MAKE THE CALL...

[.]

We did file, [just not] in the way that they wanted us to

That good ol' TP attitude is never very far beneath the surface.

[webhick]

I'm not that familiar with gottago's history (since her history on the old board is still MIA), but it sounds to me like she and her husband are trying to dig themselves out of a TP mess.

So, could someone explain to me why we keep kicking her in the head?

[The Observer]

There are some SFR's in the system that were configured as "married filing separate" for a couple of years. I don't really understand how this works.

If SFR's are still in system I do not think they would process an OIC, all returns have to be filed by taxpayer

No, the IRS will accept offers based on the SFR amounts and will not require the taxpayer to submit an original return as a pre-condition for processing of the offer. Of course, if the taxpayer has submitted an original return prior to the offer being submitted or during its processing/investigation, the IRS will typically process the original return and amend the assessment to reflect the accepted return. This will delay the investigation of the offer until the assessment is corrected.

[The Observer]

I'm not that familiar with gottago's history (since her history on the old board is still MIA), but it sounds to me like she and her husband are trying to dig themselves out of a TP mess.

So, could someone explain to me why we keep kicking her in the head?

I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with why she keeps putting posts up here trying to blame in any way possible the IRS, the government, Demo and anyone else for her situation. Or perhaps it could be because she has gotten a ton of advice here of how to lower her tax liability legitimately and correctly, only to spurn that advice and to insist on doing something entirely different that is more costly, stressful, inefficient and dramatic. Then again, it could just be that we are just a bunch of sadistic vultures who set up this site for the specific purpose of luring poor innocents in so that we can make sport of their troubles for which they had no responsibility.

[Bud Dickman]

Observer wrote
No, the IRS will accept offers based on the SFR amounts and will not require the taxpayer to submit an original return as a pre-condition for processing of the offer. Of course, if the taxpayer has submitted an original return prior to the offer being submitted or during its processing/investigation, the IRS will typically process the original return and amend the assessment to reflect the accepted return. This will delay the investigation of the offer until the assessment is corrected.


Often Exam will assess a few years SFR and code another year as return not needed to be filed.

I see the OIC Svc Ctr close out these offers as not processable – reason, not all returns were not filed

[The Observer]

Observer wrote
No, the IRS will accept offers based on the SFR amounts and will not require the taxpayer to submit an original return as a pre-condition for processing of the offer. Of course, if the taxpayer has submitted an original return prior to the offer being submitted or during its processing/investigation, the IRS will typically process the original return and amend the assessment to reflect the accepted return. This will delay the investigation of the offer until the assessment is corrected.


Often Exam will assess a few years SFR and code another year as return not needed to be filed.

I see the OIC Svc Ctr close out these offers as not processable – reason, not all returns were not filed

Yes, but that is because the offer specialist determines that the taxpayer is indeed liable to file a return for that year - I am imagining that is because the offer investigation revealed that the taxpayer received income that would have triggered the filing requirement.

[gottago]

As previously stated, amended returns for all years covered by the OIC were filed by us at the IRS office prior to the OIC being submitted. We did exactly what the attorney told us to do at the time.

I am not blaming anyone other than myself for my situation and am trying to the best of my ability to resolve this situation and move on. I have paid and paid dearly for being party to an ignorant decision by my spouse to follow the bullshit of Schiff and others. Sadly, there is no rewind button on life.

I simply made a post to ask some questions and seek insight related to the multiple IRS offices sending letters to me. It was posted in a different area but moved by one of the moderators to make sure, as always, it turns into the obligatory insults and name calling. You are welcome to whatever satisfaction you derive from that.

I do thank those of you who have responded to my questions in a helpful and informative manner.

[The Observer]

I simply made a post to ask some questions and seek insight related to the multiple IRS offices sending letters to me. It was posted in a different area but moved by one of the moderators to make sure, as always, it turns into the obligatory insults and name calling. You are welcome to whatever satisfaction you derive from that.

And if you had decided not to editorialize your request for assistance by maintaining that you "...did file, not just in the way that they [IRS] wanted us to...", you would have avoided the resulting criticism. Filing frivolous returns is not considered complying with the requirements of the law. Therefore you never filed returns and that is why the IRS filed returns for you.

It is because you keep trying to shove some portion of blame over to the government's shoulders for your actions that you still get "insulted" here. Try accepting full and unconditional responsibility for what you initiated and see what kind of criticism you get as a result.

[.]

Worse yet, she claimed that virtually all of the liability was due to failure to document capital losses by her day-trading whiz of a husband who lost about $40K instead of making money.

I previously found and still find the failure to document this very hard to believe, considering that brokerages are required to maintain records for many years and capital losses would have been extremely easy to prove to the IRS, even at this late date.

Perhaps she and the IRS were both so totally incompetent and incapable that they couldn't figure out how to document the obvious.

Not likely. The entire story smells. Her every post reeks of TP "attitude." She keeps coming back for more. She's full of it.

[gottago]

Same song, different verse.......

[Quixote]

Same song, different verse.......

No it's the same verse. The inconvenience of documenting your husband's basis in the stocks he sold is a cake walk compared to the hell you're putting yourself through. It doesn't make any sense that you would not take that simple step to avoid a considerable tax liability.

[jkeeb]

I am curious. If a taxpayer went to tax court regarding an SFR and did not document losses, and loses; on paying the tax, will a court consider a refund claim or does res judicata apply?

[LPC]

If a taxpayer went to tax court regarding an SFR and did not document losses, and loses; on paying the tax, will a court consider a refund claim or does res judicata apply?

My recollection is that re judicata applies.

In other words, if you file a Tax Court petition and lose on the merits, you can't later file a refund claim on the same issue.

(I'm not sure whether you can file a refund claim on a different issue.)

[gottago]

It would not be a simple thing to obtain the reports for the thousands of trades made during those years. It would cost us about another $2500 to hire someone to prepare new returns, even if we were able to obtain the records from all of the online brokerages he used. I am also unable to document (date/time/place/amount) of every time we lost money in the casinos 7-10 years ago when we lived in NV to prove that there was no overall gain to us from gambling.

In any event, it would not change our current financial situation and would not create money to pay what we do owe for those years covered by the OIC. If they reject the OIC I expect we will be headed to bankruptcy and continue to work toward the resolution of the problem.

[Disilloosianed]

I don't know how to deal with the online brokerages, but casinos, if you are a big enough player (or a small-time player with a club card) usually keep track of that info automatically and send you a 1099 if they feel it's warranted. If you were a regular, it might be worth your time to contact the casinos you hit the most often.

[gottago]

The win and loss statements from the casinos are not adequate proof to the IRS that you did or did not derive income from gambling. The casinos 1099 you for every individual win of $1200 or more.

What the IRS wants is a log of each time you gamble. This needs to include the date and time, name of casino, number of each slot machine or table you play at, the total amount you won or lost at each machine or table and the name of people with you at the time. The casino has records of money in and money out on slot machines only if you use one of their electronic "players club" type cards.

[Nikki]

Did you gamble with chips or just dump money into the slots?

If you bought chips, was it for cash, check, credit, casino account?


Did you make ATM withdrawals to purchase the change or chips?

If you make a valient effort to reconstruct some form of paper trail, the Service will help you with it.

[gottago]

Did you gamble with chips or just dump money into the slots?

yes to both questions

If you bought chips, was it for cash, check, credit, casino account?

yes, sometimes, no, no



Did you make ATM withdrawals to purchase the change or chips?

sometimes

If you make a valient effort to reconstruct some form of paper trail, the Service will help you with it.

I no longer have bank statements from 1997-2000 and did not keep the requisite log

[Nikki]

I'll bet you the entire amount of your tax liability that your bank can recreate those statements within one month of your requesting them. Did you ever think of asking for them?

[.]

LOL.

The only part of her story that I've found to be at all credible is that her idiot ex-husband lost 40K day-trading.

Other than that, I've concluded that both of them were too lazy or stupid to get easily available trading records to dispute the assessments back when it mattered. And, according to her, the undocumented stock trades were more than 95% of the problem, so gambling was a pittance in the relative scheme of things.

She said that something like $1.5 mill in taxes were due. That implies something around a $4.5 to $5 mill gross sale amount (assuming 100% STCG, he was a "day-trader," supposedly) to generate the tax due assuming a zero basis. The IRS got the proceeds amounts from one or more broker 1099s. I'll guess one or two, but it doesn't matter, it wasn't 10 or 20. Gottago and her idiot husband never managed to provide any proof of basis, even though they had many years to do so, and when would have been easy to do so.

Waste a half a decade feeling sorry for yourself and it all seems moot, even though it may not be. Brokers may retain records even though the law and regs may not require them to do so. If you don't ask, there's no chance you'll get an answer.

Perhaps she just like to wallow in her misery. In any case, she's full of it.