Attorney-at-Law

FROM MY SCRAPBOOK – 2/18/21

In Uncategorized on 02/18/2021 at 12:39

A few scraps from today’s budget of orders.

The abate-debate continues. Section 6404(h), that hardy perennial, is getting a workout. Estate of Lourdes Theodossis, Deceased, Victor M. Crown, Independent Administrator, Docket No. 20584-11, filed 2/18/21, is seeking abatement of interest on thirteen (count ’em, thirteen) year old income tax the Estate owed, the late Lourdes having become so in 1991, but his estate kept marching on. Judge Kerrigan finds that the Section 6166 closely-held stretched payout is only for estate tax, not income tax.

” Section 7481(d) and Rule 262 allow the reopening of a case upon motion of a petitioner to modify the Court’s decision to reflect an estate’s entitlement to administrative expenses pursuant to section 2053 for the period of the extension of time for payment of the federal estate tax liability under section 6166. An extension of time for the payment of estate tax where an estate consists largely of an interest in closely held businesses is allowed pursuant to section 6166. The extension of time under section 6166 does not relate to income generated by an estate.

“This case concerns the abatement of interest on the estate’s 2006 income tax return and not liability for the estate tax. Therefore, this case cannot be reopened pursuant to section 7481(d) and Rule 262.” Order, at p. 2.

New change of address rules? Judge Gale seems to be taking a new path when petitioners change their address without telling Tax Court. Formerly, it seemed routine that, when communication of a new address reached The Glasshouse by whatever means, the assigned Judge would order the Clerk to note the change, with a mild admonition to file Form 10 the next time. Today, Judge Gale tells Michael Chandler & Harriette Chandler, Docket No. 11908-19S, filed 2/18/21, that they’d better file Form 10 unless they want to miss out on all future mailings. Here, USPS bounced the Trial Notice without forwarding address, but IRS got the updated address from Mike & Harriette, and asked for a continuance. Looks like Judge Gale has lost patience with the old practice of doing petitioners’ work for them. He holds up the continuance until Mike & Harriette file Form 10.

“Under Rule 21(b)(4), a party in a Tax Court case must promptly notify the Court of any change in his or her mailing address and telephone number by filing a notice of change of address with the Court. Except for the mailing of this Order, the Court may continue to use the address the petitioners listed on the Petition for all future mailings to them unless they file a Notice of Change of Address.” Order, at p. 1. (Footnote omitted, but it says the Clerk shall add a copy of Form 10 to the Order and send it to Michael & Harriette.)

Now I expect the august and learned ABA Tax Section, whose shoes were white even before the current snowstorms, and who denounced my suggestion that petitioners need show some nexus between place of trial and the case as being unduly burdensome on the pore unrepresented, will denounce this further imposition.

Crafty, Akin to the Weasel. See my blogpost thus entitled, 7/24/17. I am again reminded of my laughing little girl long ago, as my thoughts and prayers are with her and our families in TX.

IRS is ever-inventive, and is always pulling novel tricks from their well-stocked cubby. Here’s Judge Courtney D (“CD”) Jones, to tell us about Picayune Pearl Aggregates, LLC, Picayune Pearl Aggregates Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 7045-19, filed 2/18/21. It’s a discovery joust, and since the original trial date was continued sine die (that means “with no new date set,” for you civilians), there’s no 45-day pretrial limit on IRS’ asking for, and getting, more document production. But the curveball is in a footnote.

“Our grant of these requests only extends in so far as they seek the production of documents. We note that certain portions of respondent’s requests for production…appear to embed interrogatories therein, which we will not enforce through the present motion.” Order, at p. 2, footnote 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: