August 23, 2019 at 4:07 am #2635
So I’ve been making a habit to read the new TC cases every day before I go to bed. I have to admit that some of these cases I read with the same enthusiasm my daughter had when she was 13 reading the Harlequin romance novels.
Today’s case (Dodd, TC. Memo 2019-107) started off great. Dodd filed a return with a $1 mil pass through gain and didn’t pay the tax. She had a §6330 hearing and wanted to contest the underlying liability but the SO closed the case prematurely and didn’t allow her to contest the liability.
Dodd filed a TC petition and TC remanded it back to Appeals after respondent admitted SO abused her discretion. Dodd ended up with the same Settlement Officer who, in the subsequent CDP hearing, closed the case the following day when the TP did not providing an amended return. Apparently Dodd had questions about how amended returns work and the SO closed the case without giving her an opportunity to properly challenge the liability.
So it goes back to TC and respondent moves for summary judgment because Dodd never gave the 1040X to the SO.
I’m reading this waiting to see how the court reviews the underlying liability and I’m mentally cheering on Dodd who’s appearing pro se. Summary judgement- denied (more cheers for Dodd!)
I’m on page 8 of 11 and now we get to the point where the memo talks about the case being reviewed de novo. But I’m wondering how they’re going to cover a million dollar pass through gain in just 3 pages. I’m on page 10 and the decision is that the SO abused their discretion not once but twice (go Dodd go!).
I flip to page 11 – remanded back to Appeals (with the court’s suggestion they find Dodd a new SO).
I feel cheated. If it gets settled in Appeals I’ll never know how she made out.August 23, 2019 at 2:15 pm #2636
Great prose of your Tax Court reading experience!August 23, 2019 at 5:57 pm #2638
I guess I am surprised that a pro se taxpayer was successful on a 6330 petition AT ALL!August 23, 2019 at 6:29 pm #2639
Whenever page 1 reads “pro se” I think to myself… “oh boy, here we go”!August 23, 2019 at 10:12 pm #2641
With 80-85% of cases going Pro Se, there is a huge opportunity for we practitioners.
If only we could reach more of them.
I have a feeling they called for counsel, but the estimated cost was beyond their financial reach.August 24, 2019 at 12:30 am #2644
Thanks for bringing that one to our attention – and you’re right, if Appeals handles it (new SO indeed!!) we won’t know, but petitioner is rather persistent and that’s good news so far.
Pro se isn’t always a good thing, but often the judge will assist the petitioner more when they are pro se.August 28, 2019 at 8:45 pm #2650
Wow guys, this amounted to fun reading… 🙂
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.