Attorney-at-Law

THE SECOND TIME AROUND – REDUX

In Uncategorized on 09/12/2019 at 21:50

Readers with exceptional memories will recall that Judge Paris gave a further supplemental CDP to Merrick Rayle, 2019 T. C. Memo. 119, filed 9/12/19, closer to his Indiana home, namely, in The Windy City. If you don’t remember, see my blogpost “Chicago, Chicago,” 9/30/16.

Well, at the second remand, Merrick, though seeking an IA,  never submitted a Form 433-A, but kindly SO2 gave him a bunch of unsubstantiated expenses. The trouble was, Merrick was over the $50K cutoff for an IA streamliner. Merrick’s original deficiencies were below the $50K cutoff, but interest had raised them above. SO2 offered to do a streamliner if Merrick coughed up the $5543 to get below the bar.

Merrick said no, because five years back, when this roundy-round began, he was under the bar.

Judge Lauber isn’t having it.

“Petitioner is mistaken. He bases his argument on the fact that the notice of deficiency issued to him in January 2013 determined deficiencies and penalties totaling $43,939, so that his case qualified as a ‘small tax case’ under section 7463(a)(1). During the ensuing five years, however, a great deal of interest accrued on those assessed amounts, as well as additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay. The IRS duly assessed that interest and those additions to tax. Those assessments–which are properly includible in his aggregate assessed balance–brought his total unpaid assessed liability to $55,433 by February 2018. See IRM pt. 5.14.5.2.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 119, at p. 14.

And Merrick’s dilatory tactics earn him no favor from Judge Lauber.

“SO2 carefully considered every issue petitioner raised during the lengthy CDP proceeding. Although petitioner continually missed deadlines, SO2 gave him every opportunity to supply verification of additional expenses. She offered him a regular IA with terms more generous than those his own Form 433-A would have warranted. And she offered him a streamlined IA conditioned on his making an upfront payment of $5,433 to reduce his balance as the IRM required. Petitioner refused all of her offers.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 119, at pp. 15-16.

 

 

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: