In Uncategorized on 04/02/2020 at 17:29

Harold M. Behn, Docket No. 11337-19L, filed 4/2/20, is a disabled Army vet who did multiple combat tours in Iraq.

Harold was in CNC, and thought that was permanent, except it isn’t, and STJ Panuthos can’t help with that. I’ll note the dates, because they’re material.

“In his objection and various letters, petitioner states that this case stems from the fact that he did not understand that his account was only temporarily on hold as a result of the stipulated decision in Docket No. 17013-11 L, when his account was placed in Currently Not Collectible status. Petitioner states that because of the stipulated decision in that case, he thought that he was no longer liable for taxes related to tax years 2002 through 2006 and 2008. Petitioner states that he did not understand that the amount owed for those tax years would continue to grow due to interest and penalties. Tax years 2002 through 2006 and 2008 are not properly before the Court in this case.” Order, at p. 3.

Currently means currently, not permanently. And not collectible doesn’t mean not payable.

But Harold has an argument. He says he has an affidavit wherein he swears to support his spouse, even though they’re not living together. And in working on his IA, the SO didn’t let him put that in. Harold went to TAS, who got him a meeting with the Appeals manager, who sustained the SO. Appeals claimed the spousal payment wasn’t court-ordered.

So what, asks STJ Panuthos. CA law, where Harold lives, allows voluntary support agreements.

“Petitioner repeatedly expressed confusion regarding IRS information requests, but was not given an in-person hearing. Petitioner’s objection, in which he strongly opposes summary judgment, persuades us that he should be provided an opportunity to present evidence regarding spousal support which should be considered by the Appeals ofñcer. He should also be able to present issues relating to his continuing disabilities and other issues related to his case. For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that respondent is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We further conclude that this matter should be remanded to the Appeals Ofñce for action consistent with this order. The Court expects that petitioner will fully cooperate with the Appeals Ofñce and promptly provide forms, documents, and other relevant information.” Order, at p. 5. (Citations omitted).

I know it’s only a Sum. Op., but see my blogpost “The Magic Paper Saves the Deduction,” 4/7/11.



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: