Attorney-at-Law

“THE LAW’S DELAY, THE INSOLENCE OF OFFICE”

In Uncategorized on 04/02/2020 at 16:53

That’s Ronald L. Goldberg’s complaint in 2020 T. C. Memo. 38, filed 4/2/20, but except for 117 (count ‘em, 117) days’ worth of interest, which IRS concedes, Ron loses the rest.

Ron claims the Form 4549 Income Tax Examination Changes he signed was a contract that showed he owed zero interest.

Judge Morrison: “The statement is a consent to the immediate assessment of the taxes and penalties shown on the form. See Evans v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-66, slip op. at 10 (‘By executing the Form 4549, petitioner merely consented to the immediate assessment and collection of the deficiency proposed therein.’ (Emphasis added.)). In its opening brief, the IRS argues that the statement should also be interpreted as a consent to the assessment of interest on the Goldbergs’ 2004 income-tax liability. The IRS’s explanation is as follows:

“Accordingly, while petitioner’s consent to the assessment of tax and penalties was limited to the dollar amounts ‘shown above’ on the Form 4549, petitioner’s consent to the assessment of interest was not limited to the dollar amounts ‘shown above’ on the Form 4549. To the contrary, petitioner agreed that interest would be assessed ‘as provided by law.’” 2020 T. C. Memo. 38, at p. 21. And that argument carries the day.

If you’re subject to a sequestration order and have time on your hands, you can read Judge Morrison’s 163 (count ‘em, 163) page blow-by-blow, as the RAs and SOs timesheets and case notes are deconstructed. Reminds me of legal fee hearings, true eye-glazers for all but the parties.

But there is one interesting note. Either Treasury has changed its mind, or Judge Morrison missed something.

“Section 6502(a)(1) and section 6601(g) in combination form the following rule: the assessment of interest may occur only after the assessment of ‘the tax to which such interest relates’. See also Field v. United States, 381 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (‘Since the IRS’s assessment of interest against * * * [the taxpayer-plaintiff] coincided with the commencement of the collection period, the assessment [of the interest] was no doubt timely.’); Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201319017 (May 10, 2013) (‘[T]he Service cannot assess additional interest on * * * [a] tax liability that was never actually assessed.’). By executing a Form 4549, a taxpayer consents to the immediate assessment and collection of the tax and the interest to which the tax relates. Aguirre v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 327. “ 2020 T. C. Memo. 38, at p. 15.(Emphasis added).

Like Section 6110(k)(3), maybe? “Unless the Secretary otherwise establishes by regulations, a written determination may not be used or cited as precedent.” So why the PLR?

 

 

 

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: