In Uncategorized on 07/17/2019 at 15:54

No, 400 Second Street, NW, has not become a used-car lot, nor has Judge Vasquez traded in his robes for plaid pants and white shoes. Rather, the salespersons’ slogan is applied to CNC NFTLs where the petitioner earns no income and can’t prove how his credit was dinged so as to hinder collection.

Here’s Deborah P. Richards and Daniel D. Richards, 2019 T. C. Memo. 89, filed 7/17/19, whose only source of income is Social Security and who are accorded CNC status.

Dan tells the SO that the NFTL placed when he defaulted on his installment agreement and got CNC status “…was ‘impacting * * * [his] credit and he * * * [might] not be able to get a car loan’ in the future.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 89, at p. 4.

SO P said that just getting a ding on your credit score doesn’t prevent a NFTL to protect the fisc while you’re in CNC status. (Name omitted).

Now of course my sophisticated readers will cry out as one, “Bronze and Budish!” And they’ll be right; see my blogpost “Cast in Bronze,” 11/24/14. Whatever IRM pt. (Oct. 14, 2013) says, if a petitioner can produce probative evidence that the NFTL would hamper ability to pay, SO must consider that.

But Dan and Deb didn’t raise Budish (they were pro sese, natch). And even if they did, they produced no evidence that the NFTL hurt their ability to pay.

“Unlike the taxpayer in Budish, petitioners do not contend that SO P misinterpreted the IRM in making her determination.  Nor did petitioners present any concrete evidence during the CDP hearing to demonstrate how the NFTL would negatively affect their financial circumstances and credit standing.  Petitioners contend that SO P’s balancing analysis consisted of only ‘superficial boilerplate language’ and that she failed to consider the negative impact that the NFTL would have on petitioners’ credit standing and financial circumstances.  However, unlike the AO in Budish, SO P actually considered Mr. Richards’ argument about petitioners’ credit standing and pursued a followup inquiry.  Specifically, SO P asked whether the NFTL would affect petitioners’ ability to earn income.  After learning from Mr. Richards that their only income source was Social Security, SO P determined that the NFTL was not overly intrusive and was necessary to protect the Government’s interest.  This determination was well within her discretion.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 89, at p. 12. (Name omitted).

So, at 400 Second Street, NW, today, the advertising slogan still remains: Bad credit? No credit? No problem! The NFTL remains in place.

Note I’m not blogging John E. Rogers and Frances L. Rogers, et al., 2019 T. C. Memo. 90, filed 7/17/19. Mr Rogers’ bad bookkeeping, contradictory testimony, and the weight of his past delictions give Judge Goeke lots to say, but it’s the old unsubstantiated and unproven deductions, and they’re very much of a muchness.


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: