Is No Go

Ex-Ch J L. Paige (“In Fist”) Marvel notoriously eschews frivolity. She therefore, instead of sending off Navdeep S. Dhaliwal, Docket No. 22082-21W, filed 3/4/26, as set forth hereinabove, turns to somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent to reach the same result.

Nav blew, the Ogden Sunseteers shipped his blow to Employment Tax (this was a misclassification IC-vs-EE), ET audited, got nothing, and the Ogden Sunseteers bpounded Nav, who petitions.

Nav is late with the petition, but Myers is a pre-Boechler, P.C., primordial evocation of equitable tolling.  See my blogpost “For Whom the Equitable Tolls,”4/10/20. Still, even if Nav could show he danced the equitable tolling two-step, he’d still lose as IRS got nothing, much less the $2 million Section 7623(b)(5)(B) affirmative defense IRS throws in his path.

Ex-Ch J Iron Fist is all business as always. She demolishes Nav’s arguments thus.

“Petitioner asks us to deny summary judgment because he disagrees with the revenue agent’s conclusions from the examination. We do not have the jurisdiction under section 7623(b)(4) to review or determine the target taxpayer’s tax liability. Carter v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. 141, 144 (2024) (first citing Cohen v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 299 (2012), aff’d, 500 F. App’x 10 (2014); then citing Cooper v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 597, 600–601 (2011); and then citingPulcine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-29). Nor do we have the jurisdiction to tell the IRS how to examine a taxpayer’s return, see Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 146, 167 (2019), abrogated on other grounds by Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014; direct the IRS to take administrative or judicial action, see Cooper, 136 T.C. at 600–601; or review the IRS’s decision not to assert that the target incorrectly reported its tax liability, Carter, 163 T.C. at 144 (citing Cooper, 136 T.C. at 600). The decision to formally assert an underpayment of tax or noncompliance with the Code against a taxpayer belongs solely to the IRS. See Cooper, 136 T.C. at 600–601 (‘Congress has charged the Secretary with the responsibility of seeking tax revenue in every possible situation.’).

“The record clearly shows that the IRS did not collect any proceeds from the Target using petitioner’s information.” Order, at p. 4.

I probably blogged all the cited cases, but if I missed one, I’ve left in all the cites here for your reading pleasure.