Reliance on Murphy doesn't keep TP out of troubles

[Demosthenes]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

Petitioner’s attempt to cloak his argument of reasonable
cause in the initial Murphy decision is also unpersuasive.
First, as discussed above, the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit vacated its initial decision and has since determined
that damages for emotional distress are gross income. Further,
there is no evidence before the Court that petitioner performed
an analysis similar to that of the D.C. Circuit, nor that he
received any advice from a competent tax professional, at the
time he chose not to file a return for 2001.

As some of you may remember, Ballmer is the poster boy for Peymon's Freedom Law School.

[Imalawman]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

Petitioner’s attempt to cloak his argument of reasonable
cause in the initial Murphy decision is also unpersuasive.
First, as discussed above, the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit vacated its initial decision and has since determined
that damages for emotional distress are gross income. Further,
there is no evidence before the Court that petitioner performed
an analysis similar to that of the D.C. Circuit, nor that he
received any advice from a competent tax professional, at the
time he chose not to file a return for 2001.

As some of you may remember, Ballmer is the poster boy for Peymon's Freedom Law School.

Oh, how I loathe the Freedom "law school"..... glad to see them getting taken down - albeit slowly.

[Dezcad]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

Petitioner’s attempt to cloak his argument of reasonable
cause in the initial Murphy decision is also unpersuasive.
First, as discussed above, the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit vacated its initial decision and has since determined
that damages for emotional distress are gross income. Further,
there is no evidence before the Court that petitioner performed
an analysis similar to that of the D.C. Circuit, nor that he
received any advice from a competent tax professional, at the
time he chose not to file a return for 2001.

As some of you may remember, Ballmer is the poster boy for Peymon's Freedom Law School.

So he attempted to rely upon the 2006 Murphy decision to support his decision on April 15, 2002 that he was not required to file a return and report this income.

Kind of difficult to rely upon something that hadn't yet happened and didn't for 4 more years.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Wow, just when I thought humanity could not get stupider I went to the website:

FREEDOM LAW SCHOOL:
HOW TO WIN AN I.R.S. SUMMONS, EVERYTIME! A Practical method of winning an I.R.S. summons while maintaining your privacy and giving the I.R.S. no information to use against you, utilizing the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Well, duh. You "win" a summons, and then a few heafty fines, etc. You need not defend yourself becuase it would only make things better.

[Quixote]

So he attempted to rely upon the 2006 Murphy decision to support his decision on April 15, 2002 that he was not required to file a return and report this income.

Kind of difficult to rely upon something that hadn't yet happened and didn't for 4 more years.

Abatement requests based on causes that followed the ostensible effects by several months have worked to obtain administrative relief from the addition to tax under 6651(a)(1).

[LPC]

Whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6654(a) for the 2001 tax year. We hold that he is not.

A WIN!!!

[ASITStands]

Abatement requests based on causes that followed the ostensible effects by several months have worked to obtain administrative relief from the addition to tax under 6651(a)(1).

Sounds interesting. Can you give some examples?

[Quixote]

Abatement requests based on causes that followed the ostensible effects by several months have worked to obtain administrative relief from the addition to tax under 6651(a)(1).

Sounds interesting. Can you give some examples?

A woman filed her 2000 return in March, 2002. She wrote to the IRS requesting that the late filing and late payment penalties be abated because the IRS took 2 months to answer a question she submitted to them in December, 2001 [7+ months after the return and payment of the tax was due]. The IRS abated the penalties in full.

Perhaps the customer service representative was calendrically challenged. Perhaps he did not understand the concept of cause and effect.

[notorial dissent]

I’m confused here. Unless my memory has gone completely, Murphy was about interpretation as to whether one type of income was taxable where another similar one was not, and the court muddled around and made a mess of the original decision, but even that being granted, it only pertained to a type of medical compensation, and unless this dim bulb is claiming that that was her sole source of income for the year, even using Stevian logic, I can’t get to her not having any taxable income. As the court pointed out, her argument “is....unpersuasive...”, and to my way of thinking totally out of left field, or some field.

[LPC]

unless this dim bulb is claiming that that was her sole source of income for the year,

Not sole, but it was the major source of income for the year at issue. The petitioner had sued the California Franchise Tax Board for and got a jury award for $250,000 in damages for "emotional distress." He eventually received a check for $337,122.53, which included costs of $4,165.68, attorney’s fees of $78,450, and $4,506.85 of post-judgment interest.

[notorial dissent]

Then I can at least see where she came up with it from, still a lot of wishful thinking I’m a thinking on her part.

[jcolvin2]

Rather than argue reliance on a decision that postdated their return, the taxpayers could have argued that the fact that the first Murphy panel agreed with their position showed that it had "substantial authority." In order to avoid the substantial understatement component of the accuracy penalty, a taxpayer can show that his/her position was supported by "substantial authority." This is defined as authority which is "substantial" in comparison to the contrary authority. (helpful - I know) It does not seem a stretch to argue that the fact that an appellate panel agreed with the position showed that the position was supported by "substantial authority."

[ASITStands]

Rather than argue reliance on a decision that postdated their return, the taxpayers could have argued that the fact that the first Murphy panel agreed with their position showed that it had "substantial authority." In order to avoid the substantial understatement component of the accuracy penalty, a taxpayer can show that his/her position was supported by "substantial authority." This is defined as authority which is "substantial" in comparison to the contrary authority. (helpful - I know) It does not seem a stretch to argue that the fact that an appellate panel agreed with the position showed that the position was supported by "substantial authority."

Ah! So, the problem may really have been the incompetence of the petitioner in making the argument. Hadn't thought of that. Other than the face, of course, he was wrong.