Attorney-at-Law

NO TIME FOR PRO SES

In Uncategorized on 07/01/2020 at 19:18

STJ Panuthos sends off Gary M. Dennis and Sharon D. Dennis, 2020 T. C. Memo. 98, filed 7/1/20, without admins or legals.

It’s true that the amount stated in both the NFTL and NITL was overstated, as the number didn’t include a $7500 payment Gary and Shannon made. They weren’t in default of their IA, but they had to petition the NITL and NFTL, and go to remand, before the numbers worked out.

Gary and Sharon want Section 7430 legals and admins.

No, IRS wasn’t justified, and admits it.

But Gary and Sharon get nothing.

“Petitioners…question the application of a payment. They do not claim they are due a refund or other tax credit that would change the amount of their underlying tax liability. Their challenge is to the amount of tax liability that remained unpaid at the time the NFTL was filed, not the total tax liability as imposed by the Code. Accordingly, the CDP hearing was a proceeding in connection with a collection action and was not an administrative proceeding pursuant to section 7430. We therefore hold that petitioners are barred from recovering compensation for administrative costs.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 98, at p. 11. (Citation omitted).

CDPs aren’t compensable, unless the amount of tax due at inception changes. Here, the amount of tax didn’t change, just how much thereof was unpaid.

As for legals, Gary and Sharon were pro se. But Gary has an interesting argument.

“Petitioners argue that although they are ‘aware of precedent relating to reimbursement of [p]ro [s]e petitioners’, this Court’s holdings ignore ‘the possibility that responsibility for [p]ro [s]e representation of two [p]etitioners may be disproportionately shared between the individuals.’ Petitioners claim that petitioner Gary Dennis produced all documents and performed all other legal services related to the case, while petitioner Sharon Dennis did not participate in the case in any way. Petitioners assert that the number of hours of requested compensation has been reduced by 50% to reflect the lost income-producing capacity of one spouse in defending the other during litigation.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 98, at pp. 12-13.

STJ Panuthos can’t give Gary a Taishoff “good try, second class,” but I can.

Gary, ya gotta be out-of-pocket to a lawyer or USTCP, and pay disbursements, to get legals.

 

 

 

 

 

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: