Perkul - CFC Rejects TP Claim the IRS Filed "Counterfeit Securities and Billing Statements" Against Her

[jcolvin2]

https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/s ... cv0613-9-0

[Pottapaug1938]

Dismissed without prejudice? VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!

[wserra]

Another groyse chochem who believes that a Tax Court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction means that she wins. See her opp to the govt's motion to dismiss in the C.F.C.

ETA: I missed this first time around in the C.F.C. order:

Damn.

[notorial dissent]

I would say this is not someone who lacked money to pay her taxes, but rather someone who didn't want/intend to pay them.

[AndyK]

"Without prejudice" ???????

Is there any rational reason why the Court is allowing this maroon another bite at the apple?

[wserra]

Yes. The CFC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In order for either the DC or CFC to have jurisdiction, the plaintiff must have paid the tax owed, and be suing for a refund. So theoretically, Pekrul could pay the taxes, then sue again in CFC (or DC) for a refund.

Since, however, she owes over $4M, that seems very theoretical.

[AndyK]

Thanks. That's a totally rational and comprehensible legal explanation for the situation.

But!!! What's to stop a lunatic TP/TE from taking another trip down the same road; wasting court time and resources?

[KickahaOta]

"Without prejudice" ???????

Is there any rational reason why the Court is allowing this maroon another bite at the apple?

To give a slightly different take on the logic of this:
Legally, a dismissal with prejudice is considered to be a decision on the merits of the case. "Dismissed with prejudice" means "We hold that plaintiff's claims have no merit, and this holding is not only binding on this court system, but on any other court system that gives full faith and credit to the judgements of our system."

So in other words, if you go to a US District Court to press claim X, and the judge ultimately dismisses claim X with prejudice, you not only can't bring that claim in federal court again, but you can't bring it in state court either (since state courts are generally required to give full faith and credit to federal judgements).

If a court finds that it's without subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim -- as was true in this case -- that means that the court has no power to hear the merits of that claim.

So "This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; case dismissed with prejudice" is a contradiction in terms -- because if the court has no power to hear the merits of the case, it also has no power to tell other courts that they can't hear the merits of the case.

And yes, this is confusing, which is why it's not particularly uncommon for a trial court judge to wind up dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 'with prejudice', and for an appellate court to have to say 'We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, but otherwise affirm it'.

[notorial dissent]

Thanks, that actually makes a weird sort of sense.