Attorney-at-Law

LETTER TO THE EDITOR – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 08/10/2020 at 10:58

Obliging as he is, Judge David Gustafson won’t do your research for you, but he will edit your letter before including it in an order, so as not to embarrass you with your spelling mistakes. He performs this service at no extra charge (look at all you get for sixty bucks) for Tony Patrinicola & Barbara Patrinicola, Docket No. 498-19, filed 8/10/20.

Actually, it’s Tony’s letter. He wants to add another year to his petition, based on a CP90. That form somewhat confuses even Judge Gustafson, so he treats Tony’s letter as a motion for leave to amend.

“…the notice evidently does double duty both as a notice of right to a CDP hearing and as a demand for payment. (Cf. Webber v. Commissioner, No. 14307-18L (order of June 7, 2019).) On the front page of the notice, underneath its title, is the phrase ‘Amount due immediately: $8,236.89″. The bottom third of page 1 of the Notice CP90 is an address slip that the taxpayer can use to make a payment of the stated liabilities. It gives an IRS address in Cincinnati, Ohio, and as an ‘Amount due immediately’ it repeats the amount of $8,236.89.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Gustafson cites his order in Webber, supra, but he doesn’t cite my blogpost “Judge on a Tear,” 6/7/19, which is much more entertaining.

Howbeit, if Judge Gustafson is slightly befuddled, Tony is utterly confused. His letter is addressed thus: “United States Tax Court Attn: Commissioner of Internal Revenue Maurice B. Foley (Chief Judge) Washington, D.C. 20217.”

Refer to my blogpost “The Plight of the Pro Se,” 7/27/20. The USDCs have offices for the self represented; Tax Court has none. While I have no statistical evidence to back up this assertion, Tax Court has more self representeds as a percentage of nongovernmental litigants than any USDC. Yet they are without guidance except from the never-sufficiently-praised pro bonos and LITCs. And most pro ses have no idea these resources exist.

So Judge Gustafson wants IRS to tell him if Tony’s letter is a timely request for a CDP, or whether IRS received any other timely request from Tony for a CDP.

I most humbly suggest that IRS’ counsel read the Webber order (and maybe even my blogpost thereon above-cited) before responding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: