In Uncategorized on 07/05/2019 at 14:51

Voltaire’s famous deathbed riposte to the Abbe gives me my headline. But today it’s Alfred Q. Campbell, III, Docket No. 3597-17L, filed 7/5/19, who’s posed the question, and Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber wants to know what IRS thinks about it all.

Alf Q. petitioned a NOD, got remanded for a supplemental CDP when he claimed he never got the NITL, but at the supp IRS produced the certified mail list showing mailing to last known address, so sustentation of NOD and back to Tax Court.

Alf Q claims signer of NITL, Bill B, wasn’t appropriately delegated by the then-Sec’y, so NITL invalid.

“Petitioner did not contend in the original hearing, the supplemental hearing, or his petition that Mr. B was not duly authorized to issue the notice of deficiency [sic]. Rather, he raised this argument for the first time when responding to the summary judgment.” Order, at pp. 1-2. (Name omitted).

Judge, this was a Section 6330 CDP, so wasn’t the Letter 3219 a Notice of Intent to Levy, and not a Notice of Deficiency?

Howbeit, the question is whether the SO must check the IRM delegation list before issuing the NOD, or whether IRS can come up with it later, even on the Glasshouse steps on the day of trial.

“In two recent CDP cases the Court has considered whether notices of deficiency were signed by duly authorized individuals. See Gregory v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-192 at *8-*9; Williams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-50 at *5. In each case the Court held that the notices were valid because the person signing each notice was authorized by IRS Delegation Order 4-8, as set forth in the Internal Revenue Manual pt. (Sept. 4, 2012). Because the signatory was duly authorized, we had no need to decide whether an SO would abuse his discretion if he did not investigate that question sua sponte.” Order, at p. 2.

For whatever reason, I didn’t blog either Gregory or Williams.

“The Court would benefit from knowing respondent’s position on two questions: (1) whether a taxpayer may challenge in this Court an SO’s verification of an assessment on the ground that the person signing the notice of deficiency lacked delegated authority to do so, where the taxpayer did not advance that argument at any point during the CDP hearing or (as here) the supplemental hearing; and (2) whether Mr. B was duly authorized to issue the notice of deficiency in this case.” Order, at p. 2. (Name omitted)(See my earlier comment: NITL, not SNOD).

Whatever IRS says about (1), I’m betting this case comes off over (2).

Edited to add, 8/6/19: I may have been mistaken, although it isn’t clear from Judge Scholar Al’s order. Alf Q. may have been challenging Bill B’s signature on the SNOD which led to the NITL, which SNOD Alf Q. may not have petitioned, and not the signature on the NITL.

I’d appreciate enlightenment.

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 )

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: