Attorney-at-Law

RIGHT YOU ARE

In Uncategorized on 06/03/2022 at 16:30

If You Think You Are

As I’ve said before, my grasp of the Italian language is extremely limited; see my blogpost “Che Si Firma È Perdutto,” 2/17/17. Wherefore I beg pardon for my attempt at Englishing the title of Luigi (“Great Name!”) Pirandello’s 1917 proto-Surrealist drama.

But it does furnish me with another soapbox for my denunciation of Boechler and the Supremes’ endeavor “to bring some discipline to use of the jurisdictional label.” Boechler, at p. 3.

Jennifer Wagner’s petition was filed a mere 1,754 days after issuance of the SNOD, which petition she now wishes to dismiss without prejudice.

Well, why not? With equitable tolling and the Supremes’ indulgence, she can come back in another four years and try again. The 90-150 day cutoff in Section 6213(a) is now, like Mr. Depp’s pirates’ Code, “guidelines…aspirational goals.”

While Jennifer says nothing about her four-year delay, “…citing Internal Revenue Manual 35.8.1.3.1 (Aug. 15, 2019) (we note that petitioner incorrectly refers to this as part of the Internal Revenue Code)  and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), petitioner requests that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice because ‘this Court does not have to make a decision regarding the deficiency and the Commissioner will not suffer any prejudice.’” Order, at p. 1.

While Jennifer moves the IRM into the IRC, she misses Section 7459(d), which says that when a petition is tossed otherwise than for jurisdiction, IRS wins whatever they asked for in the SNOD.

Judge Tamara Ashford is appropriately chastened by the High Court’s pronunciamento.

“In the instant deficiency case, it would be helpful for the Court to hear from petitioner regarding the aforementioned two issues that have not been addressed in her motion.” Order, at p. 2.

It seems Jennifer has counsel. l was unable to reach him directly at time of publication, but will attempt to reach him for comment by email. I will publish any on-the-record response unedited and in full. But the tactic is interesting, and I crave enlightenment.

Btw, the case is Jennifer Wagner, Docket No. 16891-21, filed 6/3/22.

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: