Attorney-at-Law

ABROAD AT HOME – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 08/14/2023 at 15:24

Zola Jane Pugh, 160 T. C. 2, filed 8/14/23, has discovered that, notwithstanding she had her US passport renewal denied for seriously delinquent tax debt per Section 7345, petitioned said denial, and twice failed to reply to IRS’ summary J motions, she “as an alien foreign national, is exempt from taxation and has been all her life.”  160 T. C. 2, at p. 3.

Keeping a straight face, Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland notes parenthetically ” (Ms. Pugh provided no documentation or other supporting evidence for this claim.)”. Ibid., as my expensive colleagues would say.

So Zola Jane wants to dismiss her petition. I can see a CDP with the protester “not a Federal citizen” jive coming; check out 160 T. C. 2, at p. 3, footnote 4: “In her Petition, Ms. Pugh checked the box indicating that she had received a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action. We dismissed that claim for lack of jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 because the Commissioner confirmed that Ms. Pugh had not received such a notice. However, we retained the case because we have jurisdiction to hear the section 7345(e) claim that Ms. Pugh conveyed in the remaining portions of the Petition.”

So again we have the deficiency-vs-everything-else trudge. I suppose it’s now too late to suggest that Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan amend the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure to incorporate FRCP 41 wherever the bar of Section 7459(d) does not prevent.

Though IRS at first objects to dismissal, they relent, despite the two (count ’em, two) summary J motions that Zola Jane ignored. “… we do not see sufficient grounds to second-guess the Commissioner’s assertion that he will not be prejudiced by dismissal. In fact, upon dismissal the Commissioner’s certification of Ms. Pugh as an individual with a ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’ will remain in place. We conclude that the Commissioner will not suffer clear legal prejudice if we grant Ms. Pugh’s Motion, in effect treating this case as if it had never been commenced.” 160 T. C. 2, at p. 6.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.