Greetings. Your editor-in-chief is a little late to the game this week. Was Sunday’s St. Patrick’s Day the culprit? Good guess, but no. I was taking a few days off this week and needed to push TiNY a couple of days past our normal Tuesday deadline to get a few client projects off my desk.
There are just two jurisdictional determinations to discuss. No surprises here.
Determinations
Matter of MSM Arrangement, LLC (Supervising ALJ Gardiner, March 7, 2024); Div’s Rep. Colleen McMahon, Esq.; Petitioner’s Rep. Donna Este-Green, Esq.; Article 22/DTA’s jurisdiction (Zoe Peppas).
Petitioner filed a petition for redetermination or refund of personal income tax for 2014 through 2022. A petition requires a legible copy of statutory notice or conciliation order being protested. Petitioner’s petition did not include the notice. Rookie mistake. The Division of Tax Appeals submitted a written request for a copy of the statutory notice being protested. Petitioner failed to provide notice. The Division issued a notice of intent to dismiss petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the petition because it was not in proper form. Petitioner did not respond. Judge Gardiner dismissed the petition with prejudice.
Matter of Top Shelf Electric Corp. (Supervising ALJ Gardiner, March 7, 2024); Div’s Rep. Amanda Alteri; Pet’s Rep. Frank Centrella, CPA; Article 22/DTA’s jurisdiction (Pete Calleri).
Petitioner filed a petition for redetermination of a deficiency or for refund of New York State personal income tax under Article 22 for the year 2022. However, Petitioner failed to attach a statutory notice to its petition as required by Tax Law § 2008(1) and 20 NYCRR 3000.3(b)(8). When the Division made a separate request for Petitioner to provide such a notice, Petitioner again failed to do. After the Division issued a notice of intent to dismiss petition, Petitioner responded by including a copy of a notice and demand, which is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Division to consider the merits of the petition. As such, the Division lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition and dismissed it with prejudice.
