Attorney-at-Law

“HAD WE BUT WORLD ENOUGH, AND TIME”

In Uncategorized on 12/10/2018 at 15:52

Andy Marvell was chatting up his girlfriend, but The Judge with a Heart, STJ Rob’t N Armen, has no time for chatting in this designated hitter, Kwabena Owusu Banahene, Docket No. 6086-16L, filed 12/10/18.

KO’s fighting a trio of preparer chops, and opposes IRS’ summary J motion, challenging “…(1) whether Letter 1125 and the examination reports (Forms 5816) proposing return preparer penalties for [the trio] were sent to petitioner before assessment of such penalties; (2) whether petitioner received sufficient time to request further administrative consideration before assessment of such penalties; and (3) whether respondent validly assessed against petitioner return preparer penalties for the years in issue.” Order, at p. 1.

Sort of a junior version of Graev; did IRS jump the gun?

IRS claims there’s no gun to jump, unless they feel like it.

“The Court recognizes that respondent contends, inter alia, that the provisions of section 1.6694-4(a)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs., are directory rather than mandatory, a contention that appears to present a legal issue of first impression. However, the Court questions whether it would be judicious to address such issue at the present time given that it would be moot (and any opinion addressing it would arguably be dicta) if respondent did, in fact, comply with the provisions of the aforecited regulation. As previously indicated, whether respondent did, in fact, comply with such provisions presents a disputed issue of material fact.” Order, at p. 2.

IRS of course wants to get partial summary J on some other stuff. As a long-time fan of summary J, I’m all in favor using it to clean up everything around. Like the famous paper towel, summary J is the “quicker picker-upper.”

STJ Armen isn’t buying.

“Further, the Court recognizes that respondent seeks, in the alternative, partial summary judgment on a number of non-dispositive matters. However, the Court again questions whether it would be judicious to address those matters at the present time because of the paramount nature of the fundamental issue, i.e., the validity of the underlying assessments.” Order, at p. 2.

Summary J denied.

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: