Boettcher v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2021-4

On January 12, 2021, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Boettcher v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-3). The issue presented in Boettcher v. Commissioner was whether the settlement officer failed to properly consider the installment agreement requested by the petitioners. Background to Boettcher v. Commissioner Petitioner-husband was a news-correspondent-turned-college-professor and petitioner-wife was an attorney (likely not a tax attorney, as you’ll see).  The petitioners delinquently filed their tax returns, but, apparently, they accurately reported the amount of tax due on each return.  The trouble was, however, the petitioners’ income tax withholdings covered only a fraction of their reported liabilities.  The IRS assessed a failure to file penalty under IRC § 6651(a)(1), failure to timely pay tax penalty under IRC § 6651(a)(2) and a failure to timely pay estimated tax under IRC § 6654. The IRS issued the petitioners a notice of intent to levy for the…

0 Comments

Kennedy v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-3)

On January 12, 2021, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Kennedy v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-3). The issue presented in Kelley was whether the IRS’s whistleblower office abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s claims. Background The petitioner claimed that three subsidiaries of a taxpayer owed a middling $150m in unpaid excise taxes, penalties, and interest to Uncle Sam.  The IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) reviewed the claim, and to everyone’s surprise did not laugh it off and put it in the vertical filing cabinet next to browning apple cores and soggy cups-of-noodles.  Instead, the WBO forwarded it onto the Large Business & International (LB&I) division. The claim involved tax-exempt voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) trusts, and that LB&I CTM did not have anyone who could evaluate excise tax claims involving a VEBA; thus, the claim was transferred to the Exempt Organizations (TEGE-EO) division.  However, because…

0 Comments