Main Menu Main Content
State and Local Tax Blog

About This Blog

Taxes in New York (TiNY) is a blog by the Hodgson Russ LLP State and Local Tax Practice Group. The weekly reports are intended to go out within 24 hours of the Division of Tax Appeals’ (DTA) publication of 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.  

TiNY Report for May 10, 2018 (covering DTA cases from May 3)

By on

We didn’t issue a Report last week because there weren’t any determinations, decisions or orders to report.  The absence of the Report was noted by…no one.   Constant Reader:  Did you assume there were no cases?  Did you feel a sense of relief?  Did you simply not notice (say it ain’t so!)? 

This week’s paltry offering from the DTA was a single Determination, and that was one based on timeliness.  Ugh.

ALJ DETERMINATION

Matter of Alqunali; Judge: Gardiner; Division’s Rep: Christopher O’Brien; Taxpayer’s Rep: Pro se-ish; Article 22.  The Division proved its standard mailing practices and that they were followed when it mailed the Conciliation Order at issue to Petitioner’s last known address on April 7, 2017.  Petitioner didn’t file its BCMS request until July 22, 2017, which was after the 90-day limitations period expired.  ALJ Gardiner dismissed the petition following the DTA’s issuance of a notice of intent to dismiss.  Of interest:  The Judge stated that Petitioner did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.  In a footnote, the Judge clarified:    “A response from petitioner’s tax preparer, Yehad Abdelaziz, dated February 1, 2018, was received by the Division of Tax Appeals. Mr. Abdelaziz was granted special permission by the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Conciliation and Mediation Services (BCMS) to appear and represent petitioner at the conciliation conference held for CMS No. 271907. Mr. Abdelaziz was granted no such permission by the Division of Tax Appeals and remains unqualified to represent petitioner in this proceeding (see Tax Law § 2014 [1]). Petitioner and Mr. Abdelaziz were notified on January 10, 2018, that he was unqualified to represent petitioner at the Division of Tax Appeals. Therefore, the response from Mr. Abdelaziz has not been considered in rendering this determination.”   The Petitioner could have had his say if he simply had Mr. Abdelaziz prepare the response and then submitted it himself.  Given the timeliness issue, it probably would not have mattered.       

Post a comment:

*All fields are required.