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 19, 2019 (reporting on DTA cases issued September 12)
This week we have four cookie-cutter Determinations. I am going to give cookie-cutter summaries. You need read only one of the summaries since they are all the same. In the past, I would write one summary and then write “ditto” for each of the subsequent cases, but I have recently discovered that our website allows you to search TiNY for our summaries; so henceforth, I will provide summaries for all cases instead of saying “see above.” And yeah, this is the second time this decade I used “henceforth” in a sentence. I try to avoid anachronistic words and phrases, but I guess my guard was down this week. Mea culpa.
DETERMINATIONS
Matter of Affinity Towers, LLC; Judge Friedman, Division’s Reps.: Robert Tompkins; Petitioner’s Rep.: ?; Article 9-A.
“Petitioner…filed a petition that was received by the Division of Tax Appeals on December 24, 2018. The envelope containing the petition bears a United States Postal Service (USPS) postmark dated December 18, 2019.” I am drafting this on September 19, 2019, so the “December 18, 2019” in the determination is either a typo, or a slip-up by the USPS. Given that so much of the jurisprudence on which we comment is dependent on the USPS postmark, I hope to heck that it is the former and not the latter. If USPS postmarks prove to not be 100% reliable, we may be doomed.
Anyway, the petition was signed by a Mr. Hall, who did not indicate his relationship to the Petitioner. And there was no notice attached to the Petition. And there was no statement of the amount at issue. The DTA sent a letter to Petitioner asking it to cure these deficiencies in the petition. Petitioner’s response? Crickets. So the Supervising ALJ issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. And following Petitioner’s failure to respond the NoItD (and the Division’s response), the Supervising ALJ issued this determination dismissing the petition.
Matter of Eastern Shore Towers, LLC; Judge Friedman, Division’s Reps.: Robert Tompkins; Petitioner’s Rep.: ?; Article 9-A.
“Petitioner…filed a petition that was received by the Division of Tax Appeals on December 24, 2018. The envelope containing the petition bears a United States Postal Service (USPS) postmark dated December 18, 2019.” I am drafting this on September 19, 2019, so the “December 18, 2019” in the determination is either a typo, or a slip-up by the USPS. Given that so much of the jurisprudence on which we comment is dependent on the USPS postmark, I hope to heck that it is the former and not the latter. If USPS postmarks prove to not be 100% reliable, we may be doomed.
Anyway, the petition was signed by a Mr. Hall, who did not indicate his relationship to the Petitioner. And there was no notice attached to the Petition. And there was no statement of the amount at issue. The DTA sent a letter to Petitioner asking it to cure these deficiencies in the petition. Petitioner’s response? Crickets. So the Supervising ALJ issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. And following Petitioner’s failure to respond the NoItD (and the Division’s response), the Supervising ALJ issued this determination dismissing the petition.
Matter of Seashore Towers; Judge Friedman, Division’s Reps.: Robert Tompkins; Petitioner’s Rep.: ?; Article 9-A.
“Petitioner…filed a petition that was received by the Division of Tax Appeals on December 24, 2018. The envelope containing the petition bears a United States Postal Service (USPS) postmark dated December 18, 2019.” I am drafting this on September 19, 2019, so the “December 18, 2019” in the determination is either a typo, or a slip-up by the USPS. Given that so much of the jurisprudence on which we comment is dependent on the USPS postmark, I hope to heck that it is the former and not the latter. If USPS postmarks prove to not be 100% reliable, we may be doomed.
Anyway, the petition was signed by a Mr. Hall, who did not indicate his relationship to the Petitioner. And there was no notice attached to the Petition. And there was no statement of the amount at issue. The DTA sent a letter to Petitioner asking it to cure these deficiencies in the petition. Petitioner’s response? Crickets. So the Supervising ALJ issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. And following Petitioner’s failure to respond the NoItD (and the Division’s response), the Supervising ALJ issued this determination dismissing the petition.
Matter of Shoreline Towers, LLC; Judge Friedman, Division’s Reps.: Robert Tompkins; Petitioner’s Rep.: ?; Article 9-A.
“Petitioner…filed a petition that was received by the Division of Tax Appeals on December 24, 2018. The envelope containing the petition bears a United States Postal Service (USPS) postmark dated December 18, 2019.” I am drafting this on September 19, 2019, so the “December 18, 2019” in the determination is either a typo, or a slip-up by the USPS. Given that so much of the jurisprudence on which we comment is dependent on the USPS postmark, I hope to heck that it is the former and not the latter. If USPS postmarks prove to not be 100% reliable, we may be doomed.
Anyway, the petition was signed by a Mr. Hall, who did not indicate his relationship to the Petitioner. And there was no notice attached to the Petition. And there was no statement of the amount at issue. The DTA sent a letter to Petitioner asking it to cure these deficiencies in the petition. Petitioner’s response? Crickets. So the Supervising ALJ issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. And following Petitioner’s failure to respond the NoItD (and the Division’s response), the Supervising ALJ issued this determination dismissing the petition.
Comment
