Attorney-at-Law

BELLS ARE RINGING

In Uncategorized on 06/19/2019 at 20:39

No, not the 1956 Comden-Styne-Green musical (and later film). This is yet another in The Phone Call series. I’ll spare the petitioner’s counsel in FC-Canal Operating LLC, Docket No. 2488-19, filed 6/19/19.

Ch J Maurice B. (“Mighty Mo”) Foley sets the scene.

“…the parties… submitted a stipulated decision resolving the case and reflecting no deficiency or penalty due from petitioner for [year at issue]. Nonetheless, review of the record continued to suggest a fundamental jurisdictional defect that would prevent entry of the just-referenced decision. In particular, the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this proceeding indicated a statutory deadline for filing a petition pursuant to section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) that expired on January 28, 2019. Conversely, the envelope in which the petition was received bore a private postal meter mark dated January 29, 2019. Moreover, inspection of the envelope and related tracking information seemed to reflect that the item was initially returned to petitioner’s counsel by the U.S. Postal Service on January 28, 2019, for insufficient postage before being re-sent to the Court.” Order, at p. 1.

Fortunately, as neither tax nor chops were on the table, this wasn’t as bad as might have been. Still and all, it doesn’t look good; see infra, as my expensive colleagues would say.

IRS showed certified mailing to last known address with proper 90-day notice. Ch J Mighty Mo ordered the Canals to show cause why they shouldn’t be tossed.

Counsel replied thus: “…a mailroom clerk at counsel’s law firm never placed postage on the certified mail envelope when it was mailed to the Tax Court on January 23, 2019. The envelope was then returned to the firm on January 28, 2019, and the clerk unilaterally applied proper postage on January 29, 2019, with a private postal meter and re-mailed the envelope, without knowledge of anyone at the firm. Counsel apologized and advised that there was no objection to dismissal.” Order, at p. 2.

No need for a takeaway.

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: