This document is a summary of a United States Tax Court case regarding whether a collection case qualifies for small tax case procedures. The Tax Court held that for a case to qualify under section 7463(f)(2), the total unpaid tax as of the date of the IRS notice of determination cannot exceed $50,000. The amount of the underlying tax liability in dispute is irrelevant. Therefore, because the total unpaid tax in this case exceeded $50,000 as of the date of the IRS notice of determination, the case does not qualify to be conducted under the small tax case procedures.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...Rich Bergeron
Answering a pile of documented accusations with a couple pages of complete BS, Attorney Tara Heater still hasn't provided any affidavits to back up her lies. This is her objection to my latest motion, which basically says she'd like to rely on her objection to the last motion for sanctions. Total laziness and obviously now a matter of being afraid to dig herself deeper.
1) INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY COURT
2) THE RELATED STATUTES AND RULES
3) REGISTRATION OF CASES
4) PROCEDURES
5) DECREE NISI & PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER
6) EXECUTION & ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
The debtor must provide the chapter 13 case trustee with a copy of the tax return or transcripts for the most recent tax year as well as tax returns filed during the case.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...Rich Bergeron
Answering a pile of documented accusations with a couple pages of complete BS, Attorney Tara Heater still hasn't provided any affidavits to back up her lies. This is her objection to my latest motion, which basically says she'd like to rely on her objection to the last motion for sanctions. Total laziness and obviously now a matter of being afraid to dig herself deeper.
1) INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY COURT
2) THE RELATED STATUTES AND RULES
3) REGISTRATION OF CASES
4) PROCEDURES
5) DECREE NISI & PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER
6) EXECUTION & ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
The debtor must provide the chapter 13 case trustee with a copy of the tax return or transcripts for the most recent tax year as well as tax returns filed during the case.
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party which prevented the moving party from fairly presenting their case. The sample on which this preview is based is 11 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
Beneficial CBDT Circular for allowance of disallowed expenditures - V. K. Sub...D Murali ☆
Beneficial CBDT Circular for allowance of disallowed expenditures - V. K. Subramani - Article published in Business Advisor, dated November 25, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
‘Arrest’ under service tax law - Dr Sanjiv AgarwalD Murali ☆
‘Arrest’ under service tax law - Dr Sanjiv Agarwal - Article published in Business Advisor, dated October 10, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
Connector Corner: Automate dynamic content and events by pushing a buttonDianaGray10
Here is something new! In our next Connector Corner webinar, we will demonstrate how you can use a single workflow to:
Create a campaign using Mailchimp with merge tags/fields
Send an interactive Slack channel message (using buttons)
Have the message received by managers and peers along with a test email for review
But there’s more:
In a second workflow supporting the same use case, you’ll see:
Your campaign sent to target colleagues for approval
If the “Approve” button is clicked, a Jira/Zendesk ticket is created for the marketing design team
But—if the “Reject” button is pushed, colleagues will be alerted via Slack message
Join us to learn more about this new, human-in-the-loop capability, brought to you by Integration Service connectors.
And...
Speakers:
Akshay Agnihotri, Product Manager
Charlie Greenberg, Host
Generating a custom Ruby SDK for your web service or Rails API using Smithyg2nightmarescribd
Have you ever wanted a Ruby client API to communicate with your web service? Smithy is a protocol-agnostic language for defining services and SDKs. Smithy Ruby is an implementation of Smithy that generates a Ruby SDK using a Smithy model. In this talk, we will explore Smithy and Smithy Ruby to learn how to generate custom feature-rich SDKs that can communicate with any web service, such as a Rails JSON API.
Builder.ai Founder Sachin Dev Duggal's Strategic Approach to Create an Innova...Ramesh Iyer
In today's fast-changing business world, Companies that adapt and embrace new ideas often need help to keep up with the competition. However, fostering a culture of innovation takes much work. It takes vision, leadership and willingness to take risks in the right proportion. Sachin Dev Duggal, co-founder of Builder.ai, has perfected the art of this balance, creating a company culture where creativity and growth are nurtured at each stage.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Clients don’t know what they don’t know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clients’ needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...DanBrown980551
Do you want to learn how to model and simulate an electrical network from scratch in under an hour?
Then welcome to this PowSyBl workshop, hosted by Rte, the French Transmission System Operator (TSO)!
During the webinar, you will discover the PowSyBl ecosystem as well as handle and study an electrical network through an interactive Python notebook.
PowSyBl is an open source project hosted by LF Energy, which offers a comprehensive set of features for electrical grid modelling and simulation. Among other advanced features, PowSyBl provides:
- A fully editable and extendable library for grid component modelling;
- Visualization tools to display your network;
- Grid simulation tools, such as power flows, security analyses (with or without remedial actions) and sensitivity analyses;
The framework is mostly written in Java, with a Python binding so that Python developers can access PowSyBl functionalities as well.
What you will learn during the webinar:
- For beginners: discover PowSyBl's functionalities through a quick general presentation and the notebook, without needing any expert coding skills;
- For advanced developers: master the skills to efficiently apply PowSyBl functionalities to your real-world scenarios.
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
Unsubscribed: Combat Subscription Fatigue With a Membership Mentality by Head...
Leahy v. commissioner
1. 129 T.C. No. 8
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MICHAEL PATRICK AND DEBYE LEE LEAHY, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 17199-06L. Filed September 17, 2007.
Ps filed a petition pursuant to sec. 6330(d),
I.R.C., challenging R’s determination concerning
collection of Ps’ unpaid income tax for the years 1996-
2000. Ps requested that their case be conducted under
the small tax case procedures authorized by sec.
7463(f)(2), I.R.C., in the case of “an appeal under
section 6330(d)(1)(A) to the Tax Court of a
determination in which the unpaid tax does not exceed
$50,000.” On the date respondent issued the notice of
determination, the total amount of unpaid tax exceeded
$50,000. Nevertheless, Ps contend that because they
dispute less than $50,000 of the underlying tax
liability, this case should proceed under the small tax
case procedures of sec. 7463(f)(2), I.R.C.
2. - 2 -
Held: For a case to qualify for the small tax
case procedures under sec. 7463(f)(2), I.R.C., the
total amount of “unpaid tax” (which includes interest
and penalties), calculated as of the date of the notice
of determination, cannot exceed $50,000. The amount of
the underlying tax liability in dispute is irrelevant.
Therefore, this case is not eligible to be conducted
under the small tax case procedures of sec. 7463,
I.R.C.
Michael Patrick and Debye Lee Leahy, pro sese.
John R. Bampfield, for respondent.
OPINION
RUWE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners filed
a petition for review of respondent’s Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
(notice of determination).1 Petitioners request that this case
be conducted under section 7463(f)(2), which provides for what
are commonly referred to as “small tax case” or “S case”
procedures where a taxpayer is challenging a collection
determination in which the unpaid tax does not exceed $50,000.2
In this Opinion we decide whether this case is eligible to
proceed as a small tax case.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2
Sec. 7463 and Rule 174(b) generally allow disputes in
small tax cases to be decided in proceedings in which the
normally applicable procedures and evidentiary rules are relaxed.
3. - 3 -
On February 14, 2007, this Court held that the $50,000 limit
in section 7463(f)(2) refers to the total amount of “unpaid tax”
(including interest and penalties)3 which the Commissioner has
determined to collect. Schwartz v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 6, 12
(2007).4 Respondent argues that this case cannot proceed as a
small tax case because the total amount of unpaid tax on the date
he issued the notice of determination exceeded $50,000.5
Petitioners do not dispute respondent’s assertion that the
aggregate unpaid tax that respondent determined to collect for
the years 1996 through 2000 exceeded $50,000 on the date of
respondent’s notice of determination. Nevertheless, petitioners
argue that a section 6330 collection case may be conducted under
the small tax case procedures of section 7463(f)(2) when the
amount of the underlying tax liability “in dispute” is less than
$50,000. In their petition, they agree to $20,000 of the
underlying tax liability. Petitioners argue that the remaining
amount of the underlying tax liability, which they dispute, is
3
Sec. 7463(f)(2) refers to the amount of “unpaid tax” in a
sec. 6330 collection case. Any reference in the Internal Revenue
Code to “tax” (with exceptions not applicable to this case) shall
be deemed to include interest and penalties. Secs. 6601(e)(1),
6665(a); Schwartz v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 6, 8 table n.1
(2007).
4
The fact that the unpaid tax for each individual year did
not exceed $50,000 was held to be irrelevant. Schwartz v.
Commissioner, supra at 12.
5
Respondent alleges that the amount of unpaid tax on the
date of the notice of determination was $61,397.54.
4. - 4 -
less than $50,000, making this case eligible to proceed under the
small tax case procedures.6 Respondent argues that the amount of
the underlying tax liability in dispute is not relevant to
determining small tax case eligibility in a section 6330
collection case because eligibility is measured by the amount of
“unpaid tax” that the Commissioner has determined to collect, not
the amount of the underlying tax liability in dispute.
Section 7463(f) provides:
SEC. 7463(f). Additional Cases in Which
Proceedings May Be Conducted Under This Section.–-At
the option of the taxpayer concurred in by the Tax
Court or a division thereof before the hearing of the
case, proceedings may be conducted under this section
(in the same manner as a case described in subsection
(a)) in the case of--
(1) a petition to the Tax Court under section
6015(e) in which the amount of relief sought does
not exceed $50,000, and
(2) an appeal under section 6330(d)(1)(A) to
the Tax Court of a determination in which the
unpaid tax does not exceed $50,000.[7]
6
In their last filing with the Court petitioners state:
“Petitioner [sic] argues that this determination should be
conducted under ‘S case’ procedures as the amount in dispute is
not the fall [sic] amount of the determination ($61,397.54).
Petitioner [sic] does not dispute $20,310.00 of this
determination. The amount of dispute is $41,097.54, which is
below the $50,000 threshold.” We attribute to a math error the
$10 difference between the amount respondent determined and the
sum of the tax petitioners conceded plus the alleged amount in
dispute.
7
Sec. 6330(d) was amended by the Pension Protection Act of
2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855(a), 120 Stat. 1019, for
determinations made after the date which is 60 days after Aug.
17, 2006. The amendment eliminated subsec. (d)(1)(A). However,
(continued...)
5. - 5 -
Unlike the dollar limitation in section 7463(a) that refers to
“the amount of the deficiency placed in dispute,”8 the dollar
limitation in section 7463(f)(2) refers to the amount of “unpaid
tax”. Section 7463(f)(2), not section 7463(a), controls whether
7
(...continued)
the reference to subsec. (d)(1)(A) in sec. 7463(f)(2) was not
changed. In any event, the amendment does not affect this case
because the determination was made on Aug. 1, 2006. See Schwartz
v. Commissioner, supra at 9 n.4.
8
Sec. 7463(a) provides:
SEC. 7463(a). In General.--In the case of any
petition filed with the Tax Court for a redetermination
of a deficiency where neither the amount of the
deficiency placed in dispute, nor the amount of any
claimed overpayment, exceeds--
(1) $50,000 for any one taxable year, in
the case of the taxes imposed by subtitle A,
(2) $50,000, in the case of the tax
imposed by chapter 11,
(3) $50,000 for any one calendar year, in
the case of the tax imposed by chapter 12, or
(4) $50,000 for any 1 taxable period (or,
if there is no taxable period, taxable event)
in the case of any tax imposed by subtitle D
which is described in section 6212(a)
(relating to a notice of deficiency),
at the option of the taxpayer concurred in by the Tax
Court or a division thereof before the hearing of the
case, proceedings in the case shall be conducted under
this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 7453, such proceedings shall be conducted in
accordance with such rules of evidence, practice, and
procedure as the Tax Court may prescribe. A decision,
together with a brief summary of the reasons therefor,
in any such case shall satisfy the requirements of
sections 7459(b) and 7460.
6. - 6 -
the instant section 6330 collection case qualifies for the small
tax case procedures. Therefore, we look to the amount of “unpaid
tax” that respondent has determined to collect, not the amount of
the underlying tax liability in dispute, to decide whether this
case may proceed under the small tax case procedures of section
7463(f)(2). Schwartz v. Commissioner, supra.9
It is true that, in certain limited circumstances, a
taxpayer can dispute all or a portion of the “underlying tax
liability” in a section 6330 collection case. See Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-182 (2000). However, the fact
that petitioners are disputing less than $50,000 of the
underlying tax liability has no relevance to the application of
the dollar limit in section 7463(f)(2). Section 7463(f)(2)
applies to the case of “an appeal under section 6330(d)(1)(A) to
the Tax Court of a determination in which the unpaid tax does not
exceed $50,000.” (Emphasis added.) We hold that for a case to
qualify for the small tax case procedures under section
7463(f)(2), the total amount of unpaid tax that the Commissioner
has determined to collect cannot exceed $50,000. The amount of
the underlying tax liability in dispute is irrelevant.
Respondent cites Schwartz for the proposition that the
amount of “unpaid tax” (including interest and penalties) should
9
In Schwartz, the taxpayers were not disputing the amount
of their underlying tax liability. Schwartz v. Commissioner,
supra at 10 n.6.
7. - 7 -
be determined as of the date of the notice of determination. In
Schwartz, we did not explicitly decide when the amount of unpaid
tax should be calculated for purposes of applying the dollar
limit in section 7463(f)(2). Even though petitioners do not
dispute respondent’s assertion that the amount of unpaid tax
should be determined as of the date of the notice of
determination, this issue concerns the Court’s authority to
proceed under section 7463 and is in the nature of a
jurisdictional question, which may be raised sua sponte at any
time.10 Petrane v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 1, __ (2007) (slip op.
at 3); see Schwartz v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. at 8; Stewart v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006).
This Court has previously held “that the date of filing a
petition under section 6015(e) [for relief from joint liability]
is the date on which the amount of relief sought should be
calculated for purposes of deciding whether a section 6015(e)
stand-alone case may proceed under the small tax case procedures
of section 7463(f)(1).” Petrane v. Commissioner, supra at __
(slip op. at 11). Section 7463(f)(1) refers to the case of “a
petition to the Tax Court under section 6015(e) in which the
amount of relief sought does not exceed $50,000”. (Emphasis
10
There is no question that we have jurisdiction to review
respondent’s determination under sec. 6330. The question is
whether we can decide this matter as a small tax case under sec.
7463. Schwartz v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. at 8 n.3.
8. - 8 -
added.) The words “in which” in section 7463(f)(1) can logically
refer back only to “a petition”, not to “the Tax Court” or
“section 6015(e)”. While the petition date was the appropriate
date on which to calculate the amount of spousal relief sought
for purposes of section 7463(f)(1), the proper date to calculate
the amount of unpaid tax in a section 6330 collection case must
be analyzed separately under the specific, but different,
language of section 7463(f)(2).
Respondent alleges that the amount of unpaid tax on the date
of the notice of determination exceeds $50,000, and petitioners
do not dispute this. If the date of the notice of determination
is the date for determining the amount of unpaid tax for purposes
of section 7463(f)(2), then this case cannot proceed as a small
tax case. However, if a subsequent date, such as the date of
filing the petition, is the relevant date, we would have to
ascertain the unpaid tax on that later date. Occurrences after
issuance of the notice of determination, such as abatements,
payments, or credits, could decrease the amount of unpaid tax as
of any subsequent date. The amount of unpaid tax depends on the
amount of accrued interest as of a particular date. Therefore,
it is necessary to decide the date on which the amount of unpaid
tax should be calculated for purposes of applying the dollar
limit in section 7463(f)(2).
9. - 9 -
Section 7463(f)(2) refers to the case of “an appeal under
section 6330(d)(1)(A) to the Tax Court of a determination in
which the unpaid tax does not exceed $50,000.” (Emphasis added.)
The words “in which” could conceivably refer back to either “an
appeal” or “a determination”. An “appeal” within the meaning of
section 7463(f)(2) occurs when the taxpayer petitions the Tax
Court. However, if the words “in which” were meant to refer to
“an appeal”, then inclusion of the words “of a determination”
immediately preceding “in which the unpaid tax does not exceed
$50,000” would be rendered surplusage and could have been
omitted. Statutory language is interpreted by giving each word
its plain, obvious, and rational meaning. Am. Tobacco Co. v.
Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68 (1982); United States v. Merriam, 263
U.S. 179, 187-188 (1923); Liddle v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 285,
293 n.4 (1994), affd. 65 F.3d 329 (3d Cir. 1995). Fundamental
principles of statutory construction generally preclude us from
reading a statute in such a way as to render statutory language
mere surplusage. Zapara v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 215, 231
(2006); see also United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293,
301 n.14 (1971). Failure to give any meaning to the words “of a
determination” in interpreting section 7463(f)(2) would violate
these canons of statutory construction. In addition, it is a
general rule of style and composition to position a modifying
word or clause close to the term it explains in order to avoid
10. - 10 -
awkwardness, confusion, and ambiguity. See Strunk & White, The
Elements of Style 28-31 (4th ed. 2000); see also Richmond, Legal
Writing: Form and Function 145-147 (2002). The clause “in which
the unpaid tax does not exceed $50,000” acts as a modifier to a
noun, and the noun “determination” immediately precedes “in which
the unpaid tax does not exceed $50,000”.
We conclude that the $50,000 limit refers to the total
unpaid tax as of the date of the determination. Accordingly, we
hold that for purposes of deciding whether a section 6330
collection case may proceed under the small tax case procedures
provided for in section 7463(f)(2), the date the Commissioner
issues the notice of determination is the date on which the
amount of unpaid tax should be calculated.11
The total unpaid tax on the date respondent issued the
notice of determination exceeds the $50,000 limit provided in
section 7463(f)(2). We will therefore deny petitioners’ request
to have this case proceed under the small tax case procedures.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
11
The total amount of unpaid tax is often omitted from
notices of determination issued pursuant to sec. 6330. The
Commissioner could assist taxpayers and the Court if he were to
calculate the total unpaid tax as of the date of the sec. 6330
notice of determination and include it in the notice.