Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:20:56 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
Actually, there are limits on this. If one has relied upon incorrect WRITTEN advice from a federal agency which enforces the subject matter of the advice, then that is sufficient to defeat civil penalties (at least it is in the Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) - as such advice is "substantial authority"). [Be careful of generalized statements....] IIRC the IRC gives the IRS specific authority to waive penalties for reliance on incorrect IRS written responses. Charlie Richmond didn't have that benefit, however, and neither do most other folks who deal with the Federal government. Read _Richmond v Office of Personnel Management_, one of my favorite SCOTUS decisions of recent times. The only one who had any sense of compasssion in that decision was Thurgood Marshall, J., who suggested in dicta that Charlie Richmond seek reclamation of the withheld payments by means of a private bill in The Congress, which he did and was successful. The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer before you ask it. Then why ask? :-) To get it on the record. Any lawyer worth his/her salt does not ask a question without knowing what the answer will be. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|