Attorney-at-Law

THREE ANDYS OR SIXTY GEORGES

In Uncategorized on 05/08/2020 at 11:56

When it comes to the big blind in US Tax Court, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is on the case at warp speed. I’ve blogged his vigilant protection of the Tax Court purse any number of times, but, solely by way of illustration of the foregoing, see my blogpost “The Tossed Petitioner,” 10/29/18.

Well, perhaps today Ch J Mighty Mo is in a mellow mood, because Linda R. Knapp, Docket No. 3420-20, filed 5/8/20, maybe gets her SNOD tossed for free.

Linda mailed in some correspondence, including but without limitation (as my expensively-sheltered-in-place colleagues would say) a SNOD, for tax year 2017, on 2/20/20. No check, however. Note the dates matter here.

Ch J Mighty Mo reacts swiftly.

“On February 28, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing that payment of the filing fee for this litigation be made, or an application for waiver thereof submitted, on or before April 13, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the Court then received from petitioner a further letter indicating that petitioner did not intend by the initial correspondence with this Court to begin a case herein and that petitioner preferred to work administratively through the Internal Revenue Service to resolve the 2017 tax matters, rather than to continue with the instant Court proceeding.” Order, at p. 1.

Toss coming right up, no?

No. “…additional review of the record at this juncture suggests a fundamental jurisdictional defect, calling into question the validity of the purported notice of deficiency dated February 3, 2020. In particular, the petition explained, and attached documentation supporting, that the deficiency had been paid in July of 2019. If the amount of an alleged deficiency has been paid prior to issuance of a statutory notice pertaining thereto, the determined amount fails to qualify as a deficiency within the meaning of the governing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.” Order, at p. 1.

So let IRS and Linda show cause why the non-SNOD should not be tossed. Well, a file was opened, a docket number assigned, and scarce judicial resources employed, so shouldn’t Linda ante up?

“…the Court’s $60.00 filing fee for this case is waived, and petitioner is no longer required to pay such amount.” Order, at p. 2.

 

 

 

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: