax Court can review the SO’s discretion.

“We do have jurisdiction to review an SO’s rejection of an OIC that encompasses liabilities for both CDP years and non-CDP years.  See, e.g., Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-4.  Indeed, that is precisely the situation here: the SO considered petitioner’s TFRP liabilities for 2012 and 2014, as well as his TFRP liabilities (exceeding $800,000) for the 2010 and 2011 CDP years, in evaluating his global OIC of $104,478.  We clearly have jurisdiction to consider (and in the text we do consider) whether the SO abused his discretion in rejecting that offer.  What we lack jurisdiction to do is to consider any challenge to petitioner’s underlying tax liabilities for the non-CDP years.” 2018 T. C. Memo. 77, at p. 10, footnote 5.

But the point is the understatement above-captioned.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber gets it totally right.

“Petitioner also contends that the IRS abused its discretion by taking too long to evaluate his offers.  Petitioner submitted multiple OICs, which were considered by multiple IRS officials in multiple IRS locations.  Although this process was protracted, petitioner has not identified any prejudice that he suffered, apart from ‘a great deal of stress and disruption’ for himself and his family.  Stress and disruption often accompany tax controversies and do not justify setting aside otherwise appropriate IRS collection actions.” 2018 T. C. Memo. 77, at pp. 11-12.

“Stress and disruption” is the name of the game, Judge.

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: