Frivolity, CDP Remands, Proving A Return Filed, and Untimely Refund Claims: Designated Orders 4/30 – 5/4/2018

Professor Patrick Thomas brings us the latest installment as we continue to play catch up on some interesting designated orders. Les

 This week’s orders bring us, yet again, a few taxpayers behaving badly (the interminable Mr. Ryskamp graces the pages of this blog yet again), a bevy of Graev-related orders on motions to reopen from Judge Carluzzo (all granted), three orders from Judge Jacobs, and a few deeper dives.

First, Judge Buch exercises the Tax Court’s ability to remand CDP cases for changed circumstances. Judge Ashford reminds us of the potential power of dismissing a deficiency case for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely Notice of Deficiency—along with the proof needed to achieve such a result. Finally, Judge Holmes handles a motion to vacate due to petitioner’s inability to obtain a refund from the Tax Court.

read more...

 Special Trial Judges Wield the Section 6673 PenaltyDocket Nos. 12507-17 L, Rader v. C.I.R. (Order Here); Docket No. 3899-18, Ryskamp v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In Rader, Judge Panuthos granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the CDP context. It’s relatively rare for the Tax Court to hear or grant such motions in CDP cases. When a petition is timely and properly filed, the Court usually decides, at minimum, whether the Settlement Officer “verifi[ed] … that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met”, as is required under section 6330(c)(1)—even where the petitioner doesn’t raise that issue or participate in the administrative hearing or Tax Court proceeding.

In contrast, here Judge Panuthos never reaches the merits (despite a timely filed request for a CDP hearing and timely filed petition) because the petition itself didn’t really say anything of substance.  Indeed, Judge Panuthos characterized it as containing “little more than pseudo-legal verbiage; references to [Code] sections and citations of tax cases, accompanied by petitioner’s questionable interpretations of those Code sections and case holdings; and accusations of fraud on the part of the IRS.”

The petition did try to challenge the underlying tax liability for 2012, noting that the Substitute-For-Return was inappropriate. Judge Panuthos gives a short recitation of why individuals are obligated to pay federal income tax, and why the Service has authority to assess tax via an SFR. (Not that he was required to; petitioner had already challenged his underlying liability, unsuccessfully, in a deficiency case, and so was barred from litigating the issue here). He then grants the motion to dismiss.

Finally, Judge Panuthos assesses, on the Court’s own motion, a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 for asserting “frivolous and meritless arguments”. Apparently, Mr. Rader has been assessed such a penalty in four (four!) separate deficiency dockets, including the one giving rise to this CDP matter. I’m not sure if another penalty will set him on the straight and narrow—but at this juncture, not issuing a penalty simply isn’t an option.

In Judge Guy’s order, Mr. Ryskamp is at it again. As we reported last month, Mr. Ryskamp attempted to acquire CDP jurisdiction by writing “Notice of Determination” on top of a Letter 2802C for 2017, and filed a petition with that letter on January 5, 2018. (The Letter 2802C indicates to a taxpayer that they submitted incorrect information to their employer on Form W-4). Judge Guy dismissed that case for lack of jurisdiction, warning him about the section 6673 penalty in an order dated March 23, 2018. In another post, we notedthat Mr. Ryskamp did the same thing with a LT16 notice (for those keeping score at home, still not a Notice of Determination), which Judge Gustafson quickly dismissed (though without the 6673 warning).

Now, Mr. Ryskamp filed a petition dated February 23, 2018, again attaching a letter related to withholding compliance, which he had requested from the Service. Judge Guy issued an Order to Show Cause why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Mr. Ryskamp responded that the Court should regardless answer the following question: “What are a taxpayer’s substantive collection due process rights?”

Bad answer—or, question. Judge Guy dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, he imposes a $1,000 penalty under section 6673, noting that Mr. Ryskamp was previously warned about the penalty four years earlier, and had been subject to two other case dismissals upon similar grounds. Judge Guy didn’t yet reference his earlier order regarding the Letter 2802C (perhaps because the Order to Show Cause was filed a day beforethe earlier order was issued).

What IRS notice will next reach the Tax Court as Mr. Ryskamp seeks to acquire jurisdiction of his substantive due process arguments? Time—and ever-increasing 6673 penalties—will likely tell. In the meantime, however, the Ninth Circuit will deal next with Mr. Ryskamp; he filed a Notice of Appeal on May 4. Mr. Ryskamp should take a look at section 6673(b)(3), which allows for the Service to assess and collect as a tax any sanctions he receives in a Court of Appeals.

Remanding for Changed Circumstances in a CDP Hearing Docket No. 1801-17 L, Rine v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

Turning the tables, Judge Buch encounters a relatively sympathetic taxpayer in Rine, where the petitioner is mired in the collection of a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty under section 6672. In the CDP hearing, Mr. Rine rejected the Settlement Officer’s proposed $914 per month installment agreement, and upon issuance of a Notice of Determination sustaining the levy, petitioned the Tax Court.

While Mr. Rine actively participated in the CDP hearing—submitting a Form 433-A with expenses well in excess of his income—it seems the Settlement Officer substantially adjusted his figures. Ultimately, she concluded that Mr. Rine had at least $914 per month in disposable income, and that he’d need to sell some assets (stock, life insurance, and his 401(k)) before that could occur. He alleged that these assets had already been fully leveraged to finance his struggling former business.

Meanwhile, this business, which originally incurred the employment taxes at issue, had already entered into a bankruptcy plan to repay the liability (or more likely, some portion of the liability). Throughout this litigation, it paid $10,000 per month (which eventually mooted one of the tax periods before the Court in Pine, as it became paid in full). Mr. Rine argued that the liability was being paid under the bankruptcy plan, and so the IRS shouldn’t collect from him personally.

Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the levy, because Mr. Rine rejected the proposed Installment Agreement. In response, Mr. Rine repeated the arguments above, and noted that his wife had recently suffered from an accident, reducing her income; his own medical conditions had also deteriorated, increasing his expenses. Judge Buch holds that no abuse of discretion occurred, because the SO considered the information petitioner provided, verified applicable legal and administrative requirements, and engaged in the CDP balancing test.

But that was the extent of Judge Buch’s analysis. As such, I’m left with a number of questions: (1) how did the SO arrive at a $914 per month income surplus, where Mr. Rine’s submissions deviate so substantially? (2) Was her calculation valid? (3) What’s the total liability, and how quickly would the liability be paid under the bankruptcy plan alone? While the latter question is not determinative, it’d be helpful to have seen more analysis of whythe SO’s calculation was not arbitrary and capricious. From the facts alone (expenses far exceeding income; fully leveraged assets), a colorable case could be made that the decision was indeed arbitrary and capricious.

Nevertheless, Mr. Pine lives on to fight another day. Because of the changed circumstances for both Mr. and Mrs. Pine, Judge Buch remands the case to Appeals—though he notes that it’s up to Mr. Pine to provide evidence of his new situation.

Conflicting Evidence Finds Jurisdiction Docket Nos. 17507-14, 3156-13, Peabody v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

Our next order comes from Judge Ashford, who denies petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners alleged that the Service issued their Notice of Deficiency too late, and therefore, had blown the assessment statute of limitations under section 6501(a).

Interestingly, this motion to dismiss was made pursuant to a timely filed petition; in the ordinary course, petitioners move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where the taxpayer never received the Notice of Deficiency. They then allege that the Service failed to send the Notice to their last known address. The Service responds with its own motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but on the basis that the petition is untimely. Either way, the Tax Court finds a lack of jurisdiction, but the prevailing party obtains a judgment as to whythe Court lacks jurisdiction. If no proper Notice of Deficiency was issued, then the Service must respect that judgment and cannot thereafter proceed to assess or collect the underlying tax.

In contrast, the Peabodys received the Notice and timely filed a petition. Strike one against the success of their jurisdictional motion to dismiss.

The dispute here centers on whenthe Peabodys filed their 2009 income tax return. All agree they received an extension of time to file until October 15, 2010. If they filed the return on that date, then the statute under 6501(a) would have expired on October 15, 2013. A Notice of Deficiency issued on July 10, 2014 would be too late.

But was the return filed on October 15, 2010? The Service introduced a 2009 return that bore a stamped date of October 31, 2011, petitioners’ signatures, and handwritten dates of October 13, 2010.  The date on the paid preparer signature line was October 18, 2011. The envelope, which was sent to the IRS service center in Austin, bore a postmark date of October 28, 2011. Under these facts, a filing date of October 31, 2011 causes the statute to run on October 31, 2014—3 years after filing (note that the filing date for returns received after the deadline is the date of IRS receipt, not when the taxpayer mailed it).

Petitioners’ story is quite different. They argue that this purported “return” was not, in fact, their original 2009 federal income tax return. In their version, the return was prepared, picked up, signed, and mailed to the IRS campus in Fresno all on October 15, 2010. To support these allegations, they included an email, invoice, and filing instructions from their return preparer; a copy of the first two pages of their 2009 tax return; and sworn declarations from both Mr. Peabody and their tax return preparer.

The email seems to show that the return was sent from the preparer to Mr. Peabody on October 15, 2010. The return has a handwritten date of October 15, 2010 next to petitioners’ signatures, though the tax preparer did not sign. Mr. Peabody’s statement avers that he mailed the return the same day using the pre-addressed envelope from his return preparer. It also notes that, as to the Service’s return allegedly received on October 31, 2011, Mr. Peabody mailed a second return in response to a letter from the IRS, which requested a copy of the return; their preparer, according to them, printed it on October 18, 2011, and they sent it on its way. The preparer’s statement noted only that he prepared the return, and that the Peabodys picked it up on October 15, 2010 and mailed it.

This caused the IRS to pile on. Respondent submitted a sworn statement of the Revenue Agent who conducted the audit and a certified copy of Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters. The RA began the audit in August 2012, and requested a copy of the return, which was provided in early 2013 (thus, petitioners’ statement that he sent a copy of the return in 2011 seems suspect). At no time, according to the RA, did the Peabodys challenge the timing of the 2009 return filing. The Form 4340 showed an extension of time was filed, but that no return was filed until October 31, 2011.

Finally, Mr. Peabody replied with another sworn statement, noting that he was told during the audit that he was a victim of ID theft, which had caused his 2009, 2011, and 2012 returns to be rejected. He also noted that he believed the SOL had expired, justifying his refusal to extend the assessment statute for 2009.

Judge Ashford finds jurisdiction, and validates the Notice of Deficiency, relying on the self-serving nature of petitioners’ testimony, along with the unexplained discrepancies between the Service’s return (signed on October 13, 2010 and filed October 31, 2011) and the petitioners’ (signed on October 15, 2010 and filed on October 15, 2010). Further, the petitioners alleged in their petition that the return was filed on October 10, 2010. Judge Ashford also notes in a footnote that even if petitioner was an ID theft victim, this hurts his claim; the Service rejects returns that it believes are from an ID thief. (Interestingly, she also chides the IRS for assessing a failure-to-file penalty under section 6651(a) if the Peabodys are indeed ID theft victims). As such, the petitioners fail to carry their burden; weighed against the evidence the Service produced, especially the Form 4340, it appears more likely than not the only valid return is the one the IRS received on October 31, 2011. Indeed, the Form 4340 notes that the Service sent notices on July 25, 2011 and September 19, 2011, strongly suggesting the Service either rejected or didn’t receive the earlier return (and perhaps it’s that second notice to which petitioners responded with the “copy” of the return). This all puts the Service’s Notice of Deficiency well within the assessment statute.

Motion to Vacate for Bygone Refunds Docket Nos. 21366-14, 23139-12, 23113-12, Dollarhide v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

I was really hoping that with a name like “Dollarhide”, this would be a tax evasion case of some variety.

I mean, come on. Dollarhide? It’s just too good.

Alas, the Dollarhides seem like fairly honest taxpayers tripped up by the refund statute of limitations. We briefly covered these dockets in an earlier postfrom March. In that order, Judge Holmes granted the Service’s motion to enter a decision, finding that the refund statute of limitations barred the petitioners’ refund claim. Under section 6513(b), their withholding for 2006 was treated as paid on April 15, 2007; to make matters worse, it seems the Dollarhides paid excess Social Security tax—which likewise is claimable as a credit and treated as paid on April 15, 2007. But they filed their return on February 3, 2011, more than three years thereafter. Accordingly, the payment on April 15, 2007 was not claimable under section 6511(b)(2).

Now, the Dollarhides filed a motion to vacate or revise the decision under Rule 162. They argued that, had they known they couldn’t receive a refund, they would not have agreed to the stipulation of settled issues, upon which the Court based its decision. This document presumably includes a stipulation that the 2006 return was filed on February 3, 2011. The Tax Court rules here track the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; FRCP 60(b) governs motions for relief from judgment, and the Dollarhides attempt to shoehorn this matter into FRCP 60(b)(3), which allows relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.

That argument doesn’t fly with Judge Holmes. He notes that a mere failure to state something is not fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, at least where the untold statement could have been discovered with a little diligence. The Dollarhides, according to Judge Holmes, could have indeed discovered a clear legal issue like this.

Secondly, the Dollarhides argue that they didn’t file a 2006 return, because the Revenue Agent handling the corporation’s audit requested their 2006 individual return. From the order, we can’t tell whetherthat return was indeed submitted to the RA. Judge Holmes notes that no individual audit occurred for 2006. If the Dollarhides are telling the truth, and the return was indeed submitted to the RA, I’m not sure it matters that no individual audit was conducted. See above, however, for difficulties in proving whenor howa return was filed.

Finally, the Dollarhides didn’t raise the overpayment in their petition. Because the stipulation of settled issues indeed “resolved all issues in the case” (the refund claim not being an issue), any misrepresentation to the IRS wasn’t material.

But even if the Dollarhides found their way past the barriers to granting a motion to vacate, they’d still have great difficulties on the merits. If the Dollarhides could have proven that the return was somehow filed beforethe IRS alleges (perhaps with the Revenue Agent), they might have had a shot. It doesn’t look like any such evidence was presented, either with the motion or elsewhere in this case. As such, Judge Holmes denies the motion and ends this case.

Evidence, S-Cases, and Collection Due Process Review. Designated Orders 4/23/2018 – 4/27/2018

Professor Caleb Smith from the University of Minnesota Law School presents this week’s edition of Designated Orders; in addition to thinking about the challenges of substantiating expenses (and how the world shifts starting in 2018 for unreimbursed employee expenses), the post considers a healthy dose of Graev/Chai issues, a topic that Caleb discussed in a well-attended panel at the recent ABA Tax Section meeting. Les

It was a prolific week for designated orders from April 23 through April 27, with 10 issued. Here are the highlights:

read more...

The Benefits of an S-Case: Morgan v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 7695-17S (here)

We begin with an order addressing a very common issue: substantiating business expenses, particularly of the dreaded IRC 274 variety.  This designated order and bench opinion from Judge Carluzzo is a good example of the power (and limitations) of an S-Case when you have a fairly sympathetic taxpayer situation.

When a taxpayer clearly has expenses but kept poor records (worse, no records) it strikes many as extremely unfair that they should be fully disallowed any deduction of those expenses. Sometimes taxpayers can rely on Cohan in those circumstances. But, as has been discussed by Professor Bryan Camp elsewherethe Cohan doctrine only goes so far: especially with “listed” expenses. A Tax Court Judge may well believe that you had (otherwise) deductible expenses, but disallow any deduction because you didn’t meet substantiation requirements. That is the law, after all, and the law is what a Judge must apply, even in S-Cases.

So what good are the relaxed rules of an S-case for substantiation (rather than strictly evidence) issues?

I think Morgan gives a good taste of why an S-case still has value in such instances. It has less to do with evidence, and more to do with S-cases being non-precedential. Here, the taxpayer arguably meets the strict substantiation requirements of IRC 274… but just barely, if not without some charity from Judge Carluzzo. I am not so sure such treatment would be afforded in a regular (potentially precedential) case.

The taxpayer in Morgan worked in asbestos remediation. His job is exactly the sort that requires frequent travel and has no regular place of employment: on any given day, Mr. Morgan would receive his marching orders (“go remove the flooring from 123 Main Street”) and head on his way. Over the course of the year he went to about 25 different locations, some which were fairly far from his residence (up to 58 miles away). Mr. Morgan kept track of the dates and locations of travel, occasionally accompanied by the name of the customer, on loose-leaf paper. He then calculated the mileage by plugging the information into MapQuest.

Is that good enough under IRC 274? There are at least a couple reasons to think not.

First the IRS calls into question just how “contemporaneous” these records really are, apparently having elicited some questionable testimony to that point during cross-exam. Judge Carluzzo notes this as a “serious concern,” but ultimately decides that the records are still “reliable enough.”

Then, and most importantly, there is the legal question of whether the records actually show deductible mileage in the first place. Because Mr. Morgan had no regular place of employment, his travel from home to a temporary site would be deductible (rather than commuting) mileage ONLY if the temporary site was “outside of the metropolitan area” that Mr. Morgan lived in. The records as submitted show mileage and location, but apparently not whether that location was “outside of the metropolitan area where the taxpayer normally lives and works.”

Judge Carluzzo could, at this point, say the records aren’t enough: the taxpayer has the burden of proof to show that they are entitled to the deduction, showing that they traveled outside the metro area they normally live and work in is an element of the deduction, and they failed to show demonstrate that. I think in a non-S Case that may well have been the outcome. Instead, Judge Carluzzo finds that it would “be unfair to deny the entire deduction because we lack that specific information.” His creative (and I’d say fair) solution is to infer that mileage logs showing a distance greater than 40 miles are likely outside of the metro area, and therefore allowed. Not a perfect solution, but an equitable one. He leaves it to the IRS and the petitioner to recalculate the deductible expenses based on that understanding (I question how much, if any, will actually be deductible thereafter, since Mr. Morgan was an employee that will have to deduct the mileage as a miscellaneous itemized expense subject to the 2% AGI floor. Note also that beginning this year, regardless of how wonderful Mr. Morgan’s records are (or if all locations are outside the metro) he will not be allowed any deduction since the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” completely eliminated it.)

In any event, Morganshows the ability of S-cases to allow for equitable solutions where taxpayers are caught between fairly esoteric law and the general notion that such law, if strictly applied, would appear to result being taxed on more net income than you really had. The S-case designation won’t save you from IRC 274, but it just may give you more wiggle room thereafter.

As an aside, the rule that the temporary work location must be “outside” the metro area has never sat particularly well with me. The metro area requirement is written nowhere in statute but was put forth by the IRS in Rev. Rul. 99-7as a way for determining personal vs business mileage. The need to promulgate somesort of distinction between non-deductible personal (commuting) expense and “away from home” deductible mileage is understandable given the vagaries of the Code on that issue. I’m just not so sure using “metropolitan area” as the touchstone strikes a desired balance between administrative workability and fairness.

On the “administratively workable” side, it seems odd to use the somewhat mushy “metro area” (nowhere further defined) rather than, say, just a set number of miles from the taxpayer’s actual residence. Similarly, on the “fairness” side it seems to penalize those that live in large metro areas (for example, Los Angeles). Is it really less of “commuting” if the new job location is across a river/state line 10 miles away in a rural area versus across town but 60 miles away? What if you live at the edge of the “metro area?”

Apparently, these are the thoughts that keep me awake at night…

Filling Out the Contours of GraevWeaver v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 262-15S (here) and Collins v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 9650-14 (here)

For those needing their weekly fix of Chai (more accurately Graev, but that doesn’t work as a pun) Judge Ashford and Judge Halpern provide the fix.

By way of extremely brief background, after Graev III the burden of proof is on the IRS to show supervisory approval of penalties under IRC 6751. These two orders don’t break any new ground on that issue, but do provide useful primers on a hot issue that practitioners need to be aware of.

With Collins, we see the usual (and likely to be dwindling) arguments on whether the Tax Court should reopen the record for cases with one foot in the Graev (that is those that took place before Graevwas decided but remained open after Graev III). These cases are, of course, finite and largely coming to an end, so in a sense have mostly historical value. However, they may also provide some insights to petitioners in future sure-to-be frequent fights over evidentiary proof of supervisory approval under IRC 6751.

Collins provides the usual script, with Judge Ashford punctuating a few keys points. First, the usual: IRS moves to reopen the record because they didn’t originally introduce evidence of supervisory approval of a penalty on the very-reasonable ground that at the time the Court had hitherto said they didn’t need to. Second, the petitioner tries very hard to come up with a reason why the IRS shouldn’t now be allowed to reopen the record. Third, the Tax Court says, “we have discretion to open the record, and petitioner’s reasons not to just aren’t good enough.”

In future IRC 6751 litigation, the IRS shouldn’t need to reopen the record to introduce evidence of supervisory approval: Graev IIImakes clear they should do that upfront. Nonetheless, where the IRS seeks to submit into evidence a Civil Penalty Approval Form that purports to show proper supervisory approval under IRC 6751, the petitioner will need to think critically about what arguments they may still be able to make to show a failure of IRC 6751 compliance. Collinsprovides a little insight on what those arguments may be and their likelihood of success.

First, it is clear that objecting to the introduction of a Civil Penalty Approval Form on hearsay grounds won’t work. The exception offered by the IRS and readily accepted by Judge Ashford is FRE 803(6) often referred to as the “business records rule.” That is enough for the IRS to carry the day on hearsay objections, though frankly I think it is more than the IRS actually needs.

Judge Ashford takes as a given that the Civil Penalty Approval Form is “inadmissible hearsay” absent an exception applying. I’m not so sure that is correct: how is it that the IRS could have a legal requirement under IRC § 6751 to show “written approval” and yet the written approval itself be inadmissible hearsay absent exception? I think most law students taking evidence would similarly find that result puzzling, though begrudgingly accept it because hearsay doctrine is mostly incomprehensible. However, for the student sticking with that initial reaction (“it seems wrong that this would generally be hearsay”), I think they may be on to something.

Without going into too great depth, I will say that I think the Civil Penalty Approval Form may not be hearsay at all because it has “independent legal significance.” The IRS is offering the form essentially because the IRS has to, as an element of its case, much in the same way that contract and defamation cases necessarily have to introduce out-of-court statements. If those statements were treated as hearsay (thus requiring an exception for admissibility) many would likely fail because they weren’t business records, etc. To me, the crux of the issue is simply “does written approval exist?” and the IRS Civil Penalty Approval Form is submitted for that purpose. That is arguably a “non-hearsay use” of the Civil Penalty Approval Form and should therefore not be evaluated as hearsay needing an exception for admission.

And this gets to the second point: what are you really trying to argue when the IRS offers a Civil Penalty Approval Form? In Collins, the objection was really about the authenticityof the document -not whether it purports to show supervisory approval. The IRS included a statement from the supervisor that signed the document attesting to its authenticity. Because Judge Ashford approached the Civil Penalty Approval Form as hearsay admissible only under FRE 803(6), this statement (or something similar) is required as certification under FRE 902(11)and thus admissible (and sufficient, in this case to show that the form was authentic).

The authentication argument (as well as the hearsay argument) in Collinsis a loser, and I believe will almost always be a loser in future cases absent extremely bad actors in the IRS. So what can we take from Collins? To me, it is the primacy of the written document in IRC 6751 cases. As a taxpayer, saying “I don’t trust it,” probably won’t work. But, there are other rules of evidence (and tactical approaches) that may.

IRS records can be pretty bad at times. My assumption is that, moving forward, where the IRS cannot provide ANY written approval of the penalty they will concede the issue or argue no approval is needed under IRC 6751(b)(2). But the more interesting cases may be where the IRS has some written record that, taken as a whole, seems to show supervisory approval -but not a clear, single “Civil Penalty Approval Form.” In those cases I think the rules of evidence give practitioners new potential methods for attack. The question of “why isn’tthere a single approval form?” comes to mind. If that is the “regularly conducted activity” of the IRS (under FRE 803(6)), absence of those regular entries seems all the more important (and testimony from the IRS about the absence would appear to be admissible under FRE 803(7). I have seen the IRS provide any number of different forms of “written approval” (including what seem to just be case notes) for the penalty. If it is the practice to have an actual, standard approval form, one might hold the IRS’s feet to the fire when they fail to do so and instead try to provide other corroborating (written) evidence. I daresay in these circumstances, litigants may need to reacquaint themselves not only with hearsay but also the best evidence doctrines.

I’m sure such issues will play out to the delight of the Tax Court in the not so distant future.

The second designated order involving Graev again brings up problems that will soon be relics of history. Although the order doesn’t break much new ground, Judge Halpern does provide a helpful timeline of the Graev/Chai saga, as well as a reference to a far-less-frequently cited case that touches on IRC § 6751 pre-Chai: Legg v. C.I.R., 145 T.C. 344. I assume the reason Legg did not result in the firestorm Graev has is because Legg found that the requirements of IRC § 6751 were met by the IRS, and didn’t touch whether they were applicable in the first place: everything in Legg hinged on whether the approval was part of the “initial determination.”

The Weaver situation blissfully will soon be a thing of the past. Weaver had its trial after Chai, but before Graev I. The briefing was completed after the second Circuit reversed Chai, but before the Graev III about-face. The question posed by Judge Halpern, as it so often has been, is “How does Graev III affect this case?” Since the case was not yet decided when Graev III was decided, I assume the answer will be that the IRS needs to comply with IRC 6751 (with a motion to reopen the record) or the penalty falls under the automated exception of IRC 6751(b)(2).

Insisting a Little Too Much on Your Day in Court: Ryskamp v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 20628-17 (here)

When you frequently comb through the US Tax Court orders archive some names begin to seem familiar. Ryskamp is one such name, and the accompanying order illustrates why. The order itself is fairly routine: taxpayer wants to get into Tax Court on a CDP case without having the proper “ticket”:  that is, a Notice of Determination (or letter that should be a notice of determination). Rather, Mr. Ryskamp has only Notice LT16, which he attempts to pass off as a Notice of Determination. This is akin to trying to get into a Hamilton by presenting an expired bus ticket. And the Court is not having it. And for good reason.

This does not appear to be a taxpayer that is (justifiably) confused about the limits of Tax Court jurisdiction -what IRS letters serve as tickets and what IRS letters don’t. Rather, Mr. Ryskamp ALREADY had petitioned (and had his day in court) for nearly all of the years at issue after a previous CDP hearing and judicial review. But that happened in 2014… perhaps Mr. Ryskamp forgot, or believed he had a new opportunity?

Doubtful: he appealed his original CDP case to the D.C. Circuit in 2015. Then, losing on appeal, Mr. Ryskamp petitioned the Supreme Court in 2016 (cert denied, as one might expect).

So why does Mr. Ryskamp believe the Tax Court should now, at long last, once more hear his arguments about why he shouldn’t pay his 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2009 taxes? Because, Mr. Ryskamp asserts, “when a petition raises substantive due process arguments, the Tax Court must address them.” Interesting premise, although he could not have picked a less amenable (or appropriate) forum to make them in.

One feels for both the IRS, Judge Guy, and frankly honest taxpayers everywhere in cases like these: resources are wasted addressing inane and time-consuming arguments by serial tax-delinquents. It is easy enough for Judge Guy to resolve this issue (the boilerplate “Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction” does the trick), but simply finding in favor of the IRS/dismissing the case does not seem a full remedy. Depending on one’s constitution, readers may feel a twinge of retributive justice was later served Mr. Ryskamp,in the form of a $1000 penalty for challenging a collection action for the “2018 tax year” (somehow). A tip of the hat for my Designated Orders colleague William Schmidt for directing me to that outcome.

Odds and Ends: Remaining Designated Orders

How to Compel Discovery

Judge Jacobs issued two orders: onedenying a pro se petitioner’s motion to compel discovery from the IRS (presumably because they did not try to use informal means of discovery first), and onegranting the IRS’s motion to compel discovery from the taxpayer (after fairly extensive attempts to utilize informal means of discover). They don’t provide too much insight on the issues, but are a reminder of the Tax Court imperative to use informal methods of discovery as much as possible.

How Not to Move for Summary Judgment:Lamprecht v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 14410-15 (here)

Knowing when is appropriate to move for summary judgment can be difficult even for trained attorneys. Through denying a pro se petitioner’s motion in Lamprecht, Judge Gustafson lays out a few more helpful tips. In Lamprecht, one of the petitioner’s wanted SJ against the IRS, and explicitly “assumed” that the Tax Court (or IRS) was already aware of the relevant facts thus far developed. If your SJ motion really just says “Judge, you’ve heard us talk enough by now, you know what is relevant and what isn’t, please make your decision,” it is not likely to pass muster. Perhaps you are right, and all the relevant issues/facts have been established… but it is your responsibility to show what those are and (equally importantly) why they mean you should win. As Judge Gustafson writes, “the task of extracting from prior filings “the facts in this action that are relevant to [a summary judgment] motion” and then the task of searching the record to see whether those alleged facts can be supported by materials in the record” are the responsibility of the moving party.

Miscellany

Two designated orders from Judge Carluzzo (a bench opinion finding against a taxpayer that never showed up for trial here, and an order amending a caption here) are not discussed. There is an additional order addressing waiver of CDP rights; that will serve as a standalone post at a later time.

Designated Orders: 4/16- 4/23

Guest blogger William Schmidt from Legal Services of Kansas brings us the designated order post from a few weeks ago as we continue catch up on this feature. Today’s post looks at burden of production, debt cancellation and the somewhat unusual reference to trial by battle. Les

This week provides 7 designated orders.  The batch includes some short items of note, a followup on a previous case, a focus on cancellation of debt/insolvency, and a bit of creative writing.  The first order grants the motion for summary judgment from the IRS since the petitioner was non-responsive (Order and Decision here).  Another finds that the case is moot, since the liability was satisfied and the proposed levy is unnecessary.  Judge Panuthos goes beyond the call of duty by providing an explanation for the petitioner in response to his assertions (Order of Dismissal Here).  The third has the petitioner making unfounded claims of misconduct by IRS personnel and requesting a continuance.  Since the petitioner previously received a continuance and had filed for bankruptcy (staying the Tax Court case), which was pending for a year before being dismissed without objection, the Court denied petitioner’s request for continuance (Order Here).

read more...

Further Followup on Mr. Kyei

Docket # 9118-12, Cecil K. Kyei v. C.I.R. (Order of Dismissal and Decision Here).

I previously wrote about Mr. Kyei’s case here and here.  In brief, Mr. Kyei had filed bankruptcy multiple times and one automatic stay from a bankruptcy case potentially voided a settlement agreement with the IRS.  Previously, the Tax Court ordered the IRS to address the issue of burden of production as to the penalty for 2010.  Mr. Kyei was to file a response to their supplement for the previously filed motion to dismiss.

The IRS supplement stated they could not meet the burden of production and conceded the penalty of $2,614.80 for 2010.  Mr. Kyei did not respond.  The Court ordered that there were deficiencies in tax for Mr. Kyei for 2008 and 2010 based on the notices of deficiency.  All other amounts, including the 2009 deficiency and all three years of penalties were reduced amounts.  In total, the 2008 deficiency was $15,518.00, with a 6662(a) penalty of $1,551.80 and a 6651(a)(1) penalty of $4,017.40.  The 2009 deficiency was $7,830.00 and 6662(a) penalty of $783.00.  The 2010 deficiency was $26,148.00 and there were no listed penalties.

Cancellation of Debt and Insolvency

Docket # 15337-16S, Kamal Rashad Ellis v. C.I.R. (Order Here).

Docket # 25294-16S, Terry Thomas Woods v. C.I.R. (Order and Decision Here).

Based on these two orders, I thought I would give a spotlight to some issues regarding cancellation of debt income and insolvency.

The first is based on a bench opinion by Judge Buch.  In the opinion, Mr. Ellis testified regarding his Discover cards.  He had at least 3 different Discover credit cards and there were two Form 1099-C forms reported to the IRS by Discover Financial Services for two of those cards.  Based on $7,347 of cancellation of debt income, that brought $2,058 of additional tax for Mr. Ellis for 2013 so he filed a petition with Tax Court.  Mr. Ellis testified he did not receive the 1099-C forms and could not find his Discover Card records because of a house fire.  He also testified he previously disputed at least 3 charges in 2006 on one of his cards.  Because Mr. Ellis did not provide testimony that sufficiently disputed the cancellation of debt income, the Court found in favor of the IRS.

The second order also concerns cancellation of debt.  Mr. Woods defaulted on a car loan with GM Financial.  The company cancelled the debt and issued to him a Form 1099-C for $7,559, which was not included on petitioner’s 2014 tax return.  The notice of deficiency was for tax of $1,132.  After Mr. Woods filed a petition with Tax Court, the parties eventually conferred enough for the IRS to send him decision documents on July 20, 2017.  He did not respond and when the IRS called him on September 20, 2017, his stated he “completely forgot about it.”  After that point, petitioner was unresponsive.  The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted, deciding the deficiency in tax due for 2014 was $1,132.

I make note of the Court’s discussion of cancellation of debt income and the insolvency exception.  To begin, cancellation of debt income is included in a taxpayer’s gross income.  An exception is if the discharge of debt occurs when the taxpayer is insolvent.  A taxpayer is insolvent to the degree that liabilities exceed the fair market value of assets.  The amount of income excluded by virtue of insolvency is not allowed to exceed the actual insolvency amount.  Since Mr. Woods did not provide anything to prove his insolvency, the Court had to include the full cancellation of debt income in his gross income as stated by the notice of deficiency.

Takeaway:  In my experience, Form 1099-C, bringing cancellation of debt income, can be devastating to low income clients.  IRS Publication 4681 details ways to exclude cancellation of debt income.  I use the insolvency worksheet (on page 6 of IRS Publication 4681 for tax year 2017) to assist my clients.  They fill out the worksheet by listing their debts and the fair market value of assets as of the date the debt was cancelled (not today’s value!).  Then, they are to use IRS Form 982, by checking the box for line 1b, and using line 2 to list the smaller amount of the debt cancelled or the amount the client was insolvent.  It may be necessary to amend a tax return to attach this form to a client’s tax return.  Overall, this method will reduce or eliminate the cancellation of debt income and its related tax liability.  This could significantly improve your client’s financial situation.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Docket # 25781-12 L, Estate of Jeanette Ottovich, Deceased, Randy Ottovich, Harvey Ottovich, and Karen Rayl, Executors v. C.I.R. (Order Here).

This order is rather mundane – the parties need to file a status report on the probate proceedings.  It is the footnote that is noteworthy, partly because it is longer than the order itself – in fact, it is 120 words, as compared to the 116 word order (your count may vary).  The footnote is next to the phrase “there are only two issues left for the parties to battle over,” which allows for Judge Holmes to engage in creative writing that I will quote in its entirety for your appreciation:

“We stress this is a metaphor, although we also note that today is the exact bicentennial of the last trial by battle in the English-speaking world.  See the onomastically excellent for our Court Ashford v. Thornton, 1 B & Ald. 459 106 E.R. 149 (1818) (Ashford declined battle; Thornton possibly got away with murder and ended up in Baltimore); see also “No ‘Game of Throne’ Throwdown,” Staten Island Advance (March 28, 2016) (NY Sup. Ct.) (acknowledging trial by battle still available in New York State). (The case should be better known by tax lawyers for the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough: “it is our duty to pronounce the law as it is, and not as we may wish it to be”).

Larson Part  2: Absence of Prepayment Judicial Review Is Not a Constitutional Defect

Carl Smith’s earlier post on Larson v United States discussed Larson’s argument that the Flora rule should not apply to immediately assessable civil penalties under Section 6707. Larson also argued that the absence of prepayment judicial review violated his 5th Amendment procedural due process rights.

I will briefly describe the procedural due process issue and the Second Circuit’s resolution of the issue in favor of the government.

read more...

Larson’s argument Larson was straightforward: the absence of judicial prepayment review of the 6707 penalty violated his right to procedural due process, a right embedded in the 5thAmendment. The 5thAmendment provides that no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”  Stated differently, Larson argued that the right to challenge the penalty prior to payment at Appeals was not enough to meet constitutional due process standards. Taking the constitutional gloss off of it, as the opinion states, Larson felt that the process “just wasn’t fair.”

The Second Circuit disagreed in a fairly brief discussion of the issue, and in so doing reminds us that while courts have pushed back on tax exceptionalism in many areas, when it comes to viewing the adequacy of IRS procedures in a due process framework tax is different.

At its heart, the protections associated with procedural due process, notice and hearing, are about minimizing the risk of the government making a mistake and depriving a person of a protected interest—in this case property. In finding that the process adequate, the Larson opinion leaned on caselaw that had its pedigree in 17thcentury England which had established that when assessing and collecting taxes the sovereign is entitled to rely on summary pre-payment and assessment procedures backstopped by the right to post payment judicial review.

That case law was based on the notion that potentially interposing a hostile judiciary between the taxpayer and the fisc was just too risky; taxes, after all, are the lifeblood of the government, and if the government makes a mistake in assessing a tax, a taxpayer can get justice by bringing a refund suit.

Of course, in our modern tax system, Congress has repeatedly stepped in and provided statutory protection to allow prepayment review in many cases. The US Tax Court exists in large part to soften the impact of the lack of meaningful due process protections associated with a determination of liability. The ability to pay a divisible portion of a tax and sue for refund, as well as CDP’s opportunity to challenge a liability in certain circumstances, all soften the blow of the exceptional view of tax cases.

As Carl mentioned the 6707 penalty is not divisible, and we have discussed the limits of CDP providing a forum for challenging the penalty.

This brings us to Larson’s constitutional challenge.  As Larson and others have argued, much has happened since the Supreme Court first blessed the assess first pay later constitutionality of the US tax system in the latter part of the 19thand early part of the 20thcentury. A number of meaningful Supreme Court cases, such as Goldberg v Kelly, provided that in most instances, the norm should be more defined pre-deprivation review. Most creditors are no longer entitled to rely on post payment judicial protections to ensure that a debtor’s interests are protected. In Mathews v Eldridge, the Supreme Court instructed courts to consider three factors when faced with a due process claim: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

In concluding that Larson did not have a successful procedural due process claim, the court did acknowledge that the Mathews factors were instructive and did in fact apply those factors to Larson’s facts. That  is more than some courts have done with tax cases, where some opinions state that since the time of King Charles the sovereign is entitled to rely on summary assessment procedures, and leave it at that.

In applying Mathews, the opinion stated that on balance while Appeals might not have afforded a perfect process the taxpayer did get a major reduction in the penalty assessment, and, in any event, the government interest in tax cases is “singularly significant”:

Larson’s interest is not insignificant; the IRS has imposed onerous penalties that Larson claims he cannot pay. But, as we previously noted, the IRS Office of Appeals review resulted in a substantial reduction of Larson’s penalties. No review is perfect and Larson offers no record‐based criticism of how the appeal was conducted. We are satisfied that the current procedures effectively reduced the risk of an erroneous deprivation and gave Larson a meaningful opportunity to present his case. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit recently observed that the IRS Office of Appeals “is an independent bureau of the IRS charged with impartially resolving disputes between the government and taxpayers,” and that “Congress has determined that hearings before this office constitute significant protections for taxpayers.” Our Country Home Enters., Inc., 855 F.3d at 789. Lastly, the governmental interest here is singularly significant due to the careful structuring of the tax system and the Government’s “substantial interest in protecting the public purse.” Flora II, 362 U.S. at 175. Considering all three factors, our Mathewsanalysis weighs in the Government’s favor. Therefore, application of the full‐payment rule to Larson’s § 6707 penalties does not result in a violation of Larson’s due process rights.

Observations and Conclusion

The opinion leans heavily on Appeals’ role, both in terms of how Congress has emphasized Appeals’ importance to the tax system (an issue front and center in the Facebook litigation we have discussed) and how Appeals reduced the penalties at issue in the case by $100 million.  The opinion heavily weighs the government’s interest without thinking on a more granular level as to what the government interest is. For example, what is the government’s interest in summary process for this penalty? What additional burdens or risks would the government face by allowing for judicial review of the penalty? I also would have liked to have seen a more robust discussion of the individual’s interest and a bit more on the structural deficiencies with Appeals as a resolution forum relative to a judicial forum.

To be sure, due process is not a one size fits all analysis. And as a comment to Carl’s post notes perhaps Larson is not the most sympathetic of taxpayers. Yet, over time, our tax system has changed to reflect an increased sense that taxpayers should have the right to challenge an IRS assessment without having to full pay the liability. Congress has also added significant civil penalties that are immediately assessable; that progression has been piecemeal and could stand to use some reform that might also consider the procedural aspects of challenging those penalties.

Norms with respect to individual protections and taxpayer rights are changing as well. Perhaps the appropriate remedy here is a statutory fix to CDP that would allow for Tax Court review of the penalty and possible refund of any amount paid in a CDP proceeding. That would more closely align collection due process with the 5thAmendment notion of due process.

 

Larson Part I Post: Full-Payment Rule of Refund Suits Held to Apply to Assessable Penalties

Frequent contributor Carlton Smith discusses last month’s Larson v United States out of the Second Circuit. The Larson opinion situates civil penalties in the context of the Flora full payment rule, the APA, the 5th Amendment’s procedural due process protections and the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. Today’s post looks at the Flora full payment issue. Future posts will address the other issues. Les

In Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958) (“Flora I”), and, again, in an expanded opinion at 362 U.S. 145 (1960) (“Flora II”), the Supreme Court held that a jurisdictional predicate to a district court or Court of Federal Claims suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) for refund of an income tax deficiency is full payment of the tax deficiency.  In oral argument in a later Supreme Court case, Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161 (1976), the Solicitor General’s office made clear its position that Flora’s full payment requirement only applies where the taxpayer could have, instead, petitioned the Tax Court to contest the deficiency prepayment, but chose not to.  A recent opinion, Larson v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418 (2d Cir., Apr. 25, 2018), involved a tax shelter promoter penalty assessed under section 6707 – one of the many “assessable” penalties that Congress has enacted since Flora that may be assessed without first allowing prepayment review in Tax Court through a notice of deficiency.  In Larson, the DOJ argued contrary to what the SG’s office did in Laing, and the Second Circuit accepted this changed position – holding that the Florafull payment requirement also applies to assessable penalties for which there is no possibility of Tax Court prepayment review through deficiency procedures.

read more...

Larson Facts

The facts of Larson were as follows:  Larson was criminally convicted in connection with promoting several tax shelters.  The IRS later decided to impose assessable penalties under section 6707 for the promoters’ failure to file the necessary form under section 6111 (Form 8918) with the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis in Ogden, Utah alerting the IRS to the shelters.  Under section 6707 at the time (though not currently), the penalty under section 6707 was calculated as 1% of “the aggregate amount [that taxpayers] invested in such tax shelter”.

The IRS proposed to assess penalties of $160 million on a collection of promoters (including Larson), jointly and severally.  This means that the “aggregate amount invested”, according to the IRS, was $16 billion.

Other promoters paid the IRS about $100 million toward the penalty.  Larson contested the $160 million penalty at Appeals, arguing that the amount actually invested in the shelters in cash was only about $700 million, meaning the total penalty should be $7 million.  The rest “invested” was through notes that the courts had now held to be bogus for income tax purposes, so he argued that they were bogus, as well, for purposes of calculating the penalty.  (Of course, the taxpayers must have used those bogus notes to inflate their bases for purposes of claiming deductions far beyond the cash they invested.)

Appeals did not agree with Larson’s argument for lowering the penalties to $7 million, though it did give him credit for the penalties already paid by other promoters, reducing what Larson owed to about $60 million.

Larson District Court Suit

Larson paid $1.4 million toward the penalties, filed a refund claim, and then sued for a refund in the district court of the Southern District of New York.  It is not clear why he paid $1.4 million, but it appears that he thought the section 6707 penalty was “divisible”, and that $1.4 million was enough payment of a divisible tax to give the court jurisdiction.  In a footnote in Flora II, the Supreme Court said that full payment would not be required if a divisible tax was involved — a footnote that many people take advantage of with respect to section 6672 responsible person penalties (which have been held to be divisible).

In his suit, Larson argued that he had made a sufficient jurisdictional payment to commence suit, but that, even if he did not, the court had alternative jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, mandamus, Due Process, and because the size of the penalty violated the Eight Amendment’s excessive fines clause.

Unfortunately for Larson, shortly after he commenced his suit, the Federal Circuit held in Diversified Group Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that the section 6707 penalty was not divisible, so Flora IIrequired full payment in order to commence a refund suit.  The district court in Larson cited and followed Diversified Group, also rejecting all the other bases for jurisdiction that Larson alleged.  Larson v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179314 (SDNY 2016).  Stephen did a prior post on both Diversified and the Larson district court opinion.

This post will not address the other grounds alleged for jurisdiction, but Les will be doing a later post on at least one of those other grounds.

Larson Appellate Arguments

 In his Second Circuit Appeal, Larson repeated all of his arguments for why the district court had jurisdiction, but abandoned his argument that section 6707 penalties are divisible.  Rather, Larson’s main argument was now that Flora II did not require full payment in a case like section 6707 penalties where no prepayment review was available in the Tax Court through a notice of deficiency.  Larson also argued that he couldn’t afford to pay the roughly $60 million left to make full payment, so requiring him to make full payment would leave him without a practical remedy for judicial review.

Flora II

Flora II expanded upon the opinion in Flora Iand corrected a significant misstatement in the earlier opinion.  Hereafter, I will discuss only Flora II.  In Flora II, the IRS had sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency for income tax.  He did not file a Tax Court petition, but rather paid part of the deficiency, filed a refund claim, and brought suit for refund in district court. The Supreme Court held that a jurisdictional predicate to a refund suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) is full payment of the tax.  But, the way it got to this holding was curious.

The statute being interpreted first appeared in the Revenue Act of 1921.  But, the court found that, even though there were statutory antecedents, with regard to whether full payment is required for a refund suit, the actual “statutory language . . . is inconclusive and legislative history . . . is irrelevant”.  Flora II, 362 U.S. at 152.

So, the Court then turned to three subsequent enactments of Congress to conclude that section 1346(a)(1) required full payment:

  • The establishment of the Board of Tax Appeals in 1924, which allowed taxpayers to contest deficiencies without prepayment, seemed to be done with the assumption that the Board was needed because refund suits concerning deficiencies otherwise required full payment.
  • In 1935, Congress amended the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201) to prohibit declaratory judgments “with respect to taxes”. The Court noted that if full payment were not required, then nothing would stop a taxpayer from paying $1, filing a refund claim, and suing for a refund. The latter would effectively be a suit for a declaratory judgment.
  • The adoption of section 7422(e), which provides that, if a refund lawsuit is underway when the taxpayer receives a notice of deficiency for the same taxable year, the taxpayer may either continue the suit in district court or move it to the Tax Court, but not litigate simultaneously in both courts.The Court concluded that the logic of not requiring full payment for a refund suit would be that a taxpayer could simultaneously conduct a deficiency suit in the Tax Court and a refund suit in the district court – a situation that section 7422(e) does not contemplate.

The Flora II court concluded with the following observation:

A word should also be said about the argument that requiring taxpayers to pay the full assessments before bringing suits will subject some of them to great hardship.  This contention seems to ignore entirely the right of the taxpayer to appeal the deficiency to the Tax Court without paying a cent.  If he permits his time for filing such an appeal to expire, he can hardly complain that he has been unjustly treated, for he is in precisely the same position as any other person who is barred by a statute of limitations.

362 U.S. at 175 (footnote omitted).

Laing

Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161(1976), involved income tax termination and jeopardy assessments under section 6851 and 6861 at a time when those sections did not state that the IRS must issue a notice of deficiency in connection with making such assessments.  The IRS had made such an assessment and argued that it was not required to issue a notice of deficiency before or after the assessment.

At the oral argument, the Solicitor General’s Office assured the Court that there would be no problem with the FloraII full payment rule, since Flora II did not require full payment if no deficiency notice could be sent to the taxpayer.  Here is a portion of the SG’s office oral argument that was quoted to the Second Circuit on page 6 of the Larson reply brief:

What this Court held in Flora was that under general circumstances a taxpayer cannot bring a refund suit until he has paid the full amount of the assessment.  In reaching that decision, the Court painstakingly went through the legislative history in connection with the creation of the Board of Tax Appeals, and there were indications going both ways as to what Congress really intended.  But I think that the really operative portion of the Chief Justice’[s] opinion in Flora was the fact that there the taxpayer had another remedy.  He could have gone to the Tax Court, and that made all the difference in Flora . . . .

For those interested, attached are all the briefs filed in Larson:  the appellant’s brief, the appellee’s brief, the reply brief(which contains the entire Laing oral argument transcript as an addendum), and an amicus brieffiled by the tax clinics at Harvard and Georgia State.  I believe that Keith will be doing a further post about what the amicus brief discussed.

The majority in Laing held that the IRS was required to send a notice of deficiency, so it did not reach the issue of whether Flora II required full payment for a refund suit in the absence of the possibility of receiving a notice of deficiency.

But, Justice Blackmun (joined by Chief Justice Berger and Justice Rehnquist) wrote a lengthy dissent in which he argued that no notice of deficiency was required in connection with a termination or jeopardy assessment.  However, he concluded that the taxpayer could bring suit in district court without full payment of the assessment.  After quoting part of the quote that I have quoted above from Flora II, Justice Blackmun wrote:

This passage demonstrates that the full-payment rule applies only where a deficiency has been noticed, that is, only where the taxpayer has access to the Tax Court for redetermination prior to payment.  This is the thrust of the ruling in Flora, which was concerned with the possibility, otherwise, of splitting actions between, and overlapping jurisdiction of, the Tax Court and the district court.  Where, as here, in these terminated period situations, there is no deficiency and no consequent right of access to the Tax Court, there is and can be no requirement of full payment in order to institute a refund suit.

423 U.S. at 208-209 (citation omitted).

Larson Second Circuit Ruling

In its opinion in Larson, the Second Circuit held that Flora II required the full payment of the section 6707 penalty before a refund suit could be brought.  It quoted the passage from Flora IIthat I have quoted above, yet argued that the availability of Tax Court deficiency review was not critical to the holding of Flora II.  The Second Circuit wrote:

While it is true that Flora I and Flora II acknowledge the existence and availability of Tax Court review, see Flora I, 357 U.S. at 75–76; Flora II, 362 U.S. at 175, Tax Court availability was not essential to the Supreme Court’s conclusion in either opinion.  The basis of the Flora decisions is that when Congress enacted § 1346(a)(1) it understood the statute to require full‐payment to maintain “the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation,” not that the full‐payment rule only applies when Tax Court review is available. Flora II, 362 U.S. at 176–77.

Slip op. at 10.

The Larson court did not acknowledge that the government had changed position as to the applicability of the full payment rule between Laingto Larson.  The Larson court did quote Justice Blackmun’s statements from his dissent in Laing, but noted:  “Justice Blackmun’s view did not garner majority support.  No subsequent majority of the Supreme Court has adopted that understanding of the statute.” Slip op. at 12 n.8.

As more evidence that full payment was required to commence the section 6707 refund suit, the Second Circuit noted that other assessable penalties have been enacted by Congress since Flora II with specific provisions that allow for payment of 15% before a refund suit can be commenced.  (“[O]ur reading is supported by Congress’s decision to provide partial payment review for other assessable penalties, but not for § 6707. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694(c), 6703(c).”  Slip op. at 8.)

After rejecting the other bases alleged by Larson for jurisdiction (which I won’t discuss here), the court concluded that this is a problem for Congress, writing:

We close with a final thought.  The notion that a taxpayer can be assessed a penalty of $61 million or more without any judicial review unless he first pays the penalty in full seems troubling, particularly where, as Larson alleges here, the taxpayer is unable to do so.  But, “[w]hile the Flora rule may result in economic hardship in some cases, it is Congress’ responsibility to amend the law.”  Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Slip op. at 22.

Observations

The most surprising thing about the Larson opinion, to me, is that this issue of Flora’s application to assessable penalties has not been litigated before – i.e., until about 60 years later.  But, then most assessable penalties are either severable, require only 15% payment to commence suit, or are rather nominal in amount, so there were few in a position to argue that a full payment requirement to commence an assessable penalty refund suit was neither required by Flora II nor economically practicable.

The second most surprising thing is that both Flora II and Larson defend their statutory interpretation exclusively by reference to understandings of later Congresses when legislating.  I have always read that one is not to pay much attention to what later Congresses think a statute means.

But, ultimately, I was not surprised at the Larson ruling, and I don’t think Keith was either. I refer people to my statutory proposal made some years ago:  “Let the Poor Sue for a Refund Without Full Payment”, Tax Notes Today, 2009 TNT 191-4 (Oct. 6, 2009).  Although my proposal was designed primarily for the poor, it would help Larson (assuming that he gets himself on an installment agreement or in currently not collectible status first).  The opinion in Larson just underscores the need for a legislative fix.

Designated Orders the Week of 4/9 – 4/13

We are catching up on some past designated orders. This week Samantha Galvin from University of Denver brings us up to date on the designated orders from last month; the first matter, Joseph v Commissioner, highlights how in most deficiency cases the Tax Court takes little interest in the substance or workings of matters at Appeals; the second sweeps in issues relating to returns with frivolous positions. Les

The week of April 9th was, unfortunately, not the most exciting week for designated orders. The Tax Court designated six orders, and three are discussed below with two of the three pertaining to the same case. The orders not discussed are: 1) an order granting respondent’s motion to withdraw admissions (here), 2) an order in a consolidated case reopening the record and allowing petitioner to serve respondent with interrogatories in a substantiation case with a Graev IIIaspect (here), and 3) an order and decision granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment and sustaining a notice of determination when petitioners did not provide an installment agreement amount (here).

read more...

Appeals Officer’s Testimony Excluded

Docket No. 27759-15, George E. Joseph v. C.I.R. (Order here and here)Judge Halpern designated two different orders in this case during the same week, which is somewhat unusual. Both orders involve the same issue which is whether the testimony of IRS Appeals Officer Nancy Driver is admissible.

The first order addresses respondent’s oral motion to exclude Ms. Driver’s testimony. Respondent’s motion was made during a conference call with the parties in advance of their trial. Petitioner requested the conference call to discuss whether Ms. Driver will be available to testify. Ms. Driver is the Appeals Officer who first considered petitioner’s case after he petitioned the Court.

Petitioner argues that Ms. Driver’s testimony is relevant because she identified problems with the IRS’s initial examination of his return. Respondent argues Ms. Driver testimony is not relevant and the Court should exclude her as a witness under Federal Rules of Evidence (“Fed. R. Evid.”) 104, which states the Court “must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.”Respondent argues Ms. Driver’s testimony is excludible under Fed. R. Evid. 408 because it is evidence of a compromise of the deficiency determined by respondent.

The Court also brings the parties attention to Greenberg’s Express Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974) which states that “[a]s a general rule, this Court will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine the evidence used or the propriety of respondent’s motives or of the administrative policy or procedure involving in making his determinations.” The rationale behind this is that “a trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo; [the] determination as to a petitioner’s tax liability must be based on the merits of the case and not any previous record developed at the administrative level.” Greenberg’s Expressat 328.

The Court does not understand what Ms. Driver’s testimony could include, other than matters precluded by Fed. R. Evid. 408.

Petitioner argues that respondent’s deficiency determination is wrong and that the amounts on the return were correct. Petitioner also alleges that the auditor assigned to his case pulled numbers “out of the air.” Despite these allegations, the Court states that petitioner fails to clearly and concisely state the facts on which petitioner bases errors as Tax Court Rule 34 requires.

The Court asks petitioner to be clear and concise, put forward any objections to Rule 408, and to respond to concerns about the relevance of Ms. Driver’s testimony and the application of Greenberg’s Express.

The second order in this case grants respondent’s motion to exclude the testimony of Ms. Driver.

It appears to the Court that Ms. Driver thought some of the adjustments were less than what respondent had determined. Rather than agree to a settlement with Ms. Driver, the petitioner continued through the process until his case was calendared for trial.

Petitioner states that, “Ms. Driver’s efforts demonstrated a true understanding of the issues presented in the taxpayer’s case” and the Court should consider Ms. Driver’s efforts as a starting point. Again, however, the Court finds petitioner fails to specify which facts he relies upon to show error and still does not identify what knowledge of the facts Ms. Driver possesses.

Ms. Driver’s role was to consider petitioner’s case and reach a resolution that would eliminate, or reduce, the issues for trial. Petitioner did not accept Ms. Driver’s findings when he had the opportunity to do so and the Court will not inquire into why that is. The Court concludes that Ms. Driver’s testimony is not admissible and grants respondent’s motion to exclude it.

Frivolity from the Start

Docket No. 11492-17L, Walter C. Lange v. C.I.R. (Order here). In this case, petitioner petitions the Court on a Notice of Determination proposing a levy of section 6702(a) penalties. Section 6702(a) applies when a return is filed with incorrect information and the IRS identifies it as a frivolous position, or the filing of an incorrect return “reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.”

Respondent argues petitioner filed frivolous tax returns for 2007, 2009 and 2012. Petitioner moves for summary judgment which the Court denies, because it finds that petitioner’s arguments do not establish that there is no genuine dispute to any material facts and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.

Petitioner argues that respondent determined multiple penalties for the same tax year, but respondent concedes this issue. Respondent submits Forms 4340 showing the assessment of the penalties at issue to satisfy petitioner’s right under section 6203 to a copy of the record of assessment.

The Court finds petitioner’s remaining arguments, which it does not go into detail about, are meritless. The Court warns petitioner against advancing frivolous or groundless arguments at or after trial and against maintaining the proceeding primarily for purposes of delay. If petitioner does not heed the Court’s warning, it may impose a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673(a)(1).

District Court Holds That Taxpayer With Rejected E-Filed Return Subject to Late Filing Penalties

Last week, in Spottiswood v US, Docket No. 3:17-cv-00209 [link not yet available], the District Court for the Northern District of California held that a taxpayer who attempted to e-file his return a few days before the filing deadline but who incorrectly entered his child’s Social Security number was responsible for a late filing penalty. The case is the latest in I am certain to be a growing number of cases attempting to apply a 20thcentury approach to tax administration to the realities of 21stcentury tax return filing.

read more...

Here are the facts.

Taxpayer John Spottiswood used Turbo Tax to prepare his federal return and California return. The federal return was submitted to Intuit for the software provider to then submit to IRS for electronic filing. Also using the Turbo Tax software, Spottiswood printed out his state return and mailed the State return via old-fashioned snail mail.

Here comes the problem. On the federal return his child’s Social Security number differed from information IRS had when it crosschecked the numbers with its databases. IRS notified Intuit, which sent an email to Spottiswood telling him IRS failed to accept the return.

Spottiswood failed to notice the email and he had no idea that all was not kosher until months later:

When I was investigating the issue, I discovered the following by logging back into my Turbo Tax 2012 software. [] I discovered that my return, which I thought had been successfully e-filed, had actually been rejected. If I had realized that there was a chance of rejection I would have mailed in my return, but e-filing seemed like an easier option and it was free with the software. Intuit may have informed me in the fine print that I needed to log back in to make sure that my return had not been rejected, but if so I did not read this fine print. Had I logged back in a few days later I would have realized that the return had been rejected. But I did not log back in until 18 months later.

Eventually Spottiswood got around to fixing the error and resubmitting the return.  IRS, however, assessed a late filing penalty of about $89,000.

Spottiswood paid the interest on the penalty and filed a claim for abatement and refund claim, which IRS rejected, leading to a suit (an aside: not clear how this gets around Flora as it does not appear based on the order that Spottiswood paid the penalty). In his motion for summary judgment, he had two main arguments: 1) the rejected return should have been considered a return and therefore no late filing penalty was appropriate and 2) in the alternative he had reasonable cause for the late filing.

The court held for the government and granted its cross-motion for summary judgment.

As to the first issue, the taxpayer’s main argument revolved around how if he had sent the precise information contained in the attempted e-filed return via old fashioned paper return, IRS would have accepted it and the information contained qualified as a return under the Beard standard as to whether a document is a return for federal income tax purposes.

I am sympathetic to this argument, as the IRS’s current approach essentially creates an additional burden for e-filers who, if they had just mailed the return in the old fashioned way, would not have found themselves facing a late filing penalty.

The court sidestepped the argument though because Spottiswood failed to establish that in fact IRS would have treated the information in a paper return differently than the e-filed return:

Plaintiffs argue that the IRS would have accepted a paper-filed return containing the same error, and that the IRS unlawfully applied a more stringent standard to their electronically- submitted return. Pls.’ Mem. at 7-8. Plaintiffs’ only support for this argument is a document entitled “Internal Revenue Manual Part 3. Submission Processing Chapter 11. Returns and Documents Analysis Section 3. Individual Income Tax Returns.” See Pls.’ Opp’n at 1 (“Plaintiffs submit Exhibits 1 through 3”); id., Ex. 2. This document is not authenticated, and Plaintiffs establish no foundation for the document. The document shows a transmittal date of November 17, 2017, and Plaintiffs do not establish any foundation showing the IRS followed the procedures described therein when Plaintiffs attempted to submit their tax return more than four years prior to that date. Plaintiffs also establish no foundation to show their interpretation of the procedures described in the document is correct. Plaintiffs fail to create a triable issue that the same mistake contained in their submission would have been treated differently if it had been presented as a paper filing, and that the IRS’ rejection of their submission because it contained an erroneous Social Security number was not lawful.

The order continued with its critique of the way the taxpayer argued that the information it submitted should have been enough to constitute a return for tax purposes:

Plaintiffs’ assertion that the document “contained sufficient data to calculate the couple’s tax liability” (Pls.’ Mem. at 7) is purely conclusory. Their support for this argument is based entirely on an unauthenticated copy of a document faxed by the IRS to an unidentified recipient on May 23, 2016. Id. (citing Pls.’ Opp’n at 1 (“Plaintiffs submit Exhibits 1 through 3”); id., Ex. 1). Plaintiffs do not set out facts showing the document is a true and correct copy of the data they submitted to the IRS in 2013; indeed, it does not appear to be, given that the document displays information received on January 26, 2015. See, e.g., Pls.’ Opp’n, Ex. 1, passim (“TRDB-DT- RCVD:2015-01-26”). Nor do they set out facts showing the information contained in this document would be sufficient to calculate their tax liability. They thus have not created a triable issue of fact that the document they attempted to submit to the IRS in 2013 qualifies as a tax return under Beard, such that the IRS should have accepted it for filing under their theory of the case. The United States does not actually challenge this point, arguing only that the first Beard factor was not met because the IRS could not calculate Plaintiffs’ tax liability because the return had not been accepted for filing.

With a better foundation, the court would have had to address this issue head on, and I think it is a close case and requires courts and IRS to apply some fresh thinking on the issue.

The court also summarily rejected the taxpayer’s argument that reasonable cause should excuse the penalty, looking to the taxpayer’s failure to check his email account that he provided Intuit and the taxpayer’s failure to look at the “check e-file status” on his software to confirm that everything went well with the e-filing. For good measure, although the court did not emphasize this in the order, IRS also failed to debit the $395,000 that Spottiswood designated as a payment with the  purportedly e-filed return, and he failed to notice this due to as he described the high balance in the account. That failure to confirm that in fact IRS accepted the payment cuts against the argument that he had reasonable cause for failing to file on time.

Additional readings on this and related issues:

For more on this issue, see a prior PT post discussing the Haynes case on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, Boyle in the Age of E-Filing(linking an amicus brief from the ACTC) and a PT post on e-file rejections.

In December of 2017 and January of 2018 ABA Tax Section submitted letters to IRS asking IRS to reconsider its approach to timeliness of e-filed returns after a failed transmission; see here and here. (Note: Keith was the initial drafter of these letters, and he was part of the ABA Tax group that called on Counsel to change its policies on this issue).

A 2012 Journal of Tax Practice and Procedure article by Bryan Skarlatos and Christopher Ferguson making the persuasive case for a new approach to Boyle in the age of e-filing.

Designated Orders, January 29 – February 2: Holmes Continues Plumbing the Depths of Graev

Regular contributor Professor Caleb Smith continues on our theme of discussing the long reach of Graev and related issues.  Les

There were five designated orders last week, but only one worth going into much detail on. Of course, it involved Judge Holmes once more considering some implications of Graev. The other orders involved a taxpayer erroneously claiming the EITC with income earned as an inmate (here); and three orders by Judge Gustafson working with pro se taxpayers: two of which are in the nature of assisting the taxpayer (how file a motion to be recognized as next friend here, and clarifying how to enter evidence here) and one granting summary judgment to the IRS (here). Note parenthetically that in the latter order Judge Gustafson goes out of his way to mention that the IRS approved a 6662(a) penalty in compliance with IRC 6751 [erroneously cited as 7651]. IRC 6751, of course, is the issue du jour, and the focus of today’s post.

read more...

Rajagopalan & Kumar, et al. v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 21394-11, 21575-11 [here]

Supervisory Approval: Is it Needed for Every “Reason” Behind the Penalty?

For those that need to catch up, the Procedurally Taxing team has provided a wealth of analysis and insight on the Graev/Chai case developments. For “Graev III” fallout readers are encouraged to visit this, this and this post (to name a few). Judge Holmes in particular has been at the forefront of raising (if not quite resolving) unanswered questions that lurk in the aftermath of Graev III. In Judge Holmes’s most recent order, we see two questions bubble to the surface. One of those issues should only provide a temporary headache to the IRS: the procedural hurdle for the IRS to introduce into evidence that they complied with IRC 6751 if the record has been closed. The other issue, however, could well create a lasting migraine for the IRS: whether the IRS form showing supervisor approval also sufficiently shows approval for the rationale of the penalty. That problem isn’t directly answered in the order, but I think it is the most interesting (and most likely to remain a lasting problem) so we will begin our analysis with it.

Imagine the IRS asserts that a taxpayer understated their tax due by $5500 (with that amount being more than 10% of the total tax due). The IRS issues a Notice of Deficiency that throws the book at the taxpayer with an IRC 6662(a) penalty because of this substantial understatement of income tax and because the taxpayer was negligent. In so doing, the IRS is relying on two separate subsections of IRC 6662 as their legal basis for the penalty’s application: subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2).

Imagine further that the IRS did the right thing and had a supervisor sign-off on the penalty prior to issuing the Notice of Deficiency. Does the supervisor need to approve of both rationales (i.e. (b)(1) and (b)(2))? Or is the fact that the penalty, to some degree, got supervisory approval enough on its own? What if the Tax Court finds that this same taxpayer only understated $4500 in tax on their return? Now only negligence could get the IRS to a 6662(a) penalty: do we need to have proof that the supervisor approved of that ground for raising the penalty?

These are questions that Judge Holmes has raised before, in his concurrence of Graev III. Judge Holmes lays out a parade of horribles beginning on page 45 of the opinion, one of which deals with approval of one, but not two, grounds for an IRC 6662(a) penalty (on page 46, point 4). This made me wonder exactly what the supervisory approval form looks like, and if it sets these points apart. With the sincerely appreciated assistance of frequent PT blogger Carl Smith and lead Graev III attorney (also PT contributor) Frank Agostino, I was able to gaze upon this fabled supervisory approval form, which can be found here. And, sure enough, the form does break down 6662 penalties (to a degree). It breaks down IRC 6662 into four categories: (1) Negligence, (2) Substantial Understatement, (3) all other 6662(b) infractions, and (4) 6662(h). The neatly delineated checkboxes certainly make it seem like a supervisor is only “approving” whichever specific penalty rationale they check yes next to.

Looking to the statute at issue provides little guidance on what “amount” of supervisory approval is needed, only that the “initial determination” is personally approved before making the determination. Taking the above accuracy penalty as an example, one could argue that the penalty needing approval is only IRC 6662(a), so that is all that need be approved broadly. The supervisor has agreed that the penalty should apply and the worry of it being used as a bargaining chip is lessoned. The statute isn’t intended to provide a through legal review of all penalty theories, but only to be sure that they aren’t being applied recklessly as “bargaining chips.”

However, one could just as reasonably argue that the nature of the penalty’s application requires some degree of specificity: the penalty is only applied to the amount of the underpayment attributable to that rationale. If our hypothetical taxpayer understated by $5500, but only $1,000 of it is due to negligence, then you would have two potential penalty values: $1,110 (20% of substantial understatement) or $200 (20% for the portion attributable to negligence). Yes, the penalties arise under the same code section (broadly: 6662(a)), but their calculation depend on the rationale (narrowly: 6662(b)(1) or (2)). Since that leads to two different potential penalty amounts, it would seem (in a sense) to be two different penalties. Certainly, one would think two separate approvals were needed if the penalties were IRC 6662(a) or IRC 6662(h), as they apply two different penalty percentages. Why should it be different if they potentially apply against two different amounts of understatement?

Questions I’m sure Judge Holmes looks forward to in future briefs. Though the intent of IRC 6751 is laudable, the language certainly leaves much to be desired.

In the interest of taxpayer rights, however, I think it is important to note that the IRS has created at least some of these problems on their own. From my perhaps biased perspective, accuracy penalties under IRC 6662(a) are most troublesome when applied “automatically” or with little thought against low-income taxpayers that may simply have had difficulty navigating complicated qualifying child rules. In my practice I deal less with the “bargaining chip” and more with the “punitive” aspect of penalties. We have already seen how reflexively the IRS will slap EITC bans without proper approval or documentation here. There may be reason to believe the IRS is just as reflexive with these IRC 6662(a) penalties. Consideration of the relevant IRM is illustrative:

IRM section 20.1.5.1.4 details “Managerial Approval of Penalties.” It lays out the general requirement of IRC 6751 that supervisory approval is required for assessment of a penalty, and then details two important exceptions (one of which I’ll focus on): there is no need for supervisory approval on penalties that are “automatically calculated through electronic means.”

This, by the IRS interpretation, includes IRC 6662(a) penalties for both negligence and substantial understatement if so determined by AUR… so long as no human employee is actually involved in that AUR determination. In other words, we are to trust that no safeguard is needed when the (badly outdated) computers of the IRS determine that there was negligence on the part of the taxpayer. I would note that it appears that this also applies for campus correspondence exams though that is not immediately clear. IRM 20.1.5.1.4(2)(b) implies as much by referring to IRM 20.1.5.1.4(4) (the exception to human approval provision), but that latter provision only mentions the AUR function.

But wait, there’s more. Per that same IRM, if the taxpayer responds to the letter (or notice of deficiency) proposing the penalty then the IRS needs supervisory approval because now it is out of the realm of machines and into the realm of humans. This would seem to imply that taxpayers only have the protection of IRC 6751 if they are noisy. If they aren’t noisy, the IRS hasn’t violated a right of the taxpayer they failed to assert: the right never existed by virtue of failing to assert it. (Apologies for getting metaphysical on that one.)

Bringing it back to the realm of legal/statutory analysis, this still doesn’t seem quite right. Wasn’t the “initial” determination of the penalty already done prior to the taxpayer responding? Or is that irrelevant because at the computer stage it was not an “initial determination of such assessment” (whatever that means)? Judge Holmes, again, has signaled what he believes to be a coming storm on the “initial determination” question. I have no doubt that, given the sloppiness of the statute and the rather poor procedures in place for the IRS, that question is likely to be litigated.

Other Temporary Problems Addressed in Rajagopalan

Though I have devoted the bulk of this post to the issue of “types” of supervisory approval, most of the designated order actually dealt with a different issue. Luckily it is an issue that should be less of a problem moving forward: the IRS scrambling to get evidence of supervisory approval into the court record when the record’s already closed.

As the docket numbers indicate, these consolidated trials have been going on for quite some time: a child born when the Rajagopalan petition was filed would probably be learning their multiplication tables right now. The supervisory approval requirement of IRC 6751 was in effect well before the Rajagopalan trial and record was closed… so how could the IRS possibly have an excuse to reopen the record at this later date?

Obviously, because of the brave new post-Graev III world we now live in. Judge Holmes notes that the IRS had some reason to anticipate the IRC 6751 issue, but doesn’t seem to fault the IRS too much for that failure. Instead, Judge Holmes lays out the requirements to reopen the record: the late evidence must be (1) not merely cumulative or impeaching, (2) material to the issues involved, and (3) likely to change the outcome of the case. In other words, it must be very important towards proving what is at stake (not simply disproving other evidence). But even if it is all of these things, if the diligence of the party trying to reopen the record has to be weighed against the prejudice reopening the record will do to the other party. This final weighing test demonstrates the high importance we place on parties being able to question and examine evidence in a usual proceeding.

So, the IRS has the “golden ticket” (i.e. a document that shows actual supervisory approval) but the record is closed. Is that golden ticket enough to reopen or is the petitioner so prejudiced by this inability to confront the evidence that it should remain closed?

Clearly the supervisory approval form is very important to the case, meeting tests (1), (2) and (3) above. Further, the supervisory approval form is admissible as a hearsay exception through the business records rule (FRE 803(6)). However, the IRS supervisor declaration authenticating the supervisory approval form does, potentially, run afoul of the rules of evidence since it is offered after trial without reasonable written notice to the adverse party. See FRE 902(11).

In the end, the petitioners concern with being unable to challenge the supervisory approval forms is given little weight. Cross-exam would likely have done nothing. The issue is supervisory approval, which is shown by a particular form that the IRS is now offering: either the forms “answer those questions or they don’t.”

This seems like a practical way to frame an increasingly thorny issue.