Suzanne M. Frost, Docket No. 2287-21L, filed 4/1/24, is fighting both the seven-figure deficiency from two (count ’em, two) years of ex-spouse’s construction operation, and the interest and add-ons resulting therefrom.

IRS’ bankruptcy expert concedes that Year One add-ons (late filing, late paying) were due more than three (count ’em, three) years before Suzanne petitioned, as due on the April 15 of following tax year. Hence, though assessed and not disputed in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Year One add-ons are included in Suzanne’s discharge. See Order, at pp. 13-14, for the whole story about what is and isn’t discharged in bankruptcy. Might be a good question on the next EA exam.

But the rest of Suzanne’s taxes are in. IRS has both SNOD and CML (Certified Mailing List), and that the SNOD doesn’t have the certified mail number on it doesn’t matter. Suzanne’s claim she never got the SNOD doesn’t count, as it was mailed to last known address. Anyway, Suzanne had a chance to contest in the bankruptcy proceeding she filed, and didn’t contest.

Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland, though denying Suzanne summary J on anything, notes IRS waited seven (count ’em, seven) years before going after Suzanne, so Suzanne wants interest abated. IRS says Suzanne caused the delay when she filed FOIA claims and innocent spousery (denied). Judge Tex Copeland says those are fact questions, not suited for summary J.

As to innocent spousery, “(I)t is not clear from the record whether Ms. Frost received the final determination letter, the mailing of which is reflected on the CML. Neither party has produced a copy of the final determination letter; and, because of that, there are genuine issues of material fact relevant to the parties’ innocent spouse relief dispute.” Order, at p. 15. (Footnote omitted, but read it.).

“In his Motion, Respondent contends that Ms. Frost’s actual receipt of either the Notice of Deficiency or the final determination letter is unnecessary ‘to limit [her] from raising a spousal defense as the claim does not dispute the existence of the liability.’ Respondent cites no caselaw to support his position.” Order, at p. 15, footnote 20.

Innocent spousers, please copy.

A Taishoff “Good Try” to Suzanne trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Chris.