The new summary J dodge seems to be redacting the documents presented to the Judge or STJ (seemingly on consent; see my blogpost “It’s All Yours,” 12/27/23), apparently hoping the missing information will avoid judicial scrutiny.

Except it doesn’t.

Here’s CSTJ Lewis (“Wotta Name!”) Carluzzo to tell you why, in CSI 3000, Inc., 32381-21L, filed 12/28/23.  The only remaining issue in this CDP case is the failure-to-pay-timely add-on, for which petitioner claimed reasonable cause, and which petitioner raised at Appeals in an abatement hearing, but was rejected prior to the CDP hearing.

“For purposes of cases such as this one, petitioner’s position is considered a challenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability. According to respondent, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability in this proceeding because petitioner had a prior opportunity to do so. See I.R.C. section 6330(c)(2)(B). The administrative record shows that petitioner’s claim to abatement of the addition to tax on the basis of reasonable cause was considered and rejected by respondent’s Office of Appeals (abatement hearing) prior to the administrative hearing contemplated in I.R.C. section 6330. Much of the report generated from the abatement hearing has been redacted, apparently by agreement between the parties. Other than the outcome of the abatement hearing, the full extent of what occurred during that proceeding is not entirely clear.” Order, at p. 1. (Citation omitted).

IRS wants summary J, but when CSTJ Lew holds a hearing, IRS suggests remand as a fallback.

“We see little point in doing so. It is clear that respondent’s settlement officer considered petitioner’s claim, even if relying only upon the reasoning and outcome of the abatement hearing. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement with respect to petitioner’s underlying liability then the next step is to proceed to trial for a de novo review of petitioner’s challenge to the underlying liability.” Order, at p. 2.

Seems nowadays that only judges and journos take Section 7461 seriously.

Word to litigants on both sides: Tax Court proceedings are public, guys. The more you try to hide, the more you shine the spotlight. Tell the whole story; it’s so much easier.