Attorney-at-Law

MORE TACTICS

In Uncategorized on 05/05/2021 at 19:34

Daniel S. Jacobs, 2021 T. C. Memo. 51, filed 5/5/21, doesn’t get legals from Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro, but he does get a Taishoff “Good try, first class.” However, this accolade does not come in the Section 7430 context. There’s enough tangles in Dan’s (that’s “Prof. Dan”, “Attorney/Professor/Author” as he styles himself in one year’s return) story so that, despite Exam’s miscues, there was enough ambiguity for a reasonable person to disallow Prof. Dan’s deductions when IRS answered. I want you to hold that thought; it matters.

IRS ultimately folds on all.

Prof. Dan first wanted a representative of TAS (Taxpayer Advocate Service) to attend the Appeals face-to-face with him. That didn’t happen, although TAS asked Appeals to change their policy such that a TAS representative could be present at Appeals hearings. After all, IRS Counsel and Exam people can attend. See 2021 T. C. Memo. 51, at p. 17.

Might be a move to consider if you have to advise someone with a case too small to afford counsel. Consult TAS and ask for a TAS rep. After all, they were willing at least to consider showing up for an Attorney/Professor/Author.

Even better is the move Prof. Dan used when confronted by a Form 872 SOL extender. He offered IRS 35 days, when they asked for eight (count ‘em, eight) months. He rejected the deal, told IRS to hit him with a SNOD, petitioned same, and stiped with IRS to a remand to Appeals. See 2021 T. C. Memo. 51, at pp. 18-19.

The case settled at Appeals.

This tactic may not work if IRS thinks your client is a wit, wag or wiseacre. But it might work with a reasonable client with a reasonable case. And even if IRS won’t stip, you can always ask for a remand.

Prof. Dan, a tip of the battered Stetson.

Edited to add, 5/6/21: “When IRS answered” is the cutoff for justification in a Section 7430. So if IRS shot back an answer as soon as Prof Dan petitioned the SNOD, there had been no remand to Appeals. So all IRS counsel had to go on was the Exam material and the limited Appeals approval thereof, which was enough to scupper Prof. Dan’s Section 7430 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: