My colleague, Peter Reilly, CPA, always on the lookout for blogfodder, asked me yesterday if I had seen Charlie Sheen, Docket No. 25980-21L, filed 1/24/21. I replied I hadn’t, and the link Mr. Reilly sent me to the order was the usual scrambled eggs served up by the Genius Baristas. So I utilized the new, improved, jim-handy Tax Court search function, and found what seemed like a routine remand to Appeals.
Mr. Reilly’s comment was that this seemed a quick turnaround for a petition filed back last November. I checked out some details, and concluded that Mr. Sheen’s counsel, a CPA, had been around the block a couple times (as we say on this Minor US Outlying Island, and hi, Judge Holmes), and knew t’other from which. Said counsel is a USTCP, not an attorney.
As I discovered many years ago, it’s not necessarily that some animals are more equal than others, as George Orwell put it. Sometimes it’s more important to know what to say to your adversary and how to say it. Getting a teletubbying IRS counsel to drop one of the cascading files confronting him/her back to Appeals depends more upon petitioner’s counsel than on petitioner’s IMDb listing.
Taishoff Law 
Off by one digit on the case number. It’s 29680-21L
LikeLike
And is that THE Charlie Sheen? Might be worth 50 cents a page to find out.
LikeLike
Mr Kamman, thank you for the correction. I cannot tell if this Charlie Sheen is that Charlie Sheen. Perhaps Mr Reilly can enlighten you on that score. I do note that the USTCP representing Mr Sheen is based in the LA area.
LikeLike
I am the CPA and USTCP who is representing Mr. Sheen. The Court’s Order remanding the case back to Appeals was issued on 01-24-2022 (not 2021). Thank you, Mr. Taishoff, for the insights contained in your blog post. Tax Notes wrote an article (authored by Kristen Parillo) earlier this week which includes a link directly to the Petition that I authored and filed on November 5, 2021, for anyone who is interested… Readers like Bob Kamman, for whom I hold the utmost of respect, may also be interested in this statement that I offered to Peter Reilly, CPA, who was kind enough to contact me after the story in Tax Notes was published:
“I am very appreciative to IRS Counsel for reaching out to me with her offer that we make a joint motion to have our case remanded to Appeals, and to the Tax Court for granting our Motion. I really could not have asked for more than that as this Order means that I will get the chance to continue advocating for this Offer-In-Compromise, which I believe is wholeheartedly and absolutely in the best interest of both the IRS and my client; a true “win-win.” By enacting Code Section §7122, Congress clearly intends that all citizens have the right to request an Offer, offering to pay as much as they possibly can afford. Congress’ intent is clear that such settlements are a legitimate alternative to otherwise protracted and expensive collection tools which are inconvenient for everyone involved. When the IRS accepts an Offer-In-Compromise which is made in good faith, the IRS gets paid whatever the taxpayer’s “reasonable collection potential” is, and the Taxpayer gets a “fresh start.” What could be better than that for both sides?”
Most respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Jager, CPA, MST, USTCP
Partner, Fineman West & Company, LLP
Offices in Sherman Oaks & Los Angeles, California
Admitted to practice in the United States Tax Court
https://fwllp.com/team/jager-steven-l/
LikeLike
It is “The” Charlie Sheen. I did several blog reports on this case – the Update in response to an email from Mr. Sheens counsel Mr. Jager. If you are interested – Here is the original report: https://vimeo.com/655147863 Here is the update: https://vimeo.com/670403232
LikeLike
My thanks to Messrs. Leahy and Jager for their deep-dives into the Sheen case, and taklng time from their busy schedules to comment here.
When the 1/24/22 Order was issued, I did not notice it. And once the trade press (e.g., Tax Notes) and the blogosphere (those who cover tax matters generally, not Tax Court solely) have started reportage on a matter, I leave it to them. They have resources which I have not, and readerships far more extensive than mine; so I expect my readers will already have seen their coverage.
LikeLike
[…] I confirmed my impression with Lew Taishoff, who follows the Tax Court with incredible intensity. He blogged his answer: […]
LikeLike
[…] I confirmed my impression with Lew Taishoff, who follows the Tax Court with incredible intensity. He blogged his answer: […]
LikeLike
[…] my impression with Lew Taishoff, who follows the Tax Court with incredible intensity. He blogged his answer:Mr. Reilly’s comment was that this seemed a quick turnaround for a petition filed back last […]
LikeLike