In Uncategorized on 06/08/2022 at 19:22

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan certainly takes at least one-half of President Theodore Roosevelt’s advice. As we see today, the Chief does speak softly. And Deborah Lynn Johnson, Docket No. 13860-20L, filed 6/8/22, despite her fears, will not encounter any big stick.

Deborah Lynn “… checked boxes on the petition form indicating dispute of multiple types of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice….” Order, at p. 1. But all Deborah Lynn attached to her petition was a NOD from a CDP and from her request for Section 6015 innocent spousery for one (count it, one) year.

Now checking all the boxes on the Form 2 sounds like a rounder move to me. Especially when IRS moves to toss and strike “… so much of this case as purported to request redetermination of deficiency, redetermination of determination not to abate interest, redetermination of worker classification, redetermination of certification of seriously delinquent Federal tax debt, and redetermination of whistleblower action, on the grounds that no Notice of Deficiency, Notice of Final Determination for Disallowance of Internet Abatement Claim, Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the Department of State, or Notice of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action, had been issued to petitioner with respect to the taxable year [at issue] that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.” Order, at p. 1.

So Ch J TBS spends a page-and-a-half scheduling the jurisdictional bases for all the checked boxes, for none of which does Deborah Lynn qualify.

Responding to IRS’ avalanche, Deborah Lynn begs to be heard. She says she never was into anything but the CDP and innocent spousery.

“… petitioner seemed to suggest that confusion and a neurological disability may have led her to check boxes on the petition form that were not necessarily germane to instant case. Her overarching concern appeared to be that her disability and the harassment she has suffered be recognized and that she be heard. The Court would therefore reassure petitioner that, despite the technical matters being address [sic; should be “addressed”] by the respondent’s motions, petitioner’s case will remain before the Court, and she will have an opportunity to present her position as to her entitlement to relief under section 6015, I.R.C.” Order, at p. 3.

I could see IRS’ counsel assuming that this was a trial balloon for a new rounder tactic, like the old petition twenty years, and make IRS search for nonexistent SNODs and NODs in years long closed. Without more than the bare petition, I would have done as IRS did, and unloaded accordingly.

Anyway, Deborah Lynn will get her chance.


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: