This constitutes a "victory?"

[iplawyer]

Another priceless message:

.

..Not quite a CDPH victory, but I do want to tell you all something that might be helpful in the future:

I just got off the phone for my telephone CDPH. I've read that a phone CDPH is the worst due to no record keeping...

HOWEVER, what I was able to do on the phone, was request a CDPH by correspondence!!!

I wasn't able to make my request for a correspondence hearing within the notice-stated "14 days" because of the combined Christmas and New Year's holidays, but I was told those "14 days" are just arbitrary and not a strict deadline.

I requested that my phone hearing be transferred to a correspondence hearing, so paperwork is being sent to me today. I have 30 days from the date of the letter (today) to state my case.

Yay!

Not a total victory, but I definitely moved myself to a more preferable position.

- - -

Anyone have experience with CDPH and frivolous penalties? The hearing is for penalties for 3 different years. The main thing I have now, is that I've requested- maaany times- signed assessments for every year they've contacted me about, and I've received nothing, which is a pretty good indication that no assessments exist. The IRS trying to collect money before any assessments were made is obviously a problem with due process, so that's the main thing I have at the moment...

Perhaps I can REQUEST that I be assessed?! It might force them -

WHILE I WAS WRITING THIS POST The woman called me back and stated that due to past correspondence and other BS reasons, I'm NOT going to be granted a correspondence hearing or a telephone hearing even, so basically I was unable to say anything. Nothing could be discussed. Since they don't care about liability, the whole thing is really hilarious... Very Happy YAY FOR OPPRESSION!!!

She ended up upset and hung up on me. Gonna mail me the decision... then petition tax court yada yada... Same old thing that we all read about.

This is fabulous.

[jkeeb]

Hey, the NOD is delayed by 30 plus days. That's the best one could even hope for when contesting a levy for three friv pens.

[notorial dissent]

And then he can go for four and still not understand why he is getting them in the first place or why they declined to waste their time with him.

[The Observer]

Perhaps I can REQUEST that I be assessed?! It might force them -

Uh, I thought the whole point of his CDP was to prevent or undo the friv pen assessment? And now he is contemplating asking that the penalties be assessed? This makes about as much sense as the convict on death row asking that he be executed now as part of his appeal to overturn his death sentence.

Of course our intrepid TP fails to recognize that the assessment has already been made, otherwise he wouldn't have had the right to a CDP in the first place.

[notorial dissent]

But he won, he got them to NOT give him a CDP and got them to sustain the penalties against him, and probably add one more, that has to be a win in CTC land doesn't it?

[Pottapaug1938]

But he won, he got them to NOT give him a CDP and got them to sustain the penalties against him, and probably add one more, that has to be a win in CTC land doesn't it?

This reminds me of a book I have where a civil war is raging in a country, and the established government banners headlines, in their newspapers, about recapturing this or that city or town, while buried in the back pages of the same papers (or excluded entirely) are stories about the insurgents capturing three or four others. It also reminds me of stories from 1945 in which the Nazis rave about having "thrown back the Bolsheviks", and then it turns out that they are talking about a local tactical victory, which happened while they were getting thrown back everywhere else (and then they got thrown back at the site of the victory).

I guess that, when you are desperate for victories to brag about, and don't have any real ones, you take what you can get.

[Gregg]

and in another thread, Hang'em High has just come upon the moment of clarity (though he may have missed it) in a thread where they are SHOCKED I tell you that a document, signed under penalty of perjury, can in fact be admitted as evidence if it's accompanied by records of the underlying transactions....

gdude,

I know I can't cross-examine a document, and of course I would object, but the problem is: reading these rules of evidence, it seems pretty certain that a simple hearsay objection will be overruled. Then what? We better have a back-up plan because a hearsay objection will not likely be successful.

You may be right that they can't introduce a W-2 by itself, but if it is attached to a payment history report and a certification of record signed by my dumbass boss then it can apparently be admitted under Rule 902(11) if it certifies:
Quote:

(A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;

(B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and

(C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.


Judge: "Objection overruled!"

And even more troubling, under Rule 902(1), the IRS can introduce any official IRS document it wants just by putting a seal and an illegible signature on it, such as information return payer transcripts and literal transcripts of assessments and payments, which the judge will undoubtedly be only too eager to give a "presumption of correctness".

I am afraid that even though all adverse information in these documents originate with the third party payer, once it becomes official IRS records, then it may be treated as being the Secretary's own knowledge.

Perhaps an objection on some other grounds may be successful, such as relevance or prejudicial nature? Any ideas how these could be argued? Any other ideas?

Does anyone know anything about motions in limine? (or something like that) motioning the court to preclude certain evidence from being admitted?

We had better figure this out guys.

Indeed, you had better, maroon!

[LPC]

You may be right that they can't introduce a W-2 by itself, but if it is attached to a payment history report and a certification of record signed by my dumbass boss then it can apparently be admitted under Rule 902(11) if it certifies:
Quote:

(A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;

(B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and

(C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

Yes, the crackheads have finally (finally) discovered the business records as evidence rule.

Perhaps an objection on some other grounds may be successful, such as relevance or prejudicial nature?

Oh yes, of course, the fact that you were paid money couldn't possibly be relevant to an income tax case, and you think that facts are "prejudicial"?