Few provisions of US Code Title 26 befog pro se petitioners like Subtitle F, Chapter 65, Section 6404(h). Michael Thurston, Docket No. 7070-23, filed 7/21/23, is one such.

Mike timely petitions a SNOD. But he has neither NOD from a CDP where he raised Section 6404(e), nor IRS shootdown on a standalone, nor has he alleged the lapse of the 180-actionless-days-since-filing-claim.

When IRS moves to blow off Mike’s abatement of interest claim for want of jurisdiction, Mike responds thus.

“The present dispute concerns the Respondent’s final determination to disallow the Petitioner’s claim for head of household status and their failure to rectify the error of a stimulus check being issued to the wrong person. These issues fall within the subject matter of the suit and warrant the court’s consideration.” Order, at p. 3.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan says “No, it don’t,” only she says so much more elegantly.

“…even beyond the controlling jurisdictional parameters quoted above, insofar as these claims would appear to fall within the purview of the of the deficiency litigation properly before the Court, and would not appear to relate to interest abatement, no meaningful difference or perceptible harm has been identified.” Order, at p. 3.

Ch J TBS provides the checklist of the bases for specific Tax Court jurisdiction, all of which are absent here, and remarks on the basis for declaratory judgment.

“Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.” Order, at pp 2-3.

I think you meant “prerequisites”, Judge, “a prior condition for something else to happen or exist.” Perquisites are “special rights or privileges enjoyed as a result of one’s position”; what our UK cousins call “perks,” like exclusive access for Judges and STJs to the Judges’ Cafeteria.