background image
advocacy community education
11
was contemplating moving assets or
fleeing the state, the Superior Court
determined the commissioner's jeop-
ardy assessment was without merit
and removed the penalty and the state
marshal's fee from the determination.
This ruling was not appealed to the
Supreme Court by the Department of
Revenue Services. The taxpayer, how-
ever, appealed the issue of the legality
of the assessment and whether it
should be considered illegal, and
therefore void, as was originally raised
in the complaint.
The Connecticut Supreme Court, how-
ever, focused on the fact that counsel
for the taxpayer had not specifically
requested the trial court for removal of
the lien, despite the fact that the tax-
payer contended that the underlying
assessment
should
be
voided
because the jeopardy assessment
itself had been found improper. The
Supreme Court stated it would not
"engage in ambuscade of the trial
judge" and would not consider the
issue, effectively letting the commis-
sioner off the hook on the invalid
assessment issue.
Nevertheless, all was not lost in this
unanimous decision. It is our under-
standing that as a result of this case,
the Department of Revenue Service
now requires that specific reasons be
cited for determining that collection of
the tax is in jeopardy before issuing a
jeopardy assessment.
(continued on next page)
Based upon the Supreme Court's decision, practitioners need to
be aware of the DRS position that Z tapes, despite being
generated by the register, are not sufficient documentation to
meet the recordkeeping requirements of the state regulations.
paid advertisement