Sometimes the taxpayer gets a lot more than sixty bucks’ worth of justice from US Tax Court. Taryn L. Dodd, 2019 T. C. Memo. 107, filed 8/22/19, a legal secretary who got tagged with $1 million of real estate sales proceeds based on an erroneous 1040, never got a chance to contest her liability, even though she got a CDP and a remand.

The remand went to the same SO who had quick-pitched Taryn before.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber doesn’t think much of what justice Taryn got before now.

“We remanded this case after respondent conceded that the SO had abused her discretion by failing to consider petitioner’s challenge to her underlying liability and by failing to give petitioner enough time to submit information relevant to her request for a collection alternative.  Given these concessions by IRS counsel and the terms of our remand order, one might have expected the Appeals Office to take all steps reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of our remand.  Unfortunately, this is not what happened.”  2019 T. C. Memo. 107, at pp. 8-9.

“Here, the SO was fully aware of petitioner’s position concerning her underlying tax liability….  But the SO did not advise her, either in the letter scheduling the supplemental hearing or during the hearing itself, of the factual information that was needed to resolve that challenge.  And rather than give petitioner a reasonable extension of time to supply that information, the SO closed the case the very next day.

“On the record before us, we find that there exists (at the very least) a question of material fact as to whether the SO abused her discretion in handling this case on remand.  We will accordingly deny respondent’s motion for summary judgment.  We will also direct respondent to show cause why this case should not be remanded once again for the conduct of a supplemental hearing–ideally, before a different SO–that is genuinely designed to get to the right answer concerning petitioner’s underlying tax liability … and (if her underlying liability challenge is rejected) concerning her request for a collection alternative.” 2019 T. C. 107, at pp. 10-11.

Why IRS had four (count ‘em, four) attorneys assigned to this summary J fiasco, and not one patient SO to the remanded CDP, makes me question IRS’ allocation of scarce resources.

Next up, Santiago Guiterrez, 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 23, filed 8/22/19. Santiago had a court order awarding him and his partner custody of his partner’s two minor grandchildren, as their father had deserted and couldn’t be found, and their mother abandoned them and died. Santiago was the sole support of them and his partner’s 19 year old daughter (whom he claimed was a student, except her school transcript showed she wasn’t).

CSTJ Lewis (“A Man Worthy of the Name”) Carluzzo gives Santiago the two minors for all the child bennies and HOH, but not the 19 year old.

Both the minors are qualifying foster children for year at issue (Sec. 152(f)(1)(C). But they qualify both for Santiago and for partner. Except Santiago wins the tie-breaker as he’s the only one with gross income.

So it’s a Rule 155 beancount, to take the 19 year old out of the mix for EITC and kiddie creds.

And Santiago used a paid preparer, who had creds, and he acted in good faith. No chops.