I’ve noted before that one of IRS’ favorite moves from its cubby of happy tricks, feints and ruses is to slip an argument, fact, or admission past a petitioner. I call it submarining.
Here, it’s a Rule 90 Request for Admissions. I am a fan of these. They save time, eliminate factual issues. Of course, one can try to submarine dubious facts and conclusions of law on one’s own account, but beware. Too much gameplaying destroys credibility.
Goldmark Manufacturing, Inc., Docket No. 17866-22, filed 4/30/24, isn’t necessarily an injured innocent, neither it nor its principal having bothered to file income tax returns for the four (count ’em, four) years at issue. Said principal was uncooperative at exam, thus provoking IRS to assert Section 6651(f)(1) fraudulent failure to file chops.
The obligatory discovery joust leaves Goldmark short-stacked for failure to Branerton and make Rule 72 prior requests, before asking for copies of checks that neither IRS nor Goldmark’s bank has, due to passage of time. Judge Courtney D (“CD”) Jones adverts to Section 6001 recordkeeping obligations, but never squarely places the burden on Goldmark. She gives IRS summary J on the deficiencies and one chop (more about that infra, as my expensive colleagues would say) because Goldmark has no facts.
But the submarine comes in when IRS pulls a Rule 90(f)(1) deemed-admitted. Now deemed admissions can support penalties. And for fraudulent failure, a Section 6020 SFR doesn’t count as a return. However, the badges-of-fraud are required, as is clear and convincing proof that failure was willful and fraudulent. Deemed admissions don’t cut it.
“Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment relies on the deemed admission that ‘[f]or [the taxable years at issue], petitioner is liable for the penalty for fraudulent failure to file under I.R.C. §[ ]6651(f) in the amounts determined in the statutory notice of deficiency . . . .’ Under Rule 90(a), a request for admission must ‘relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact.’ Respondent’s request for admission impermissibly seeks to admit a legal conclusion.” Order, at p. 10. (Citations omitted).
And without the deemed admission, IRS has only the Michael Corleone gambit, classical variation, to play on the fraudulent failure to file.
IRS does eke out a Section 6655 failure-to-pay-estimateds chop.
You must be logged in to post a comment.