Judge Mark V (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes dismisses the petition of Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, Docket No. 20835-19L, filed 9/5/23, without prejudice. IRS does not object.

I remain, after many years, at a loss how a petition in a lien/levy case (hence the “L” in the docket number) can be dismissed without prejudice. Section 6320(b)(2) allows but one (count it, one) fair hearing (CDP) per taxable period specified in the NFTL; Section 6330(b)(2) has an identical limitation for CDP in NITL cases. Section 6330(d)(1), applicable both to NITLs and NFTLs (the latter pursuant to Section 6330(c)), provides for the thirty-day SOL on petitions from both classes of CDP.

Yes, I know about equitable tolling. Boechler, P. C. resonates loud and clear. But if Emmanuel wants to try another petition later, why not seek a continuance, get his act together, and seek leave to amend later? Why drop the current petition, file a new one, pay another sixty Georges, and take the not-inconsiderable chance that the claim of equitable tolling doesn’t fly because he already timely petitioned, so why does he need equitable relief?

And why does IRS consent, unless they’re playing “gotcha!”, and will grab Emmanuel’s property now that the stay provided by Section 6330(e)(1) is lifted?

Puzzling. Any reader have any ideas? I see Emmanuel is represented by counsel; if they made a deal with IRS, why not enter a stiped decision?