-2- Class No. 1 January 14, 2015 Introduction to the Course



Similar documents
T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. GINN DOOSE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. BRIAN HAMMERNIK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WENDY W. BOZICK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

2015 TAX COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

Commencement of a Deficiency Proceeding and Pretrial Practice

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. DONALD LEE DUNNIGAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. STAFFMORE, LLC, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. THOMAS M. AND DONNA GENTILE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

The Nuts and Bolts of Handling a Pro Bono Tax Controversy Case. Presented by The ABA Section of Taxation

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

How To Settle A Tax Deficiency Case

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WHISTLEBLOWER W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

# $There is substantial authority for the tax

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. BLONDE GRAYSON HALL AND NEAL E. HALL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. CHRISTOPHER A. BIBBY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Counsel must be fully familiar with the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court 22 NYCRR Part 202.

Contents. About This Book How To Use This Book Foreword Acknowledgments About the Author

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. DANIEL RICHARD KURKA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

This notice expands the period within which individuals may request equitable

Federal Tax Issues in Bankruptcy A View From Your Friends at the IRS and DOJ

GUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN IN THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT

A Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

This case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. 114 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT

UNITED STATES TAX COURT. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PREHEARING INSTRUCTIONS

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RONALD L. KIRKPATRICK, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Tax Court Decisions: Briefing, Opinion, and Decision, Rule 155, and Supplemental Proceedings

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. VIRGINIA M. MARTEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

Case 4:11-cr Document 193 Filed in TXSD on 07/25/14 Page 1 of 11

THIERRY P. DELOS : BK No Debtor Chapter 7 : STACIE L. DELOS, Plaintiff : v. : A.P. No

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JAMES GROVER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No CV-T-24-MAP.

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant

ILLINOIS INDEPENDENT TAX TRIBUNAL

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RONALD LEE BONACCORSO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Ms. Steffen's Bankruptcy Case

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOHN C. AND KAROL BOWDEN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

CLAIRE DONOHUE CURRICULUM VITAE

Terms and Definitions. Used in family law in Nova Scotia

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

BANKRUPTCY ACTION THAT WORKS - FORM 12153

Claims Submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office under Section This Notice provides guidance to the public on how to file claims under Internal

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

JUDICIAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLLEGE LEGAL ASSISTANT PROGRAM COMPETENCY STATEMENT. PLA 2800-Family Law

SELECT SERVICES FLAT FEE REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT page 1 of 8

PART ONE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (60 minutes)

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RI UNLIMITED, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ALTA F. ELLIS-BABINO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ALDEN J. AND NANCY E. APPLETON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. BALVIN ANTHONY MCKNIGHT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

ALL OF THE BELOW DUTIES ARE ASSUMED TO, AND MUST BE, UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED ATTORNEY.

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. GARY WAYNE RODRIGUES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Committee for Public Counsel Services Children and Family Law Program Mentoring Program Manual

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. CAREY K. PARKER II, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

123 T.C. No. 14 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOHN R. AND PATRICIA G. OKERSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY PROBATE DIVISION

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO

Recent Tax Court Innocent Spouse Rulings Under 6015(f) Have Made 6015(b) and (c) Virtually Superfluous 1. By Eric L. Green and Carlton M.

Representing Clients Before The United States Tax Court

PART 3 REPRESENTATION, PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURES. Section 3: Specific Types of Representation Part 3 Representing a Taxpayer in Audits/Examinations

RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. YARISH CONSULTING, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA TAXATION SECTION PRACTTIONERS' VIEWS OF THE TAX COURT

Collection Due Process - IRS Practical Law and Procedure

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. MOHAMMAD A. KAKEH AND TONI L. KAKEH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JACYNTHIA QUINN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ROBERT POWELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No L. Filed July 21, 2009.

ROSE KRAIZA : SUPERIOR COURT. v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES STATE OF CONNECTICUT : FEBRUARY 2, 2009

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA Q.B. FAMILY LAW PRACTICE NOTE 3 FAMILY LAW CONFERENCES. (For matters under Part 12 of the Alberta Rules of Court)

Re: Testimony for student loan calculations on behalf of married survivors of domestic violence. To the Committee:

SARAH A. MOURER University of Miami School of Law

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ANDREW M. HULL AND VICKIE J. HULL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Scheduled for a Public Hearing. Before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. on April 5, Prepared by the Staff. of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

What to Expect In Your Lawsuit

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. VANNEY ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

RARITAN VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACADEMIC COURSE OUTLINE FAMILY LAW LEGL-124

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT GRECO V. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. San Diego Superior Court Case No CU-BT-CTL

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant :

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. VALARIE NADINE HAFNER STEPHENSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

127 T.C. No. 9 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JONATHAN N. AND KIMBERLY A. PALAHNUK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Susan Morgenstern Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. Erika Sussman Center for Survivor Agency and Justice

Federal Tax Advocacy for Domestic Violence Survivors

THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT S ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM GUIDELINES

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ARTHUR W. & RITA C. MILLER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Transcription:

-2- Class No. 1 January 14, 2015 Introduction to the Course At this session the framework of the workshop will be outlined, followed by a review of provisions of the tax law that affect individual taxpayers and give rise to some of the most frequently litigated issues on the docket of the Tax Court. Nadler, pp. 1-31 (Chapters 1-3) Internal Revenue Code, 2(b), 24, 32, 151, 152 and 6015 Treasury Regulations on Income Tax,. 1.152-4, 1.6015-1, -2, -3 Armstrong v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 468 (2012) Katz v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-98 Hall v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-82 Mitchell v. Commissioner, 292 F.3d 800 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Summaries of hypothetical cases, with collection notices and 30-day letters Class No. 2 January 21, 2015 Introduction to the Course (continued) The review of commonly litigated tax issues continues. Preparation starts for the client interviews to be conducted next class session in the hypothetical cases involving dependency exemptions and innocent spouse relief. The class is divided into four teams, with one team assigned to each taxpayer. Later in the semester, the teams will switch, giving every student a chance to work first on one of the issues, then on the other, and to perform different roles that of taxpayer, lawyer for a taxpayer, or lawyer for the IRS in the exercises relating to the cases. Nadler, pp. 33-67 (Chapters 4-6 & Appendix A) Treasury Regulations on Income Tax, 1.6015-4 Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-2 C.B. 397 th Wilson v. Commissioner, 705 F.3d 980 (9 Cir. 2013) Nihiser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-135 Taxpayer Advocate Report (2013): http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/2013-annual-report/full-2013-annual-report-to-congress/ Workshop Assignment for Next Class: Prepare for client interviews.

-3- Class No. 3 January 28, 2015 Interviews of Clients Several techniques for interviewing clients are considered. Interviews of the four taxpayers in the hypothetical cases are conducted by the students, followed by critiques from the class. Nadler, pp. 69-73 (Chapter 7) Diana Leyden, Advocating for Low Income Taxpayers pp. 267-285 (Chapter 6) Workshop Assignment for Next Class: Each student is to write a memo of no more than five pages about the interview in which the student took part. The memo should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the client s position in light of the facts disclosed during the interview. Four students (one from each team) will make oral presentations summarizing their memos at the next class session. Class No. 4 February 4, 2015 Interviews of Clients (continued) The memos of client interviews are due. Four students present oral summaries of their memos. The positions of the taxpayers in the cases are evaluated based on the facts developed in the interviews. Workshop Assignment for Next Class: Each student assigned to the innocent spouse case will prepare a request for innocent spouse relief on the wife s behalf (Form 8857) or a questionnaire for the non-requesting spouse on the husband s behalf (Form 12508). Each student assigned to a dependency exemption case will draft a written protest supporting the claim of the taxpayer to exemptions. Prepare to defend your position at a hearing before an IRS appeals office during one of the next two class sessions. Class No. 5 February 11, 2015 Appeals Office Hearings The written protests and Forms 8857 and 12508 are due. Two appeals office hearings on the innocent spouse request are held, with team members acting as appeals officers and as lawyers for the wife and her husband. At the hearing with the lawyer for the wife the presiding appeals officer discloses her husband s questionnaire (Form 12508) opposing her claim to relief. The administrative procedures applicable to submissions by a non-requesting spouse are examined. Nadler, pp. 75-87 (Chapter 8 & Appendix B) Treasury Regulations on Income Tax, 1.6015-6 February 18, 2014 No Class (Faculty Retreat)

Class No. 6 February 25, 2015 Appeals Office Hearings (continued) -4- Two appeals office hearings are held regarding the dependency exemptions, with team members in the roles of IRS appeals officers and lawyers for the taxpayers. At each hearing the appeals officer reveals that the taxpayer s former spouse has taken the same dependency exemptions for the children of the marriage. We consider 152 of the Code and the accompanying regulations as they relate to divorced parents who make conflicting claims to dependency exemptions. Class No. 7 March 4, 2015 Tax Court Pleadings and Stipulation of Facts In light of adverse actions by the IRS a notice of determination denying the request for innocent spouse relief; and statutory notices determining income tax deficiencies based on disallowance of all claims to dependency exemptions the procedures for bringing suits in the Tax Court are reviewed. Among the matters to be considered are the periods allotted by the Code for filing petitions; the choice between the Court s regular and small case dockets; the form and contents of pleadings; and the process of stipulation. Nadler, pp. 89-97 (Chapters 9 and 10) Internal Revenue Code, 6212-6214 and 6015(e) Treasury Regulations on Income Tax, 1.6015-7 Rules of Practice and Procedures of the United States Tax Court, Rules 1-41, 91, 170-174, 320-325, and Forms 1, 2, 4, 5 and 13 Dressler v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 210 (1971) The Branerton Corporation v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974) Notice of Determination (innocent spouse case) Notices of Deficiency (dependency exemption cases) Workshop Assignment for Class No. 8: The teams are now switched, so that students who handled the innocent spouse case are reassigned to the cases about dependency exemptions, while those responsible until this point for the dependency exemption cases take over the innocent spouse case. Each member of the team working a case, as thus realigned, will draw up a Tax Court petition on behalf of a taxpayer, to be submitted at next week s class. During that class the teams will negotiate stipulations of fact, with students acting as lawyers for the taxpayers and for the Commissioner. Prepare to take part in these negotiations. March 11, 2015 No Class (Spring Break)

-5- Class No. 8 March 18, 2015 Stipulations of Facts (continued) The Tax Court petitions are due. Review of the court s pretrial procedures continues. Students negotiate stipulations of facts in the hypothetical cases. Workshop Assignment for Class No. 10: Each student is to prepare a pre-trial memo, due on st April 1. Class No. 9 March 25, 2015 Tax Court Trial Procedures The class visits the Tax Court, to take a tour of the courtrooms, attend a trial or motions hearing if one is in session, and take part in simulated calendar calls in the hypothetical cases. Trial procedures of relevance to those cases will be discussed, including the right of intervention granted to a nonrequesting spouse in a 6015 proceeding and the strategy applicable to exemption cases in which the IRS as a protective measure disallows the claims of both parents. Nadler, pp. 99-104 (Chapter 11) Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 140-151, 325 King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118 (2000) http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/ustc_video_welcome.htm Workshop Assignment for Next Class: Prepare for trial if you are assigned to the dependency exemption cases. Class No. 10 April 1, 2015 Trial of Dependency Exemption Cases Pre-trial memos are due. The cases involving dependency exemptions are tried to the Tax Court, with students performing the roles of taxpayers and counsel. The former spouses testify in opposition to each other s claims to the exemptions. Workshop Assignment for Next Week: Each student handling a dependency exemption case is to draft a post-trial brief. Students assigned to the innocent spouse case prepare for trial. Class No. 11 April 8, 2015 Trial of Innocent Spouse Case Post-trial briefs in the dependency exemption cases are due. The innocent spouse case is tried. The taxpayer s husband, having filed a notice of intervention, testifies in opposition to her claim for relief. Workshop Assignment for Next Week: Each student litigating the innocent spouse case drafts a post-trial brief.

-6- Class No. 12 April 15, 2015 Post-Trial Considerations Post-trial briefs are due in the innocent spouse case. The Tax Court files opinions and decisions in the hypothetical cases, prompting appeals. Preparation begins for oral arguments of the appeals to be held at next week s class. Nadler, pp. 105-107 (Chapter 12) Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 160-163, 190-193 Workshop Assignment for Next Week: Prepare for moot court. Class No. 13 April 22, 2015 Moot Court The cases are orally argued, with students as advocates and as judges on the panels.