Substance of the R4C

[David Merrill]

Inventing America by Garry WILLS is a good read about this too.

[gdude]

David, what was the outcome of the petition filed at the end of "Are you Lost at C"?

It appears it was filed under admiralty jurisdiction...... I am very curious as to the outcome.

Anyone here have any experience with admiralty jurisdiction as related to the IRS?

[gdude]

Well, update. I received a decision in my tax court case.

Not surprisingly, the dishonorable judge ruled against me and all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!

The judge conveniently ignored all of my evidence, never even hinted at it.
He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)
There was no evidence offered from the IRS, even their own records showed I owed -0- and that a NOD was not issued.
He made no statement of jurisdiction.
He just spat out the IRS counsel's arguments and lies and sanctioned me heavily (which really shows how angry he was at some of my evidence and arguments)
It took him a year to make this opinion...

My question now is, can I R4C his decision?

[TDL]

Well, update. I received a decision in my tax court case.

Not surprisingly, the dishonorable judge ruled against me and all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!

The judge conveniently ignored all of my evidence, never even hinted at it.
He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)
There was no evidence offered from the IRS, even their own records showed I owed -0- and that a NOD was not issued.
He made no statement of jurisdiction.
He just spat out the IRS counsel's arguments and lies and sanctioned me heavily (which really shows how angry he was at some of my evidence and arguments)
It took him a year to make this opinion...

My question now is, can I R4C his decision?

Greetings, my Friend -- sorry to hear about this development. With all due respect, i believe that "R4C" is outside the scope of TC. Imho, this is because TC (formerly called "Court of Tax Appeals") is simply an extension of auntie [IRiS]. Ime, my next step would be a M4R ("Motion for Reconsideration") identifying each and every judicial error the judge made.

[gdude]

Thanks TDL, good to hear from you!

This has been an eye opening experience to say the least...

You say "red" and the judge and respondent say that you said "blue"
..constantly misstate your case...thick as thieves.
They provide no statement of facts or affidavit
They provide no facts or evidence to support their allegations
Even their own records do not support their allegations
You point out that there are no facts on record that support respondent's position....that's frivolous
You point out that the court has made no statement of jurisdiction as to the subject matter in your petition...frivolous
Of Course, anything they do not want answer or feel threatened by, they will ignore or call frivolous.

I am just completely disgusted...

What's even more disgusting is that only the judges remarks will be seen, not any of my motions, petitions, interrogatories,etc...

[gdude]

TDL, I was thinking about your comment above about R4C not applying to TC. Don't all sanctions go back to the IRS collections and are charged as Civil Penalties?

[TDL]

TDL, I was thinking about your comment above about R4C not applying to TC. Don't all sanctions go back to the IRS collections and are charged as Civil Penalties?

I assume you've been "sanctioned" per IRC 6673, right? Afaik, there are 2 kinds of sanctions in play: per a court's Local Rule(s), or per statute. So if IRC 6673 is "in play" (my guess, the TC's memo would mention it), I should think that auntie will come assessn' and collectn' (read: TC240/290 posted to your MFT=55 sub-account). Otherwise, you'd have to pay the court directly, or the court would turn over this receivable to the USST for collection. On more thing: if an NFTL is already in play (TC582 in your MFT=30 sub-account), this new "debt" was just added-to/placed-on the existing lien ...

Re. R4C (i assume "refused-for-cause"), imho, is a condition-subsequent to dishonoring a negotiable instrument (see UCC-3 et seq.). Imho, the TC-memo isn't such a thing; but I could be wrong ...

Re. your TC-memo ... I'll be commenting later after I've looked over its statutory context (IRC 6214 / 7460 / 7463 / 7459 etc).

[LearnTheLaw]

all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!

If this document is unsigned and without an official seal, is it even a legal document???

Doesn't the IRS operate with deception?

[gdude]

LTL, Thank you very much...that was exactly my point.

[TDL]

Ime (rather limited, I must admit) TC memos are not issued under Official Seal, nor signed. After looking over @ Thornberry and Mooney once again (among others), the pattern becomes quite clear. Not surprisingly, I learned that the statutory context for TC memos derives from IRC 7459 and 7460. Specifically, we're looking @ 7459(b) which provides the looked-for "backdoor" to the TC, the proverbial escape-hatch for keeping its "findings of fact ..." out of the official record, to wit:

... Subject to such conditions as the Tax Court may by rule provide, the requirements of this subsection and of section 7460 are met if findings of fact or opinion are stated orally and recorded in the transcript of the proceedings.

Imho, unless you get the actual transcript (more expenses!) of the judges/panels-proceeding, you won't really know what facts / evidence the judge(s) based the ruling on. Lastly, the TC's final order should be issued under both TC-Seal & judge-signature, along with a CoS (Certificate of Service) by the Clerk.