Attorney-at-Law

“I LOVE MY CIGAR”

In Uncategorized on 02/06/2019 at 16:28

The often-quoted words of Julius Henry Marx describes the underpinning of STJ Diana L (“The Taxpayer’s Friend”) Leyden’s order in Anthony I. Provitola & Kathleen A. Provitola, et al., Docket No. 12357-16, filed 2/6/19.

It’s Anthony’s story. Anthony is a lawyer. Like most lawyers, your humble and obed’t serv’t included, Anthony loves summary J.

In fact, he loves it so much he tries it three (count ‘em, three) times, losing each and every time.

The problems are not unusual: “… whether petitioners engaged in the Schedule C activity with an actual and honest profit motive, whether petitioners actually incurred legal fees for the purposes of section 162, and whether the legal and professional services fees paid by petitioners were ordinary and necessary expenses.” Order, at p. 3.

Questions of fact, these.

“Summary judgment continues to not be appropriate in these cases. As the Court has concluded when it considered the three previously filed motions for summary judgment there still exists material questions of facts, namely whether petitioners engaged in the Schedule C activity with an actual and honest profit motive, whether petitioners actually incurred legal fees for the purposes of section 162, and whether the legal and professional services fees paid by petitioners were ordinary and necessary expenses. Neither the self-serving declaration of petitioner husband nor the stipulations of facts resolve any of these factual issues. Further, there is also a factual issue as to whether respondent obtained the required managerial approval under section 6571(b) with respect to the accuracy-related penalty imposed under section 6662(a) for 2013 and 2014.” Order, at p. 5.

So STJ Di suggests Anthony do as Julius Henry Marx suggested, and take it out once in a while.

“Petitioners are admonished that should they continue to pursue frivolous or groundless arguments before the Court or if they maintain these cases primarily for delay, they may be subject to penalties under section 6673 up to the amount of $25,000 in the future.” Order, at p. 5.

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: