Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley echoes the cry of a failed mayoral and gubernatorial candidate from Our Fair City in his budget justification message to the Crosstown Crew Under the Dome. Ch J Mighty Mo wants more of our money “because reasons,” as my granddaughters say.

The first thing he mentions is the 4% rent increase the General Services Administration wants The Glasshouse Gang to stump up for continued occupancy. Then there are salaries and benefits for the nineteen (count ‘em, nineteen) Presidentially-appointed judges. Finally, the technological infrastricture. No, that’s not a typo, I meant technological infrastricture, the inability to access documents via PACER, and the filing process generally.

I hope Ch J Mighty Mo gets every penny, and “goes down justified,” as a much higher authority put it. But bar the rent increase. Jimmy MacMillan said it all.

I know I’ve been rough on Form 6, the Ownership Disclosure Statement. Mandated by Rule 20(c), the form is simplicity itself, but is either never filed at all, or filed incorrectly (left blank or unsigned), by the greatest number of affected entities.

More than once have I respectfully suggested modifying the form to instruct the self-represented (and perhaps even attorneys and USTCPs) to write “NONE” in the two places where the form requires that response.

Nothing has happened.

Now I certainly do not wish to disrespect Chief Clerk Servoss and the hard-laboring clerks and flailing datestampers, who labor from dawn to dusk with the bales of paper and coronas of electrons that flood 400 Second Street, NW, and the hapless and feckless self-representeds that fly to said premises like moths to a cliché.

But it seems that Form 6 has confounded even the Servoss company.

Here’s John Fitzgerald Kinnett & Dawn Ann Kinnett, Docket No. 25598-18, filed 4/5/19. JFK only wanted to file a Ratification of Petition, so is an innocent bystander.

But JFK’s efforts somehow befogged the clerks. As is often the case, unscrambling the frittata that ensued falls to Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley.

“…petitioner John Fitzgerald Kinnett submitted in the above-docketed matter a properly signed Ratification of Petition. However, due to inadvertent clerical error by the Court, such document was filed as an Ownership Disclosure Statement.” Order, at p. 1.

So Ch J Mighty Mo corrects the docket entry.

Maybe so it’s finally time to consider changing Form 6.

Judge Patrick A (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has a chance to expatiate further on the penalty “automatically calculated through electronic means” within the meaning of sec. 6751(b)(2)(B), thus excusing same from Boss Hoss sign-off.

Here’s Vica Technologies, LLC, 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 7, filed 4/4/19, and its manager, Mr Hyacinth Anyiam. Hy was having money troubles and accountant troubles, but neither was enough to get him off the late filing chop for the only year for which Judge Scholar Pat found he had jurisdiction. Hy had more, but he was too late for those.

Vica Tech was a check-the-box LLC taxed as a partnership, thus the month-late Form 1065 attracts a Section 6698 late-filing chop.

Y’all will recollect that the Sub S species gets chopped via Section 6699, thus the late filer thereof gets electronicuted. For the etymology of “electronicuted,” which I admit is a neologism, see my blogpost “Electronicuted,” 3/13/19.

Judge Scholar Pat relegates to a footnote his conclusion that the Section 6698 chop differs neither from the Section 6699 Sub S late-filing chop nor yet the five-and-ten substantial understatement chop in Section 6662(d).

“In his motion for summary judgment, respondent asserts that the penalty imposed under sec. 6698 constitutes a penalty ‘automatically calculated through electronic means’ within the meaning of sec. 6751(b)(2)(B) and is therefore not subject to the supervisory approval requirement of sec. 6751(b)(1).  Petitioner does not argue to the contrary, and thus we need go no further.  We nonetheless note our recent holding that a sec. 6699 penalty–the same type of penalty as is imposed under sec. 6698 here, just for S corporations–was automatically calculated through electronic means where the penalty was a simple and automatic computation and had been generated by the IRS computer system.  See ATL & Sons Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, 152 T.C.     ,  (slip op. at 21-25) (Mar. 13, 2019); cf. Walquist v. Commissioner, 152 T.C.     ,      (slip op. at 20) (Feb. 25, 2019) (concluding that a substantial understatement penalty under sec. 6662 that was ‘determined by an IRS computer program without human input or review’ was a penalty automatically calculated through electronic means).” 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 7, at pp. 14-15, footnote 7.

For the Walquist story, see my blogpost “I Sing the Penalty Electronic – Part Deux,” 2/25/19.

It’s unfortunate that Judge Scholar Pat enunciates this principle in a “don’t quote me” small-claimer, which Section 7463(b) expressly excludes from precedential status. But I’m sure IRS will lift the language for future briefs.

While the fallout from TEFRA may yet drag on into the next decade, if not beyond, TEFRA was scrapped in 2015. So I was going to skip Allen R. Davison III, 2019 T. C. Memo. 29, filed 4/3/19, as of purely historical interest.

ARDIII was involved as an indirect partner in one of a couple partnerships (hi, Judge Holmes) that supposedly sold its interests to a trust, except it was a sham, and FPAAs rained down. So ARDIII got slugged with a trio of computationals and a NITL, at no extra charge.

ARDIII wants to fight the liabilities at his CDP, but he never got in on the FPAA via a petition for readjustment of the computationals aforesaid. Computationals are what flows through to partners after a losing FPAA petition for readjustment.

Judge Ashford, echoing IRS, says ARDIII can’t fight the computationals. He should have petitioned for readjustment. ARDIII wants equitable relief, but Tax Court can’t give that.

Now old Section 6223(a) says besides notifying the tax matterer, IRS has to tip off the partners so they can jump in if the tax matterer decides to sit out.

But ARDIII was an indirect partner, and nobody told IRS he was an indirect partner per Section 6223(c)(3). The tax matterer of ARDIII’s partnership should have told ARDIII about the FPAA, but failure to do so does not take ARDIII out of the result. See Section 6230(f). “…‘[t]he failure of a tax matters partner, a pass-thru partner, the representative of a notice group, or any other representative of a partner to provide any notice or perform any act * * * [such as an appeal to an FPAA] does not affect the applicability of any proceeding or adjustment * * * to such partner.’ Sec. 6230(f).” 2019 T. C. Memo. 29, at p. 15.

Of course, ARDIII never raised the Section 6662(a) accuracy chops at his CDP, so no review in Tax Court.

Now all this seems obsolete, but what is the liability of a partnership representative under the post-PATH Section 6223(a), who is the sole representative for all tax matters, and who apparently need tell nobody nuthin’?

Remember poor Beverly Bernice Bang? No? I don’t blame you, I blogged her misfortunes back in 2011. See my blogpost “Bang – A Warning to Tax Matters Partners (and their advisors),” 1/5/11.

Now we have a representative who need not be a partner; who may be appointed by a promoter, a majority partner, or anybody whose interests may not be the same as ARDIII, Beverly Bernice Bang, or any other partner. And may not even be a fiduciary.

Takeaway for counsel: Make sure your S Corp stockholders’ agreements, your LLC operating agreements, and your partnership agreements (if you still use them) have appropriate protections for the representative (if you’re drafting them), or appropriate protection for your partner clients (if you’re reviewing them).

Maybe even copy and tailor your old Section 6223 language. Might could be TEFRA isn’t so dead, after all.

Judge Elizabeth A (watch this space) Copeland has the above advice for the SO in Julia Castaneda, Docket No. 7697-17L, filed 4/3/19. Julia rejected redaction last month in my blogpost “Unveiling Reveiled,” 3/8/19.

Today she’s fighting IRS’ standard summary J motion, but in record-rule 9 Cir IRS has a problem. Julie did file late for three of the four (count ‘em, four) years at issue. But she did file amended returns, and the SO only looked at the certificate of assessments, which showed what Julie put on the originally-filed returns, The SO had the amended returns for a year before issuing the NOD, but apparently never looked at them.

True, Julie never provided a Form 433-A nor copies of the amended returns she filed at the time of her CDP. The SO offered an expedited installment agreement, but Julia never accepted it. Instead, she submitted a lower offer, which was rejected. So for the unamended year she may be out.

Except.

Judge Copeland: “The consideration of amended tax returns could, at a minimum, change the calculation of an expedited installment agreement, which agreement can be entered into without providing full financial statements or a Form 433-A.

“In resolving doubts as to the existence of a material fact against the movant, we find that the existence of amended retums in the administrative file which were not reviewed by the SO, were they to be considered, could show a reduced tax liability. If so, that would require a trial do novo and new evidence to support the amended returns. For these reasons, we find at this juncture that Commissioner has not met his burden of proving that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact. Consequently, we deny respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Order, at pp. 5-6.

Oh yes, the title hereof. Read The Amended Returns.

The Ogden Sunseteers even reopen cases without letters, and the question of remand from Tax Court (does remand imply a Tax Court order to IRS to commence a proceeding against the target when IRS has decided not so to proceed?) remains unanswered.

See my blogposts “A Hotly-Burning Question What Has Swept The Continent – Redivivus,” 7/28/17, and “Remand? You Can Whistle For It,” 1/31/18.

But Stanley H. (“Stan the Man”) Epstein, Docket No. 28731-15W, filed 4/2/19, star of the first-above-cited blogpost, is fighting IRS’ motion for summary J, even though he got a new letter from the Ogden brigade (apparently without remand, so the hereinabove referred to question remains unanswered) and timely petitioned same.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber has this one, and wishes Stan the Man to unconfuse him.

“In his response petitioner shall address respondent’s argument that this case is moot in light of the IRS’ decision to reopen his claim, the IRS’ issuance of a final determination with respect to the reopened claim, and his filing at docket number 2965-18W of a petition to challenge the IRS’ determination with respect to his reopened claim.” Order, at p. 1.

So apparently IRS can volley new determinations even when the old ones (which may be multiplex) have been petitioned and are before the Court. The epistolary bombardment goes on and on.

No, not George Orwell’s 1984 torture chamber (although some unsuccessful litigants might think it resembles same), but rather a place where all is laid bare and held up to the light, The Glasshouse at 400 Second Street, Northwest.

Once again, the public’s right to know o’ercrows Rule 27(a) and beats down Rule 103’s protective shield, in Clair R. Couturier, Jr. & Vicki Couturier, Docket No. 19714-16, filed 4/1/19, and it’s no April Fools’ joke.

Clair & Vicki have excise tax problems, and petition two Section 4973 chops. IRS wants summary J (natch), and Clair & Vicki respond, but simultaneously want to file under seal their 1040s for the first of the ten (count ‘em, ten) years at issue. Sounds like an IRA retroactively rejected.

All Clair & Vicki can say in support of sealing is that ”… disclosure would harm him. But petitioner provides nothing more than bare assertions of harm. For instance, in his motion to file his income tax return under seal, petitioner states only that ‘Notwithstanding the redaction of the taxpayer identification numbers, the [Year One] Tax Return contains confidential and sensitive information regarding Mr. Couturier’s finances, including his annual gross income and various taxes paid, which are not at issue in this case. Mr. Couturier would be harmed by the public disclosure of this sensitive information, and therefore requests leave to file it under seal.’ Petitioner’s motion to file his income tax transcripts is similarly spartan, stating only that they contain ‘confidential and sensitive information regarding Mr. Couturier’s finances that is not at issue in this case’ and that ‘Mr. Couturier would be harmed by the public disclosure of this sensitive information’.” Order, at p. 2.

All y’all will remember Willie Nelson, who made similar arguments years ago, and lost. If not, read ex-Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel’s above-cited order.

“Without more, petitioner’s conclusory allegations of harm cannot overcome the public’s presumptive right of access to this Court’s records.” Order, at p. 2.

And ex-Ch J Iron Fist promptly unseals what had been temporarily sealed pending this order.

So anybody who objects to letting it all hang out, whether at 400 Second Street, NW, or any trial venue, or in the trade press or blogosphere, beware. Once you petition, unless you have a real good story, anything and everything is fair game. And it may just wind up on this my blog. Section 7461 sent me.