All y’all will recall Dean Matty Vigon, and his potential moto perpetuo with IRS over his allegedly phony 1041s and the Section 6702 chops arising therefrom. What, no? How fleeting is fame. Well, cast yer peepers on my blogpost  “Crafty – Akin to the Weasel,” 7/24/17.

Obviously, the trusty attorneys for Revenue Guard Medical Management Claims, L. L.  C., Docket No. 7243-21L, filed 2/10/23, were aware of same, because when IRS tried to withdraw the filed tax lien, and Appeals asked IRS to abate the taxes, add-ons, and chops for the year at issue here, claiming the SOL had run, said trusty attorneys (whom I’ll call the StoneMacs) wanted STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden to moot the case specifically because the SOL had run, lest IRS try the Dean Matty weasel gambit.

STJ Di says all she can do is review what Appeals did (requested abatement of tax, add-ons, and chops) for abuse of discretion. And since there is no collection activity pending (the lien is withdrawn), Greene-Thapedi, y’all.

The StoneMacs say Appeals never ruled on SOL, only requested abatement, and the Revenue Guards are entitled to determination on liability.

“Petitioner’s argument against granting respondent’s motion is premised on unsupported concerns that the IRS may still try to determine and assess liabilities against petitioner for the tax year in issue. The Court does not have any statutory authority to act on hypothetical concerns. What the IRS did—issuing an invalid notice of deficiency, assessing tax, additions to tax, penalties, and interest, proposing a levy, and filing a federal tax lien—has been reversed. The notice of deficiency that had been issued was determined to be invalid, the tax, additions to tax, penalties, and interest were abated, and the federal tax lien was withdrawn. There is not any current action by the IRS that the AO did not consider or that can be considered by the Court.” Order, at p. 3.

Y’all will recall that IRS told Judge David Gustafson that they were going to play the weasel gambit again in a couple years (hi Judge Holmes). Here, IRS had the wit to keep silent.

Also, in this case there was a SNOD, even though defective (wrongly addressed), unlike the assessable Section 6702 chops in Dean Matty’s case. So no chance to contest liability. And Appeals’ NOD admittedly “… is far from clear and contains some contradictory statements.” Order, at p. 2.

But at close of play, STJ Di leaves the Revenue Guards and the StoneMacs to tickler (to use an obsolete term) this issue to some future date.