Leaderboard

I get that at the lower and mid levels of review by the service, they follow the rules a lot more closely. I guess what I was trying to say is that if you have a compelling case with facts and circumstances that are so similar that was ruled in favor of the taxpayer, you should still show it to the auditor. They may, and probably will, disregard it at the first and second levels of review. However, when you file the tax court petition, and you get kicked back to appeals for a final review before tax court, having that case documented in the file when the final review is done by the senior auditor can't hurt. I understand what you all are saying. I am just saying that if you have a case on point, use it. Hell, you might end up in front of the judge who made the ruling on the first case! I am definately going to keep this in my back pocket for future use. De minimis use of a home office for personal reasons (like the crazy crap of personal pictures on the wall or doing your personal bills at your desk) is now allowed by the tax court in my opinion, and I have a judge who ruled in a case to just that fact pattern. Tom Hollister, CA

Unfortunately, in our business, we must keep up with the goings on at the IRS and any pertinent political motivation behind any tax based subterfuge. We cannot separate politics from the IRS because the IRS is politics. How do politicians get more votes? They make tax changes that the IRS must enforce. How do politicians raise more money for themselves? They give sweet tax breaks to their friends. Legally done by voting tax changes and loopholes into law. A problem exists if the IRS is no longer administering tax law, but is impeding the administration of tax law. By whose authority did this happen? Was it a rogue individual? Or part of a bigger issue. I don't know the answer, but I would like to be given all the facts.

Justice Department Admits that the Federal Government Has ALL of Lois Lerner’s Emails Judicial Watch just dropped a bombshell in the IRS targeting investigation. Department of Justice attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service told Judicial Watch on Friday that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system. We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan. This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails. There are no “missing” Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be – but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice. “Jaw-dropping” is right. The IRS has been telling a tale about the emails not only of Lois Lerner but also several other key IRS targeting scandal figures. That tale has been coming from no less than the current director of the IRS. In disclosing that Lerner’s (and others’) emails still exist, the DOJ also said, essentially, that it thinks searching for those emails would be too much work. Would that excuse fly with the DOJ or the IRS, or would they frog-march anyone who used that excuse straight to a squad car? And while that "too onerous to search" argument might work against Judicial Watch, it shouldn't work against Congress!

I think any comments about IRS shortcomings is appropriate whether the administration is conservative or liberal. For example, if an IRS official is found to be cheating on his own taxes, I think comments on this forum about it might be construed as political somewhat, but nevertheless appropriate for a tax forum.

I just finished 2010 through 2013 for a four year non-filer. He is picking them up this afternoon. Yesterday he called to tell me that he had received the first letter from the IRS and was appalled that they could charge him (so much) interest and penalties. He really thought that he should try to play the "Let's make a Deal" game. I told him to be thankful if they don't disallow some of his deductions and prepare to pay up. He has excellent documentation, but they also are aware of his assets as the transcripts they furnished me with clearly show. What makes one man think that he is above the rules? I got a healthy retainer up front and a second installment halfway through, for which I am thankful. He did admit that he expected his final debt to be much more. For instance, how can you draw 30 K out of a 401; no taxes withheld; add it to SE income and not expect to owe the IRS? I just don't understand some people, but do appreciate the fact that he came to me to help him out of this mess. Turned out, one year he didn't even owe anything.

I must assume that you, as a former auditor (for the Service, I suppose), realise that my entire point dealt with how to present a case to the Appeals Officer - who determines if a case may reasonably be referred to Tax Court(the number of cases that actually make it from Appeals to the Court is minimal); I also must assume that you are familiar with the fact that Appeals is the only 'part' of the IRS that has not merely the permission but the authority and requirement to consider - Oh, so delightful phrase! - 'the hazards of litigation.' Please. By the way, despite my various assumptions, please be assured that it is not my intention to make an a** out of you or me. Live long and prosper.

That's my feeling too, Makes me wonder if they were just buying time to 'doctor' them? In the past, I never liked them, but I trusted them to deal honestly with taxpayers. Now, that's gone.

Well it's more than a political topic - we all deal with the agency on a daily basis. To see it used as a weapon against the citizens it is supposed to serve (as alleged, and as stinks to high heavens) affects all of us, and our clients. Thanks for sharing this. (And anyone who knows software or standard procedure knew these systems were being backed up multiple times, and the excuse was just that - an excuse - and a lame one at that.)

Fraz, you expressed it so well. That's why I feel this one is the 'exception'. Thanks for understanding so well. [And what did you think about the squirrel solution?]

When you were an auditor, auditors were trained and experienced. There is no comparison to the people performing audits now. Comparing apples to light bulbs.

You are partly corect; whilst a summary Tax Court ruling cannot, by statute, have precedential value (anymore than a Private Letter Ruling issued by the Office of Chief Counsel to TP 'A' can have precedential value for TPs 'B','C'.....n), nevertheless, such a summary decision may be incorporated into the plaintiff's argument as a whole to show that the position in question is not primafacially dismissable and, thus, worthy of being judged on its particular merits.