For our readers who are veterans: Thank you.
I voted on Tuesday. And three days later I, and the rest of the country, still don’t know which of the major parties is going to control the Senate and House of Representatives. Even with all of our technological advances, it seems like it takes longer now to count the votes than it did in the 1970s when Walter Cronkite could tell us who won what before midnight of election day…or so it seemed to me. Once science and technology conquer the problem of reliably determining whether the football penetrated the vertical plane above the goal line, perhaps we can turn more attention to counting the votes faster.
Then again, it’s better to be slow and right than fast and wrong.
This week the DTA offers-up a couple of rulings. One is a timey; the other is an order denying summary judgement in favor of Petitioners who recently went ‘round the block on the same issue for a prior year. In short, a pretty ho-hum week.
ALJ Determination
Matter of Bouhechicha, ALJ Gardiner, November 3, 2022; Div’s Rep. Jennifer L. Hink-Brennan, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. Abdelaziz Laghroudi, EA; Article 22. This is a typical timey with a typical result: The Judge granted the Division’s motion for summary determination.
ALJ Order
Matter of Mukhitdinov and Abeuova, ALJ Maloney, November 3, 2022; Div’s Rep. Christopher O’Brien, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. Dewey Golkin, Esq.; Article 22. A few weeks back I reported on Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Determination for their 2012 tax year. In that case, Judge Russo denied the Motion finding that the proof the Petitioners lived in Kazakhstan was inconsistent. This week Judge Maloney considers Petitioners’ similar motion for the 2013 tax year, and again finds there were facts in the record that were inconsistent with the allegation that Petitioners and their children didn’t live in New York in 2013. The inconsistent facts compelled that an evidentiary hearing be held so the Judge might determine where Petitioners lived in 2013 based on a more complete record. The Judge also found that the three-year statute of limitations did not bar the Notice since no return was filed.
