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 September 13, 2018 (covering DTA cases issued September 6)
This week we have two ALJ Determinations and two Tribunal Decisions. All four involve timeliness. Yuck.
DETERMINATIONS
Matter of Goutos; Judge: Galliher; Division’s Rep: Charles Fishbaum; Taxpayer’s Rep: Neil Cohen; Article 22. The Division proved it mailed the Notice of Deficiency to Petitioner’s last known address. Petitioner mailed his BCMS request protesting the Notice a year and 8 months later, well after the 90-day deadline. The Judge has no problem granting summary determination for the Division. Hmmm.
Matter of Fuller; Judge: Law; Division’s Rep: Nicholas Behuniak; Taxpayer’s Rep: Patrick Quinn; Articles 28 and 29. A Notice and Demand was issued to Petitioner on November 16, 2017, which referenced a Notice of Determination dated August 1, 2017. Both Notices had the same assessment ID number. Petitioner filed a DTA petition on December 12, 2017 protesting the Notice and Demand, but did not attach the original Notice of Determination. The Supervising ALJ issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Dismiss based on the DTA’s lack of jurisdiction over the petition (taxpayers don’t have a right to protest Notices and Demands). Though the petition protested the Notice and Demand, the Judge also made a determination on the timeliness of the petition with respect to the Notice of Determination. The Judge held the Division proved it mailed the Notice of Determination to Petitioner’s last known address. Petitioner did not file his petition until after the 90-day deadline, so the Judge also determined the petition was untimely filed. Sigh.
DECISIONS
Matter of Dhan Guru Ji Corporation; Division’s Rep: Adam Roberts; Taxpayer’s Rep: Parvinder Kaur; Articles 28 and 29. A Notice of Determination was issued to Petitioner. Petitioner requested a BCMS conference. BCMS issued a conciliation order dismissing Petitioner’s request by mailing it to Petitioner’s last known address. Petitioner filed a DTA petition protesting the conciliation order after the 90-day deadline. The Tribunal agreed with the ALJ that the DTA petition was untimely filed. Yawn.
Matter of Kaur; Division’s Rep: Adam Roberts; Taxpayer’s Rep: pro se; Articles 28 and 29. Petitioner in this case was Petitioner’s representative in the above Decision. Petitioner filed a DTA petition protesting a Notice of Determination. The Tribunal agreed with the ALJ that Petitioner’s DTA petition was untimely filed and that the Division proved proper mailing of the Notice to Petitioner. Zzzzzz.
Comment
