Attorney-at-Law

INELIGIBLE RECEIVER – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 06/08/2021 at 15:29

David Andrew Lufkin, Sr., 2021 T. C. Memo. 71, filed 6/8/21, finally got the CDP for which IRS was whistled when they sent the NITL to the ineligible receiver. See my blogpost “Ineligible Receiver,” 9/22/14. IRS said they’d reissue the NITLs and send them to the right place, and they did.

David Andrew claims SOL, but there was enough tolling between his multiple Ch. 7s, and his various trips to Tax Court, so that Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves can opine “… even under a conservative calculation, more than 10 years had not elapsed on the applicable periods of limitations for the Form 941 liabilities when respondent issued the CDP notice in 2014.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 71, at pp. 10-11. And laches (delay of the game) cannot succeed against the gov’t without more evidence than David Andrew adduces.

David Andrew’s claim that someone else took over the business (practice?) can’t shield him from pre-transfer liabilities. Sounds like the ineligible receiver is still ineligible.

“Petitioner produced no substantive evidence establishing how another entity or person was either liable for the Form 941 liabilities or submitted payments to the IRS for the liabilities. He alleged that in 2000 respondent seized the documentation necessary to prove his claim, but that respondent either lost or destroyed this documentation following the purported seizure. In effect, petitioner asks us to relieve him of his burden of proof and overlook his failure to offer any evidence as to this issue. We decline to do so. See Am. Police & Fire Found., Inc. v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 699, 706-707 (1983) (finding that the taxpayer’s burden of going forward with the evidence did not shift merely because the Commissioner unintentionally lost the taxpayer’s records); Malinowski v. Commissioner, 71 T. C. 1120, 1125 (1979) (same).” 2021 T. C. Memo. 71, at pp. 7-8.

David Andrew reprises this argument when fighting over the SO’s verification that all necessary steps were taken per Section 6330(c)(1).

“… petitioner repeatedly alleged that respondent’s supposed destruction of all records pertinent to the Form 941liabilities amounted to a violation of procedural due process under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Petitioner failed to establish any nexus between his CDP case and the Thirteenth Amendment, which deals exclusively with the abolishment of slavery and involuntary servitude.” 2021 T. C . Memo. 71, at p. 11.

Still ineligible after all these years.

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: