Client sued in closed case for adversary without
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:57 pm
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for the response. They are suing under a "Complaint to Determine Dischargeability pursuant to 523(a)(1)(B)(i)"
They are suing under an arcane California RT Code-18622 -- that requires an extra return in addition to the annual tax return in the event of an audit of the IRS. So the bizarre conclusion is that if you don't timely self report the federal audit results in addition to filing a tax return for that year you have not met all the requirements of the 2 year rule. So the Feds are discharged but the state is not.
I have been corresponding with them for over 2 years on the matter. I got their position letter more then 2 years ago. I responded with my contrary position, noting that the case law was all outside the 9th Circuit and wasn't binding here.
They waited for more than a year to respond. Then we heard their legal argument. Now a very short notice pleading was filed entitled as mentioned above: Complaint to Determine Dischargeability pursuant to 523(a)(1)(B)(i).
I can send you the legal arguments both ways if you're interested.
Also, anyone who is interested in defending these former clients should let me know off list.
Steve
The post was migrated from Yahoo.