August 6, 2019 at 10:25 pm #2591
We get someone being scammed by a Nigerian general trying to deduct their loss on Schedule C as a business expense.August 7, 2019 at 12:27 am #2594
WOW. The phrase “a fool and his money are quickly parted” comes to mind.
The comedy errors in this case are hard to read about. It’s like watching a car crash….. and then back up and crash again. Come on man!August 7, 2019 at 6:18 am #2599
THANKS David for the case…It reaffirms how the use of Section 162 is scrutinized by Court prism….August 7, 2019 at 1:34 pm #2601
The petitioner was well educated at that. All his years in International Finance and Corporate Finance, you’d have thought he would know better. No doubt California has been watching this one.August 7, 2019 at 6:41 pm #2602
Or you wonder how someone that high up the corporate ladder could have been incredibly and moronically taken by such an obvious scam.August 21, 2019 at 6:10 pm #2625
Question, also related to the joint petitions for married couples…the case references only the husband petitioner (Kent Wegener), stating: On September 14, 2018, respondent moved to dismiss Shinae Wegener as a petitioner for failure to prosecute. We granted respondent’s motion.
Why was the wife excluded from the case? Because she did not sign it as a joint petitioner?August 21, 2019 at 9:57 pm #2627
Heather – where is that mentioned? I skimmed trying to find it to see if I could answer your question, but I didn’t see the reference.
SherrillAugust 22, 2019 at 1:04 pm #2633
The comment of wife being dismissed from the case is in the footnote on Page 1. Good eye Heather. I hadn’t caught that either.August 22, 2019 at 1:17 pm #2634
I was looking at footnotes but missed the first one: 1 On September 14, 2018, respondent moved to dismiss Shinae Wegener as a
petitioner for failure to prosecute. We granted respondent’s motion.
Ok, there wasn’t a lot of info about that, but generally what when that happens it’s because the petitioner has failed to do anything once the petition is filed – they don’t respond to any attempts by respondent to settle the case, probably didn’t appear at Branerton, probably didn’t do the stipulations or any formal discovery. So the Tax Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over her because she didn’t play by any of the rules. They did have jurisdiction over the husband (petitioner) and a decision has been rendered against him which is binding, unless he went to court of appeals. IRS can go after her and she can’t go back to Tax Court on this matter because she had this opportunity.
I didn’t get enough info in my quick skim that she might be eligible for 6015 relief or anything else – did anyone?
Agree, Heather has an eagle eye!!August 23, 2019 at 2:30 pm #2637
Not enough information to consider Innocent Spouse. She basically dropped from the picture. It all sounded as if he acted alone in the decision making to draw the moneys and sign the contracts.August 24, 2019 at 12:35 am #2646
If there was a hint of 6015 I think it might have come out in the case … so she dropped out for some reason but “failure to prosecute” usually indicates a lack of effort on petitioner’s part as I noted. You’ll see it a lot if you attend a calendar call – respondent’s counsel will say they made many attempts, but petitioner failed to work with them, and of course, petitioner isn’t even at calendar call.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.