Quatloos!

Many of the documents filed by Tax Court petitioners (taxpayers) have serious identifying information on them including SSN, bank account numbers, addresses, income, employers, etc.

This information usually is filed when the taxpayer, instead of simply filling out and submitting a Tax Court Petition, submits copies of some of the underlying IRS correspondence and form letters.

Among the worst cases are copies of "we recomputed your taxes" with everything an identity thief would love to get.

Thus, non-court-generated documents are only available in person at the main Tax Court in Washington DC. And, getting copies of the documents there is seriously not easy.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that "continued generally" will result in the case being thrown back in the hopper and appearing on the next Detroit calendar. If the Tax Court's intent were otherwise (e.g. to wait until Doreen was available), it would probably have put the case on a status reporting track.

Today, Wednesday, July 26, the government filed its answering memorandum.

Blowhard Hendrickson has until August 28 to file a reply memorandum brief.

Famspear wrote:Today, Wednesday, July 26, the government filed its answering memorandum.

Blowhard Hendrickson has until August 28 to file a reply memorandum brief.

The old I am right, you are wrong, and to find any different is not consistent with the law as Pete understands it to be, answer? The same one he had had so much success failure with in the past?

But this is right up Pete's narcissistic alley. It gives him the chance to be pompous, condescending, and wrong all at once, while preaching to the court about how he has forgotten more about tax law than the court has ever learned. How can you expect him to pass up that opportunity?

Classic Pete.

AndyK wrote:.......Thus, non-court-generated documents are only available in person at the main Tax Court in Washington DC. And, getting copies of the documents there is seriously not easy.

That may have been the case at one time. But, at least for the past ten years or so, documents have been available to the general public by mail. The Tax Court web site includes a phone number that you can call. You give the Court employee the case number and identify the document you want, and you leave a contact phone number.

In three to five days, they call you back and tell you how many pages your order will contain, and how much the total charge will be. (The charge is 50 cents per page.) You can pay by credit card on the "pay dot gov" web site.

Co-incidentally, I recently ordered some non-court-generated documents on a case (not a case in which I represent the taxpayer), and I received the materials (the petition, the notice of deficiency, and the IRS examination report) in the mail today.

On Sunday, August 27, Preposterous Pete and Dolorous Doreen filed their reply memorandum brief.

Oh, I betcha it was a doozy! Chocked full o' goodies!

[Moderator: The Observer] - Link removed due to poster spamming irrelevant link across the site, without any explanation of how this link impacts or comments on the thread.

An order was filed in the Hendrickson Tax Court case on December 21, 2017:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=247642

In Graev v. CIR, 149 TC No. 23 (2017), https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCInOP/Opi ... x?ID=11535,a case decided on Wednesday, December 20, 2017, the Tax Court determined that the IRS was required to demonstrate that it had met the "supervisory approval" requirement of section 6721(b) before any penalties could be imposed. To implement the holding in Graev in cases that have already been tried in the Tax Court (but for which no opinion has yet been issued), some of the Tax Court judges have ordered that the IRS identify where - if at all- in the record evidence regarding this "supervisory approval" is located. The Hendrickson order is one of these orders.

For pop music trivia enthusiast, the Estate of Michael Jackson was lucky in that the IRS was denied permission to reopen the record to introduce evidence of supervisory approval:
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=247453

jcolvin2 wrote: In Graev v. CIR, 149 TC No. 23 (2017), https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCInOP/Opi ... x?ID=11535,a case decided on Wednesday, December 20, 2017, the Tax Court determined that the IRS was required to demonstrate that it had met the "supervisory approval" requirement of section 6721(b) before any penalties could be imposed.

The Code section at issue is 6751(b), not 6721(b). My mistake.

From the U.S. Tax Court:

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217

PETER E. HENDRICKSON & DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Petitioners,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Docket No. 6863-14

ORDER

This case was set for further trial solely as to the issue of the Commissioner's compliance with section 6751(b) at a time and date certain of 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, in Detroit, Michigan. On March 7, 2018, petitioners filed a motion for continuance. For cause, it is

ORDERED that the petitioners' motion for continuance is granted. A time and date for further trial will be set by future order.

(Signed) Ronald L. Buch
Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.
March 13, 2018

Trial has been set for August 13, 2018, solely on the issue of whether the IRS complied with section 6751(b).

Yawwwwnnn......

Well, trial was indeed held on August 13, 2018, on the 6751(b) issue. A brief from the Haughty Hendrickson is due on September 12. A brief from the Commissioner is due September 28. Reply brief from Hendrickson due October 5.

It is so weird to see Hendrickson in court on a non-frivolous issue (IRS compliance with 6751(b)) on which Hendrickson might actually win. He is a monkey with a paintbrush! If he does win on that issue, that could ease his penalty situation for the years in question.

Still waiting on further developments in this case.

Hendrickson filed a brief on September 12, 2018. The government filed an answering brief on September 28.

On October 5, Hendrickson filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the government's brief. That motion was denied by the Court on October 11.