In Uncategorized on 04/01/2022 at 11:30

That’s STJ Eunkyong (“N’Yawk”) Choi’s seal of approval on Joseph Seminara, 12375-20SL, filed 4/1/22. No April fool’s joke this.

Joe self-reported four (count ’em, four) years, but paid nothing. No SNOD, of course, as IRS assessed what Joe reported. NFTL followed via Automated Collection System, untouched by human hands. Joe Appealed the NFTL, asking for an OIC, which he withdrew at the same time his representative did likewise. Then Joe said he’d file another OIC and amended returns, showing he owed nothing and was entitled to a refund. The SO said fuggedaboutit as to amended returns if Joe wanted an OIC, and NODed the NFTL.

In defense of the SO, even if Joe filed for and got an accepted OIC, an NFTL could still be in effect until final payment. And one can file an OIC at any time.

IRS wants summary J and doesn’t get it.

The SO should have considered the amended returns Joe proffered.

STJ N’Yawk Choi: “Where respondent assessed the tax reported in a taxpayer’s return; the taxpayer’s return was not examined under audit, and respondent did not issue the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, the taxpayer has not had a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability and may do so during the CDP hearing. See Shaddix v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-11, *8. The administrative record, in this case, reveals that respondent assessed the tax petitioner reported in his returns;  petitioner’s accounts entered respondent’s Automated Collections System, absent an examination, when petitioner failed to pay the tax he reported on his returns; and petitioner did not receive deficiency notices for any of the taxable years at issue.  Accordingly, reviewing Appeals’ determination de novo, we find that petitioner was entitled to have his dispute of the underlying tax liabilities considered at his CDP hearing. We further find that [SO]’s refusal to consider petitioner’s amended returns was erroneous, and respondent is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Order, at pp. 3-4. (Name and footnote omitted, but read the footnote, or, to save you the trouble of looking up the order on DAWSON, I’ll print it.)

“During the … hearing on the instant motion, respondent asserted that petitioner did not dispute his liability at his CDP hearing because petitioner did not offer amended returns at the [first] telephone conference with [SO], but instead offered them approximately one year later during [a later] telephone conference with [SO]. Respondent asserted that the [first] telephone conference alone was petitioner’s CDP hearing; that petitioner cannot indefinitely raise new issues for Appeals to consider. We disagree. ‘A CDP hearing may consist of one or more written or oral communications between an Appeals officer and the taxpayer’ and ‘[a]ll communications between the taxpayer and the Appeals officer between the time of the hearing request and the issuance of the determination notice constitute part of the CDP hearing.’ Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2010-44, *2 (internal citations omitted).” Order, at p. 4, footnote 2.

For Shaddix, see my blogpost “A Bad Day for Appeals,” 2/28/22.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: