Time: Fri Dec 05 02:16:27 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA22579
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:16:10 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19020;
	Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:14:12 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd019011; Fri Dec  5 02:14:05 1997
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 02:14:05 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Dishonor, Your Honor! (fwd)

>Thanks to John McAlister for the site containing this article.  One 
>wants to cheer until reading the details of WHO the court sides with 
>here.  The stench should be unbearable to those who have had property 
>seized by the IRS -- especially those who have argured lack of proper 
>notice.  Wheewww!
>    Court Awards Judge's Estate Fees From IRS
>    The New York Law Journal
>    December 3, 1997
>        THE INTERNAL Revenue Service has been ordered to pay $34,172 in
attorney's fees and costs to a
>    prominent Manhattan estate for a 4-1/2-year tax fight the estate won
in the face of IRS conduct termed "abusive" by
>    a federal judge.
>        Southern District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the money paid to
cover costs incurred by the Estate of Paul P.
>    Rao, a former Chief Judge and 40-year member of the former Customs
Court who died in 1988. The court was
>    renamed in 1980 the U.S. Court of International Trade. 
>        Judge Rakoff also ordered the payment to teach the IRS a lesson.
"Given the abusive quality of the IRS's
>    conduct in this case, the government should feel fortunate the fees
were so modest," he wrote in Estate of Paul P.
>    Rao v. United States, 97 Civ. 3455, filed Nov. 25.
>        Judge Rakoff's ruling noted the tax fight began in earnest on May
21, 1993 when the IRS notified the estate it
>    owed $273,465 in gift taxes. The estate offered repeated denials, by
phone and in writing, that it owed that amount.
>    It also denied receiving an earlier timely notice of the alleged
deficiency which the IRS claimed it had sent in
>    December 1992.
>        "The IRS's only response was to file a notice of intent to levy on
Sept. 19, 1994, and a notice of a federal tax
>    lien on May 18, 1995," Judge Rakoff wrote.
>        The estate then "attempted with vigor and persistence to bring the
relevant facts to the IRS's attention, both
>    orally and in writing, only to be met, as the government now concedes,
with a wall of silence," the judge added.
>        Finally, the estate filed suit in May in federal court claiming
that the tax lien was void. In less than two
>    months, "the IRS conceded that it made an error in assessing the
deficiency, and agreed to lift its lien, thus mooting
>    the action," Judge Rakoff wrote.
>    Prevailing Party
>        After recounting the facts, Judge Rakoff found the estate entitled
to $34,172.19 in fees and costs because it
>    satisfied all of the necessary prerequisites for such an award.
>        Preliminarily, Judge Rakoff found the court had jurisdiction over
the tax dispute largely because it was a
>    procedural claim about the IRS's failure to properly notify the estate
of the alleged tax deficiency.
>        Then he found the estate a suitable "prevailing party" entitled to
fees because, among other things, its net
>    worth did not exceed a $2 million statutory cutoff and the estate
prevailed on its claim.
>        Judge Rakoff rejected in strong terms government arguments that
the estate did not win its primary battle,
>    which was over the issue of notice, and that the estate deserves no
fees because the government position was
>    "substantially justified."
>        "Here the fact that the IRS, having ignored plaintiff's repeated
communications for more than four years,
>    completely accepted plaintiff's position across-the-board within a few
months of the filing of this action, makes it
>    abundantly clear that no prior diligent investigation of this matter
was conducted by the defendant," he wrote.
>        Noting that the IRS promises taxpayers its goal is "to protect
your rights so that you will have the highest
>    confidence in the integrity, efficiency and fairness of our tax
system," Judge Rakoff wrote, "Our goal at the federal
>    courts is (among other things) to help the IRS keep its word."
>        He added, "A modest award of costs and attorneys' fees to the
prevailing plaintiff in this case may encourage
>    such confidence."
>        The estate was represented by Paul P. Rao Jr., Judge Rao's son.
Aaron M. Katz, a Southern District Assistant
>    U.S. Attorney, represented the government.
>Home|Contents|Marketplace|News|Employment|Practice Areas|Resources|Law
Tech.|Law Firms 
>Copyright 1997, The New York Law Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
>Access to Law Journal EXTRA! is governed by its Rules of Use. Send
comments to feedback@ljextra.com 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail