Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1

Don't Mess With the Dates on Tax Documents

IRS

Emp
Fed Govt
Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:52 AM

Post Reply

She may have been Pro Se because no atty would take the case. Properly conducted discovery would have revealed the fact the Agency had that fax info and she could never prevail. All in all, she knew she was lying, but guess she felt justified in wasting more time and govt money.

Re: IRS

Retired
Retired
Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:01 PM
If you think no attorney would take the case, you haven't met many attorneys. The most vile, despicable, and contemptible of criminals can all get attorneys. If you think not, just Google the phrase "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".

Re: IRS

Emp
Fed Govt
Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:01 PM
Well, yes, I do know many attorneys, but I guess I should have made my statement with caution. Attorneys look for technicalities to get you acquitted, not necessarily to prove your innocence. As I previously stated, she knew she was lying--I guess she thought she had nothing (else) to lose and a lot of time to waste.

Don't Mess With the Dates On Tax Documents

TE
IRS
Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:58 AM

Post Reply

I feel saddened about what happened to Ms. Gabrielli. Changing dates on a document is a definite no-no however I do understand the frustration of realizing that there is an ASED about to blow. As an ex-TFRP TE I know that the pressure of making sure that all assessments are input timely can at times become overwhelming and the penalty for blown ASEDs costly. Ms. Gabrielli must have been panic-stricken when she realized that she had missed that ASED and definiately did not think before she changed the dates. How unfortunate.

Gabrielli vs IRS

RO
IRS
Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:47 PM

Post Reply

I knew MS Gabrielli. She controlled and closed all Appeal cases for 12 states. This was management's decision. There were three other CPMS (with equal experience). This was a heavy workload. Not to say what MS Gabrielli did was right, but management did not adequately and fairly assign the work load.

Re: Gabrielli vs IRS

Retired Manager
HHS
Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:15 PM
I read the case decision and, while it's clear to me that Ms. Gabrielli was guilty of the offense charged, I am also saddened by this case. I hope management took a hard look at its operation because it is also at fault. The first issue is why it took nearly a week to get the cases to her when the timeframe for completing (30 cal. days) is so tight. The cases were sent on a Fri and arrived around noon the afternoon of the following Thurs, which was right before a 3-day weekend. Apart from the 1/2 day of her receipt, almost 1/3 of the allowed processing time was gone by the first full workday (11/14). Even if Ms. G. had not been out due to a death in the family, that would leave her about 15 work days, or half the 30 day time to process these cases (along with her existing workload). Something is wrong here. Then, to compound the time issue, her supervisor apparently took no action to check into her pending workload while she was on leave, despite the time-sensitive nature of her work.

was this an ASED statute problem?

p curley
retired, irs
Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:46 PM

Post Reply

I was a Revfenue Officer and did many Trust Fund penalties, or, as commonly called, 100% penalties. Yes, there is a statute for assessment which is 3 years from the April 15 folowing the close of the tax year ( the ASED for quarter ending 3-31-05 would be 4-15-09) or 3 years from the date filed, which ever is later (for delinquent returns). However, while I was still working, ther law changed (either TBOR 2 or RRA 98) to provide that when the 60 day notice of proposed assessment was sent, (if sent prior to the ASED). the statute would not expire until 30 days after expiration of this letter, or, if appealed, 30 days after the closing out by appeals. This was to protect taxpayers' rights by not forcing the Revenue Officer to assess "shotgun" style against everyone just to beat a statute. This article does not mention if an ASED was involved or not, or simply an internal deadline arbitrarily imposed by management.

Re: was this an ASED statute problem?

Human Resources Specialist
Department of Treasury
Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:26 AM
What the article doesn't state is that this was the employee's second bite at the apple. She had previously been suspended for thirty days one year earlier for unauthorized access of tax information. her removal for yet a second integrity issue was warranted.
Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.