About This Blog
Taxes in New York (TiNY) is a blog by the Hodgson Russ LLP State and Local Tax Practice Group members Chris Doyle, Peter Calleri, and Zoe Peppas. The weekly reports are intended to go out every Tuesday after the New York State Division of Tax Appeals (DTA) publishes new ALJ Determinations and Tribunal Decisions. In addition to the weekly reports, TiNY may provide analysis of and commentary on other developments in the world of New York tax law.
Stay Connected
RSS Subscribe
LinkedIn ProfileTiNY Report EXTRA, June 23, 2017
I should have known.
Like two minutes after I posted this morning’s Report under the assumption that the Tribunal didn’t have anything from last week, the Tribunal posted its two decisions from June 15. Argh. But it is not as if I am wasting paper by having two TiNY Reports in one day, so I’ll shoot this one out now.
First, a clarification: “Hard-hearted Humperdinck” from this morning’s earlier offering is a reference to evil Prince Humperdinck from the Princess Bride and not the silky-smooth-voiced Engelbert Humperdinck. Since a full 33 1/3% of my readers asked about this, I thought I’d save the two others some time and just put it out there.
And that brings up one of those “If-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest” questions: Is it really a metaphor if no one gets it?
TRIBUNAL DECISIONS from June 15, 2017
Matter of Ruderman; Division’s Rep: Peter Ostwald; Taxpayer’s Rep: Alan Blecher; Article 22. The Tribunal affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Taxpayer was a statutory resident of New York State and City even though he was a domiciliary of Florida. Key quote from the case: “We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the testimony provided by petitioner and the affiants speaks mainly in general terms and lacks specificity with regard to dates and events.” In short, even though the Taxpayer’s testimony was found to be credible, it was simply not detailed enough to satisfy the “clear and convincing” evidence standard applied in such matters.
Matter of Tsoumas; Division’s Rep: Peter Ostwald; Taxpayer’s Rep: Jeffery Rosenblum and Vincent Chirico; Article 22. The Tribunal affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Taxpayer’s Conciliation Conference request was filed after the 90-day time period had elapsed, and therefore the Division was entitled to summary determination. While mailing of the Notices of Deficiency was not satisfactorily proven by the Division, Petitioner admitted in an affidavit that he received the Notices more than 90 days before he filed his BCMS request. The Taxpayer’s arguments that he should get his day in court under the theory that he filed an “informal” BCMS request and that it would be “manifestly unjust” to not allow his case on the merits to be heard were analyzed and dismissed by the Tribunal. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that it did not consider the additional evidentiary documents submitted by the Taxpayer to the Tribunal.
Comment
