Attorney-at-Law

FOURTH TIME UNLUCKY

In Uncategorized on 09/09/2021 at 16:11

I didn’t blog the three (count ’em, three) previous visits of Karson C. Kaebel, 2021 T. C. Memo. 109, filed 9/9/21.* KCK was just another nonfiler who claimed he never got SNODs off the SFRs, so didn’t owe anything. But IRS proved he did, notwithstanding KCK’s motion to strike the USPS Forms 3877 showing proofs of mailing to his Lewisville TX last-known-address (at least someone in TX knows how to spell Lewisville, unlike that KY place). So you can read 2017 T. C. Memo. 37, and Order 7/26/18 in Docket No. 916-18, aff’d per cur 770 F. App’x 726 (5 Cir., 2019) for yourself.

Issue preclusion sinks KCK. He litigated the issuance and mailing of the SNODs, and lost. He tried again, lost, and appealed and lost. Even though he got tossed on the second try for want of jurisdiction rather than on the merits, he’d already had his shot at the merits. ” A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction precludes relitigation of issues essential in ruling on the jurisdictional question.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 109, at p. 13 (Citations omitted).

OK, so why is KCK back? Because State grabbed his passport per Section 7345, as IRS certified that KCK owed $250K+. KCK doesn’t dispute the certification. He reiterates the non-mailing of SNODs, but that train left years ago. He also claims the statute violates his Constitutional right to travel freely.

Judge James S (“Big Jim”) Halpern is the last Judge on whom to try that that gambit.

“In Rowen v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. __, __ (slip op. at 16-17) (Mar. 30, 2021), we said: ‘In short, the actions of the Commissioner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State are governed by separate and distinct rules, which impose different responsibilities on each and grant them varying degrees of discretion in carrying out those responsibilities.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 109, at pp. 15-16.

For the Rowen story, see my blogpost “We Report, State Decides,” 3/30/21. IRS tells State that taxpayer owes money; State takes it from there. Pore l’il ol’ Tax Court cannot review whatever the Sec’y of State decides.

I said don’t try this with Judge Big Jim. Here’s why.

“This is the third proceeding before this Court and the fourth altogether, see Kaebel v. Commissioner, 770 F. App’x 726, in which petitioner has claimed that deficiency notices for one or all the delinquency years were not properly mailed. It should have become clear to petitioner, at least after the Court of Appeals in Kaebel II affirmed our rejection of his claims, that those claims lack merit. He has in this proceeding occupied the time of respondent’s counsel and this Court needlessly with his claims that deficiency notices for the delinquency years were not properly mailed. In pertinent part, section 6673(a)(1) allows us to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if (1) the taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings before the Tax Court primarily for delay or (2) the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 109, at p. 17.

So let KCK show cause why Judge Big Jim shouldn’t mulct him.

*Karson C Kaebel 2021 T C Memo 109 9 9 21

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: