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 for July 30, 2020 (reporting on DTA cases issued July 23)
The output this week from the DTA is a bit lackluster – just two determinations, and both of them are timies.
I’m writing solo this week from the Great White North (aka Canada), and my computer keeps trying to auto-correct “timies” to “Timmies.” Our readers who haven’t enjoyed the pleasure of its semi-massed produced donuts (a far cry from the delicious fried-dough confections lovingly produced at Paula’s) and coffee, may be unaware that the donut shop chain “Tim Hortons” is “Timmies” in the local vernacular. I am not a huge fan, although I find the coffee in the Canadian Timmies palatable—likely because of the cream’s higher fat content.
I’m currently in the birth place of Timmies, and one can’t go more than a few blocks without being in front of another Tim Hortons. If I wasn’t in quarantine, I could walk to one of the five(!) Timmies within a one-mile radius of my temporary home office. So, I’m wondering if my computer’s GPS knows when I’ve come to Canada and somehow adjusts the autocorrect lexicon and preferences to reflect the change of venue. If so . . . I’m totally impressed with the technology!
Anyway, now that you know that I wrestle with my computer every time I try to spell the word “timies,” here are two run-of-the-mill timies.
DETERMINATIONS
Matter of Ikhmaes and Ikhmayes; Judge Law; Division’s Rep.: Mary Hurteau; Taxpayers’ Rep.: pro se; Article 22 (by Emma Savino)
The Division issued Petitioners a Notice of Deficiency dated November 14, 2018. Petitioners filed their request for conciliation conference on August 15, 2019. BCMS issued an order dismissing the request as untimely. Petitioners then filed a timely petition, but did not respond to the Division’s motion for summary determination. Despite the slight differences in addresses (Apt R1 instead of 1R), the Judge found that the Division proved both its standard procedures and that they were followed when it mailed the Notice to Petitioners’ last known address on November 14, 2018. So, the Judge sustained the dismissal of Petitioners’ request for conciliation conference as untimely and granted the Division’s motion for summary determination.
Matter of Ikhmis and Sarsour; Judge Behuniak; Division’s Rep.: Mary Hurteau; Taxpayers’ Rep.: pro se; Articles 22 and 30 (by Emma Savino)
The Division issued Petitioners a Notice of Deficiency dated April 17, 2019. Petitioners filed their request for conciliation conference on August 23, 2019. BCMS issued an order dismissing the request as untimely. Petitioners then filed a timely petition, but did not respond to the Division’s motion for summary determination. The Judge found that the Division proved both its standard procedures and that they were followed when it mailed the Notice to Petitioners’ last known address on April 17, 2019. So, the Judge sustained the dismissal of Petitioners’ request for conciliation conference as untimely and granted the Division’s motion for summary determination.
Comment
