Attorney-at-Law

“AS A MATTER OF RECORD”

In Uncategorized on 02/12/2019 at 15:49

That phrase used to appear many years ago in advertisements in the financial sections of various periodicals. The advertisements, known as “tombstones” for their severe format and dark black type, announced the placement of securities by an underwriter, but were not themselves an offering of those securities. The advertisement drew attention to the latest coup.

Too many times I’ve blogged scams, dodges and traps for the unwary. As I wrote them, I was sure that those who read them didn’t need them, and those who needed them would never see them. So once again, I write “as a matter of record.”

Clemmie Lee Pennington, Docket No. 19115-17SL, filed 2/12/19, paid $3K to an outfit that promised him a TGTBT OIC, a $100 lump-sum walkaway. Eventually Clemmie Lee wound up with a $250/mo. IA, and a NFTL at no extra charge.

Oh yes, TGTBT means Too Good To Be True. It was, of course; IRS kicked the $100 deal to the cliché in a New York minute.

We’ve all seen these late-night telehucksters and internet spamspreaders, hawking bogus OICs. They have imposing names and some claim credentials like EA. Shame on them! The shady OIC-floggers need a few chops of the Section 6673 variety, or maybe a pate-whanging from some State AG.

The taxpayer could do just as well their own selves, or get the Taxpayer Advocate on the case, or a law school LITC (e.g., those Texas Technophobes, Golden Gophers, Harvard Fierce Fighters, the Dave Clark DC Livewires, or Dandy Sandy Freund and the Jersey Kids).

Clemmie Lee gets some sympathy even from Judge Joseph Robert (“Take No Prisoners”) Goeke in this off-the-bencher.

“We also note that petitioner’s arguments relative to the original offer in compromise are misplaced in that he subsequently agreed to the payment of $250 a month, which subverts the reasonableness of his original offer and compromise for a lump sum payment of only $100. It’s unfortunate in this situation that the petitioner was taken in by irresponsible representatives and paid $3,000 or agreed to pay $3,000 to seek a resolution of his tax case, which was too good to be true in all likelihood.

“But in any event, he has not established any basis on which we can accept his argument that the notice of Federal tax lien should be withdrawn. And the position of the Internal Revenue Service as filed in the notice of Federal tax lien, to protect the revenue, was valid and properly balanced the IRS’ need to collect the tax liability with petitioner’s personal situation.” Transcript, at pp. 6-7.

OK, NFTL sustained.

But there’s a puzzlement in the middle of the transcript.

“The taxpayer entered into an installment agreement under section 6159. Withdrawal of the Federal tax lien would facilitate collection of the tax liability, and the National Taxpayer Advocate consents to the withdrawal of the Federal tax lien because it is in the best interest of the taxpayer and the United States.” Transcript, at p. 6. Is the NFTL sustained or not?

This gets a Taishoff “Mein! Was ist das?” First Class.

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: