If you take what you shouldn’t, but put it back, how much of it is taxable income? Ana M. Franklin, Docket No. 15054-21, filed 2/24/23, says none, IRS says all; in a companion case involving Ana’s deductions for legals and accountings, same story in reverse; Ana says all, IRS says none. In both, Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris says we need a trial.
Ana claims “a misunderstanding of the facts,” Order, at p. 2, and wants summary J.
Judge Paris draws “reasonable factual inferences” from what Ana submits, and what IRS ripostes.
“If only by inference, the submissions of the parties show an obvious factual dispute that far exceeds a simple ‘misunderstanding’ and that is most certainly material. At this stage of the proceedings, we view inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, here the respondent. That being so, petitioner has failed to show that the material facts are undisputed and that a decision in these consolidated cases can be rendered in her favor as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted).
Seems like a run-of-the-mill order, unworthy of a blogpost. But what Ana took and put back, and the legals and accountings she paid or incurred, are an interesting story.
I offer the following for the fact that it appeared, and not for the truth or otherwise therein set forth.
Taishoff Law 
You must be logged in to post a comment.