In Uncategorized on 06/24/2022 at 18:50

I gave Gina E. Lewis’, Docket No. 12930-18, filed 6/24/22, trusty attorney a Taishoff “Good Try, First Class,” for his cannily and craftily drafted Section 7430(g) qualified offer, in my blogpost “Innocence Disqualified,” 3/3/22. Trusty attorney allowed assessment of the whole boat set forth in the SNOD, but reserved rights to claim OIC, innocent spousery, and whatever else he could think of. IRS folded, Gina sought 7430 admins and legals, but Judge Pugh shoots down the QO because it never specified the dollar amount conceded, only that assessment was conceded.

Now trusty attorney wants vacation. He starts by claiming no jurisdiction, as SNOD not sent to Gina’s last known address.

Nonstarter. “A notice of deficiency not mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address can still be valid. If the mailing results in the taxpayer actually receiving notice with ample time remaining to timely file a petition, it meets the conditions of section 6212(a) ‘no matter to what address the notice successfully was sent.’ In a limited but established line of cases, incorrectly addressed notices have resulted in our jurisdiction where the taxpayer receives ‘actual notice [of the contents of the deficiency notice] without prejudicial delay.’ By providing the safe harbor of section 6212(b), Congress did not intend to invalidate actual rather than constructive methods of communicating respondent’s determination.” Order, at pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted). And Gina’s petition was timely, even though she only heard a “rumor” that a SNOD had issued, so filed a “protective” petition, Order, at p. 4.

Well, SOL had run when SNOD issued.


“Answering petitioner’s amended petition, respondent stated that petitioner executed a Form 872, Consent to Extend Time to Assess Tax, extending the statute of limitations for the years in issue to May 11, 2018. Petitioner acknowledges that she extended the statute of limitation to this date, but averred in her petition that it was under duress. It is the taxpayer’s burden to affirmatively show the written consent is not valid. Petitioner has not carried this burden, and does not appear to dispute that the statute of limitations expired on May 11, 2018, in her motion to vacate. Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency on March 28, 2018, before the period of limitations for assessment of tax for the years is [sic; should be “in”] issue expired.” Order, at pp. 2-3. (Citation omitted).

Remember, Gina and trusty attorney refused to sign a stip of settlement, despite Judge Pugh’s pushing them. So IRS folded (maybe former spouse did stump up the deficiencies).

“Petitioner may have adopted her strategy (of refusing to agree to a settlement stipulation) to ensure she could avail herself of the qualified offer provision in section 7430(c)(4)(E)(i), as we discussed in our opinion, see Lewis, 158 T.C., slip op. at 6 n.6,  but having done so to preserve that argument she must accept the consequences of the failure to reach an agreement. We agree with respondent’s characterization that ‘[p]etitioner effectively is arguing both sides. On one hand, [p]etitioner has argued that all issues were resolved (by filing the motion for litigation costs) and on the other hand, [p]etitioner argues that certain matters were not resolved in the Motion [to vacate or revise].’” Order, at p. 8.

Whatever, no vacation.  But trusty attorney put on a good show, and he did get Gina off the hook on the SNOD.


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 )

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: