LoserHead in Tax Court

[Nikki]

danama.1 discusses his recent experience in tax court. Note: Intervening, irrelevant post omitted and posts slightly formatted for readability.

My wife and I just went to TC in Columbia, SC on Monday.

It was not a pleasant experience. Very intimidating.

The Court did not acknowledge the stip of facts I sent in, nor did the District Counsel. DC told Court we couldn't reach agreement on ours when Court asked him if he had received Stips from us (he didn't even respond in any way--- which was admitting our facts as truth the way I had it set up) and Court wanted to know why he hadn't reached an agreement with us... he didn't answer!

Court then wanted to know why we didn't file stips. We did!

I filed a motion for Continuance on the grounds that DC was not acknowledging our stips and also referenced the filing of our 1040 for 2003 with correcting documents and a statement of facts... so the TC had that, too, and refused to acknowledge it. So, I was wondering if anyone has had experience in TC, do you think Court will admit our pleadings as evidence or not in our case, or can the Judge just totally ignore our filings?

[END FIRST POST]

Appreciate the reply. They're after my wife, who is almost hysterical over this. Hadn't filed because no income from a 'trade or business' --- just private sector earnings--- read CtC, found out how system worked, and filed 1040 with statement of facts, corrected k-1's with explanation, and all signed under penalty of perjury. Also included statement to the effect that if any info I sent in could be rebutted point for point with legal and valid authority from the statutes (signed under penalty of perjury by someone from their agency), adjustment would be made.

I received stips from CIR to admit or deny and had 30 days to answer. Answered within 30 days.

Admitted what I could (with clarification), denied what I could, claimed 5th on what I could.

Had notice from DC within stips they sent that if I don't answer, what they have stands in record.

They used some statutory language I wasn't familiar with concerning receiving 'distributive share of partnership'. I admitted amount listed, mailed response, THEN found out what they meant by 'distributive share of partnership' was NOT what I understood it to mean in my response.

I then sent DC stips of my own for them to admit or rebutt within 30 days (as they had done us), or their refusal to answer would be accepting all we stated as truth and binding upon them in any Court in the USA without protest or objection.

I also corrected the record concerning our distributions as being private-sector earnings or receipts exempt from income as they were not connected to any 'trade or business' within or from the US, and that my wife wasn't an officer, emloyer, or employee, ect.

(After I had sent in my response to their stips, I had sent in the 1040 with the accompanying documents (and I also sent a copy to the IRS Service Center just in case--- I figured one of them would file these and that would settle the issue before date of TC and we wouldn't have to go))

I sent a copy to the TC of what I sent to the DC (except for the 1040 stuff)which included my statement of facts for them to rebutt or agree to by silence.

[LPC]

read CtC, found out how system worked,

Now there's a non sequitur.

[grammarian44]

The folks obviously have a limited partnership that kicked out some income - like the partnership rolling up and having assets to distribute.

No actual distribution of income is required for them to have a reportable distributive share of partnership income. Even if the money stays in the partnership, LoserHead's share of partnership income is LoserHead income. That's probably what he failed to realize when he griped about not knowing the meaning of "distributive share."

[ASITStands]

The folks obviously have a limited partnership that kicked out some income - like the partnership rolling up and having assets to distribute.

No actual distribution of income is required for them to have a reportable distributive share of partnership income. Even if the money stays in the partnership, LoserHead's share of partnership income is LoserHead income. That's probably what he failed to realize when he griped about not knowing the meaning of "distributive share."

I thought it humorous that someone claiming to "know how the system works" [i.e., with such a great knowledge of tax theory] would not understand "reportable distributive shares of partnership income." Ignorance comes in all shapes and sizes.

Here's where LPC's lament regarding court decisions not being specific to TP errors will play out, though not in the TP's favor. Maybe we'll get a memorandum opinion.