Attorney-at-Law

LOSE YOUR CASE AT APPEALS

In Uncategorized on 04/04/2022 at 16:04

Unrepresenteds don’t win TFRPs; either they don’t go to Appeals, and petition the NFTL or NITL that follows their nonappearance, in which case liability is off the table and the end-run of a doubt-as-to-liability OIC is a nonstarter; or they bury themselves before the AO or SO, wherefore their petition of the NOD is a waste of sixty bucks plus postage.

Especially is this the case in record-rule jurisdictions like CA. If the record at Appeals is the whole story, better show up and tell a good one. If you have a good one.

I’ll make an offer of proof. Here’s Luke J. Middleton, T. C. Memo. 2022-28, filed 4/4/22.

Luke “..opened a checking account for [corp] on December 13, 2012, and a savings account on September 16, 2013. He was the only signer on the bank accounts. On July 15, 2016, petitioner signed a Domestic Stock Corporation Certificate of Dissolution, which was filed with the California secretary of state on August 8, 2016.” T. C. Memo. 2022-28, at p. 2.

Luke then told this tale to the RO who came around asking about who did what at the corp so as to determine who was responsible for the unpaid quarters of FICA/FUTA/ITW.

Luke never sent in a Form 12153 when he got the Letter 1153 chopping him with the FTRPs, but tried OIC doubt-as-to-liability.

CJIW (Chief Judge In Waiting) Kathleen (TBS = “The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan: “For the first time at trial, petitioner testified that he did not recall receiving the Letters 1153. Petitioner did not raise this issue during his CDP hearing and is precluded from challenging his underlying liabilities here.  See id.; Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3.

“Even if petitioner could challenge his underlying liabilities before this Court, his claims would fail. Petitioner does not dispute that he worked for [corp] and was responsible for its bank accounts. He testified that he was the responsible managing officer during the relevant tax periods. During trial petitioner raised the issue that he was coerced by the revenue officer into admitting that he was the responsible person for [corp] on the Form 4180. Even if his claim of coercion was true, it would not affect his status as the responsible person.” T. C. Memo. 2022-28, at pp. 7-8.

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 )

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: