As the poker players say. That means the best possible hand, given the community cards, what cards the player holds, and what other cards remain in the hands of the other player(s), undealt, or mucked. IRS has such a hand in Roy A. Nutt and Bonnie W. Nutt, 160 T. C. 10, filed 5/2/23.

Roy and Bonnie e-filed their petition at 11:05 p.m., local time, on the last day per the SNOD. Problem was, local time was CDT, as Roy and Bonnie resided in AL. Alas, Rule 22(c) says a “paper will be considered timely filed if it is electronically filed at or before 11:59 p.m., eastern time, on the last day of the applicable period for filing.”

Judge Ronald L (“Ingenuity”) Buch also finds that FRCP 6(a)(4) requires filing in the court’s time zone on the cutoff date.

And the DAWSON website instructions for filing petitions says the same.

Section 7502 mailed-is-filed, doesn’t help, as technophobic Congress only included snail mail and PDS in the category of the saved, not electronic means.

The old 6:00 a.m. the day after, more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “Technologically Challenged,” 3/21/16, is ancient history.

So Ron’s and Bonnie’s filing was too late by six (count ’em, six) minutes, as their filing hit the Glasshouse computer at 12:05 a.m., the day after the last day to file.

If it’s any consolation, AFAIK Ron and Bonnie hold the record for the latest bounced petition from a SNOD.

Taishoff says this rule, though a classic “bright-line” easy of application and ironclad of proof, seriously shortchanges citizens and taxpayers in the Far West and across the Pacific. The US tax system and therefore Tax Court’s jurisdiction is worldwide. Why should we in the Eastern time-zone catch a break denied to our fellow citizens in Samoa and Guam?

Islander

Good-faith belief in one’s Virgin (Islander) status is insufficient, says 11 Cir. Wherefore, no summary J for Estate of Anthony R. Tanner, Deceased, Marglen M. Tanner, Personal Representative, T. C. Memo. 2023-54, filed 5/1/23. This, more or less, is a reprise of Tice, for which see my blogpost “Cruising the Virgins,” 4/10/23.

The late Anthony, prior to becoming the late Anthony, filed with VIBIR for the two (count ’em, two) years at issue, both of them pre-2008 and thus not subject to the Reg. Section 1.932-1(c)(2)(ii) good-faith out if filed with VIBIR and carried over to IRS.

The Estate tries the same move that Dave Tice made, panning the Reg. for APA and due process, but that fails for the same reasons as in Tice.

No one can find the carried-over VIBIR return for Year Two, so Judge Buch can’t decide what was filed. Taishoff says on that basis, with Estate having BoP, they’re losing that one on the trial.

As for Year One, it’s a question of fact whether the late Anthony was or was not a bona fide Virgin (Islander). Hulett (ex-Coffey) says good faith is not enough, and that’s an 11 Cir case. This case is Golsenized to 11 Cir.

“Because the Eleventh Circuit has squarely held that Mr. Tanner had to be a bona fide USVI resident for his USVI returns to trigger section 6501(a), and we must presume for purposes of deciding this Motion that he was not one, we cannot grant summary judgment on this ground.” T. C. Memo. 2023-54, at p. 9.

Note that the SNOD was issued ten (count ’em, ten) years after the second year at issue’s return was filed. Exactly how the Estate is to prove the late Anthony’s Virginity is a good question.

This headline is almost longer than CSTJ Lewis (“The Magnificent Name”) Carluzzo’s opinion in Nick A. Kolev, T. C. Memo. 2023-53, filed 5/1/23. In fact, this three-pager is the shortest T. C. Memo. I’ve seen in many a long day.

Nick’s refund got nicked for $881.92 by the local child support crew, but Nick claims he and loved-once worked it out between themselves so the local supporters’ nick was “fraudulent.” Except Nick claimed a credit for the $881.92 on his year at issue return, which IRS first allowed, and then on the same day disallowed.

No one questions the total tax due shown on Nick’s return. IRS assessed that exact amount. “It appears that the assessment was made pursuant to section 6201(a)(3), which authorizes respondent to summarily assess erroneous federal income tax prepayment credits. Although no explanation for the reassessment has been provided, perhaps the credit was treated as a prepayment credit because the credit was claimed in the area of the return where income tax prepayment credits are claimed.” T. C. Memo. 2023-53, at p. 2.

Almost two (count ’em, two) years later, IRS gives Nick a SNOD at no extra charge. Except the amount of deficiency shown is “$0.00.”

“The Notice [SNOD] references the credit and includes the amount of the credit in the ‘balance due,’ but it identifies the credit as an “adjustment to prepayment credits not subject to deficiency’ procedures.” T. C. Memo. 2023-53, at p. 2.

Nick agrees (“more or less”) that he’s not entitled to a Federal tax credit, but he wants the money back from the local supporters. He doesn’t put in evidence whatever notices he got from the local supporters.

That’s the lesser of Nick’s problems. Has Tax Court jurisdiction at all?

IRS claims at trial there’s a deficiency for the claimed $881.92 credit. But that’s not what the SNOD says. “Respondent claims that although the Notice [SNOD] shows a zero deficiency, there is actually an $881.92 deficiency in petitioner’s [year at issue] federal income tax because petitioner subtracted the credit from his [year at issue] tax liability. Petitioner’s return, however, shows otherwise;  although the credit increased petitioner’s refund, it did not reduce his income tax liability as shown on the return. Respondent described the manner in which the Notice [SNOD] was drafted as some sort of mistake and argued that the Court should proceed as though the credit reduced the amount of tax shown on the return. Mathematically and in reality, however, it did not.” T. C. Memo. 2023-53, at p. 3. (Footnote omitted, but it says this isn’t a case of an ambiguous SNOD; the SNOD clearly says “Deficiency $0.00.”). And the SNOD says the overstated credit is not subject to deficiency procedures.

No deficiency, hence no jurisdiction.

Another vanishing act worthy of Penn and Teller.