In Uncategorized on 04/29/2019 at 16:35

Most Tax Court petitioners are self-represented; most of them have only the vaguest idea of how the process works.

It therefore falls to the Tax Court bench to discern, where possible, exactly what can be done for the sometimes-hapless pro se. Here’s Jared Simper, Docket No. 22306-18S, filed 4/29/19. And STJ Diana L (“The Taxpayer’s Friend”) Leyden is here to help, even though she is from the government.

To begin with, “…Mr. Simper filed his petition in this case, checked the box labeled ‘Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action’, and listed 2014 as the year for which such notice was issued. Mr. Simper attached several documents to his petition including a Notice of Intent to seize (levy) your property or rights to property. Mr. Simper did not attach a notice of determination for 2014.” Order, at p. 1.

So maybe there should be an “L” in the caption, except IRS moves to toss Jared for want of jurisdiction, as no NOD. Moreover, Jared apparently revoked or waived his timely-filed Letter 12153 with a Form 12256. IRS attaches copy of same to its motion to toss. So mayhap there never was a NOD.

STJ Di judge’splains: “The Form 12256 states, ‘I give up my right to seek judicial review in the Tax Court of the Notice of Determination that Appeals would have issued as a result of the * * * [Collection Due Process] hearing, as Appeals will not issue a Notice of Determination.’ In the motion respondent states a written acknowledgment was mailed to Mr. Simper and his representative…, and stated that Appeals would not issue a determination in Mr. Simper’s case.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Jared is pro se, according to the Docket Search function on the Tax Court website, but he is not alone. He has a “representative.” I want to give a shout-out to IRS counsel A. J. Davis in the Denver OCC, who calls said representative (if I am not in error, a CPA located in Sandy, UT) to ask if Jared really meant to pull a Wagner and waive a CDP.

“[Representative] told Mr. Davis that Mr. Simper wanted to ‘seek counsel’ before indicating whether he objected to the granting of this motion.” Order, at p. 2.

STJ Di tells Jared to respond, pointing out any “any errors, omissions, or distortions” in Mr. Davis’ motion. Editorial comment- I doubt he’ll find any. Jared should also send in a copy of any NOD for 2014 in his possession. Finally, if Jared wants to bail and let IRS grab, he should tell STJ Di.

And if he still seeks counsel, STJ Di gives him three (count ‘em, three) LITCs, two of which are in his home State of UT.

The Taxpayer’s Friend, indeed.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: