Attorney-at-Law

THEY SAVED THE SIXTY BUCKS

In Uncategorized on 11/19/2018 at 16:26

Napoleon V. Irabagon & Zosima Irabagon, Docket No. 1594-16L, filed 11/19/18, got an installment agreement for each of the two years here discussed. Note I didn’t say “at issue,” because Judge Ashford holds that by signing the installment agreements, there’s no issue at all.

Nap & Zo got SNODs for those years, whereupon they timely petitioned. Only they never anted up the sixty bucks of table stakes to play, despite an order from the Court to do so.

So when Nap & Zo got the NITL, they petitioned and paid. Now they want to fight over the underlying liabilities.

No, twice. First, petition from SNODs was their chance, but when they failed to pay the filing fee, that went overboard. Second, by signing the Direct Deposit Installment Agreements, they agreed to everything.

More nicely put by Judge Ashford: “Petitioners’ complaint throughout the CDP hearing process was directed only towards their underlying liabilities for [years]. And now before this Court, they continue to do the same. However, the law is clear: if a taxpayer received a notice of deficiency with respect to the underlying liability, he may not contest the liability in a CDP hearing (or thereafter in this Court). See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3) Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. The undisputed facts confirm that petitioners received a notice of deficiency for [both years]. They then timely petitioned this Court but never paid the required filing fee. The resulting case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they failed to comply with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee. Thus, their underlying liabilities…are not at issue and we will review Appeals’ determination for abuse of discretion only.

“On the basis of our review of the record, we find that SO X considered all of the requisite factors under section 6330(c)(3) when making her determination. Indeed, petitioners do not contend otherwise and that thus the determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without a sound basis in fact or law. In this regard, we note that SO X determined that the proposed levy should not be sustained because petitioners agreed to an installment agreement.” Order, at p. 6. (Citations and name omitted).

Summary J for IRS.

Takeaway- Even if your petition is the subject of Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley’s quick nonpayment toss, send in the sixty bucks or a petition for waiver. With your petition. Savings the sixty bucks at the beginning saves nothing.

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: