Filing a Collection Due Process Petition Based on Denial of a Doubt as to Liability Offer

In Crim v. Commissioner, the Tax Court dismissed a case in which the petitioner sought to obtain Tax Court review of the rejection of the denial of an offer in compromise for doubt as to liability. The Tax Court dismisses the case because the petitioner did not have the statutory predicate for jurisdiction – a collection due process (CDP) determination letter. Petitioner argued that the offer rejection letter, which came from the examination division because the offer was a doubt as to liability offer “reflects a ‘determination’ sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.” Petitioner sought to use the decision of the Tax Court in Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 257 (2002), which held that a wrongly issued decision letter could form the basis for a timely petition where the IRS should have issued the taxpayer a determination letter, as a hook for similar treatment of the rejection letter he received from the IRS. The Court did not accept this argument.

read more...

The IRS rejected the doubt as to liability offer because the IRS does not have the ability in that process to compromise a liability previously determined by the Tax Court, other courts, or in a closing agreement. The liability petitioner asked the IRS to review was a restitution order for $17,242,806.57 issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania resulting from Mr. Crim’s criminal conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 and the corrupt interference statute in IRC 7212(a). The IRS cannot compromise restitution orders whether the request comes in a doubt as to liability or a doubt as to collectability offer because the amount has been ordered by the district court. Mr. Crim’s underlying complaint concerns the timing of the change in the manner in which the IRS can collect on restitution orders. His criminal acts occurred prior to 2010, but in 2010 Congress changed the law to permit assessment of the restitution amount as if it were a tax and collection on that assessment as we have discussed here, here, and here. Mr. Crim views the change in the law as applied to him as violating the ex post facto clause of the constitution. The Third Circuit rejected his argument twice, here and here, as premature because the IRS had not tried to collect at that point.

The Tax Court performed its normal jurisdictional analysis. In addition, it looked at the Craig decision to determine if its decision in Craig could stretch to cover a letter from the examination division. The Tax Court determined that the letter sent to Mr. Crim rejecting his offer in compromise for doubt as to liability could not be construed to be a determination letter and that it lacked jurisdiction over his case. The Court provided several reasons: 1) the letter did not come from Appeals; 2) the letter did not purport to sustain a notice of Federal tax lien or a proposed levy; 3) the record does not suggest Mr. Crim had requested a CDP hearing at the time the letter was issued; and 4) the record does not suggest the IRS had issued a levy or filed a NFTL. The Court went on to apply Craig to this situation and point out that in Craig, the Appeals Office made a mistake in a “real” CDP case and issued the wrong letter, but here there is no CDP case which would allow the Court to construe the letter sent to Mr. Crim as a mistake.

Finally, the Tax Court addressed Mr. Crim’s argument that the 3d Circuit told him that he could raise his ex post facto argument if the IRS seeks to collect from him and that the statement by the 3d Circuit should allow him to come to Tax Court to make that argument. The Tax Court pointed out that the 3d Circuit did not, and could not, open the doors of the Tax Court for him to bring a case at any time. He needed to have the proper prerequisite in order to do so, and he did not have it yet.

Nothing about the decision is surprising. The nine page order goes into greater detail explaining why the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction than I might have expected, but the case is one that may be one of first impression at the Court. Mr. Crim may be back if at some point the IRS takes the type of collection action that would allow him to invoke jurisdiction. At that time, he will have the chance to argue that individuals who committed their crimes prior to the change in the law in 2010 regarding assessment of restitution orders should not apply in his circumstance. In the meantime, maybe others in his situation will make the argument and establish precedent on this issue.

 

Working Hard to Get Penalized

The case of Whitaker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-192 provides another example of a taxpayer who works hard to make sure that the IRS penalizes him. In the process, he drains resources at the IRS and the Tax Court. I have no great sympathy for the behavior, but it is a generally sad process to watch. In this case, it is especially sad because it appears that if the Whitakers had filed a proper return claiming the retirement distribution, they would have received back all of the withholding. They do not appear to have enough income to be taxed since their standard deduction and personal exemptions exceeded the amount of the pension. Unless there was other taxable income not reflected in the report of the case, they traded a $3,600 refund for a $10,000 penalty.

The opinion involves the imposition of the frivolous tax return penalty of IRC 6702(a). This is one of over 50 assessable penalties found in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6702 entered the Code in 1982. Taxpayers making frivolous tax returns or frivolous submissions get hit with a $5,000 penalty. I have written about this penalty before here, here, here and here. What interests me about this case, and what has interested me before because it is hard to tell, is why Mr. Whitaker was permitted to litigate the merits of his 6702 penalty in a Collection Due Process (CDP) case. I believe taxpayers should have the right to litigate the merits of assessable penalties in CDP cases because they do not have the right to a prepayment forum; however, the IRS generally objects and the Tax Court sustains the objection based on the IRS regulations. I will discuss the issue further below, but I cannot tell why the IRS did not object to the litigation in this case. As an outside observer without all of the information driving the decision not to object, it is unclear to me why the IRS objects in some cases and not in others.

Additionally, the IRS can reject frivolous arguments in CDP cases; however, it can only reject cases based on frivolous submissions and not frivolous returns. Because Mr. Whitaker’s case involves a frivolous return described in 6702(a) rather than a frivolous submission described in 6702(b), the bar to making an argument in a CDP case does not preclude him from making his type of frivolous argument in this CDP case.

read more...

The Court lays out the three bases for the 6702 penalty: 1) “the taxpayer must have filed a document that ‘purports to be a return of a tax imposed by’ title 26;” 2) “the purported return must be a document that either ‘does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged’ or ‘contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect:’” and 3) “the taxpayer’s conduct must either be ‘based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous’ or must ‘reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.’”

The Court explains why Mr. Whitaker’s, and the actions of his deceased wife, meet the criteria of the statute. Basically, they kept submitting documents purporting to be returns that showed zero income and zero tax, but withholding which they wanted to use as a basis for obtaining a refund (a refund it looks like they were entitled to, had they properly listed their income.) The IRS conceded the penalty for one of the returns during the Tax Court case which may have influenced the Tax Court not to impose the 6673 penalty, which it had done in a prior case involving frivolous submission penalty, but the imposition of the penalty itself breaks no new ground. The Tax Court may have been influenced not to impose a 6673 penalty because of the apparent lack of a tax liability on the return had it been correctly filed and the sadness of the case.

We have written extensively on the efforts to litigate the merits of a tax liability before the Tax Court of individuals faced with large assessable penalties who have no easy, and sometimes no realistic, way to pay the penalty and bring a refund suit. The Whitaker case contains no explanation of why the taxpayer did or did not have an opportunity to bring the merits of the assessed penalty to Appeals at the time of the assessment and why that opportunity did not foreclose the opportunity to raise the merits of the penalty at the CDP stage of the case. Did the IRS fail to offer an Appeals hearing at the time it imposed this penalty? Did the IRS simply fail to object to raising the merits during the CDP process and allow a tax protestor to go forward with the merits litigation in Tax Court, tying up the resources of the Court and three Chief Counsel attorneys on what seems like a fairly wasteful case (though the concession of one of the three penalties suggests the existence of a partially meritorious suit)? Does the fact that the IRS allowed Mr. Whitaker to bring a merits case on his assessable penalty mean that other taxpayers should at least try to bring merits litigation in the CDP context hoping that they will be allowed to do so? I would like to know why the merits litigation was allowed here, and in other cases I occasionally see where I would have expected the taxpayer to have the opportunity to go to Appeals at the time of the imposition of an assessable penalty, when most taxpayers get turned away. The answer may lie in a simple failure to offer a conference with Appeals at the time of assessment, but it is unclear.

As mentioned above, another interesting feature of this case is that the IRS could have turned this case away from CDP consideration under the provision of IRC 6330((c)(4)(B) if his frivolous position were a “submission” rather than a “return.” This section precludes the taxpayer from raising an issue at a CDP hearing if the issue meets the requirement of clause (i) or (ii) of section 6702(b)(2)(A). The bar to raising frivolous positions in CDP cases is intended to keep persons from using the CDP process to promote such positions. This case shows how the CDP process can still be used to promote a frivolous position as long as the taxpayer takes the position on a tax return, as Mr. Whitaker did, rather than on another type of document such as a CDP request. The case also points out the terrible result that can happen when tax protestor arguments are pursued.

Tolling the Statute of Limitations on Collection

I have written before about the ability of a Collection Due Process (CDP) request to toll the statute of limitations on collection and hold it open for the IRS to bring a suit to foreclose or to reduce the assessment to judgment. In the Holmes case, it was the request itself that held open the statute of limitations with some discussion of the failure of the IRS to timely act upon the request. The court there found that the request held open the statute of limitations even though the IRS did not act on the request within its ordinary time period.

In the case of United States v. Giaimo, No. 16-2479 (8th Cir. 4-17-2017), a similar issue arises, but here the concern is Tax Court petition she filed following the receipt of a CDP determination. The issue arises in a lien foreclosure case with the taxpayer arguing, similar to the taxpayer in Holmes, that the IRS did not bring the suit within the 10-year period of the collection statute of limitations. In order for the IRS to win, it had to show that Ms. Giaimo timely brought a CDP suit which tolled the statute of limitations on collection. She argued that she never intended to bring the suit and that the Tax Court petition was untimely filed. The 8th Circuit finds otherwise in an opinion that determines her CDP petition kept open the statute of limitations on collection.

read more...

How do you not realize that you are bringing a suit? Maybe a better way to frame the question in this case would be how do you make it clear why you brought a suit? The facts make it clear that Ms. Giaimo filed a Tax Court petition after receiving a notice of determination. She argues that her suit did not extend the statute of limitations on collection. The 8th Circuit, affirming the lower court, holds that it did.

Ms. Giaimo received a CDP lien notice and a CDP levy notice in 2005 with respect to her income taxes for 1992-1994. The assessment of the liabilities for these years was delayed by a bankruptcy and did not occur until 1999. The levy notice arrived first, in February 2005, which is normal and the lien notice arrived in April of 2005. She sent the IRS Form 12153, seeking to assert her right to a CDP hearing. The form was timely only with respect to the lien notice. The IRS treated the CDP hearing with respect to the levy as an equivalent hearing. At the conclusion of her discussions with Appeals, it decided that she should not receive the relief she wanted. Appeals issued a notice of determination with respect to the CDP lien notice, but a decision letter with respect to the levy because it treated that hearing as an equivalent hearing. She timely petitioned the Tax Court based on the notice of determination and eventually the Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS in 2007. The effect of requesting the CDP hearing with respect to the lien notice is to suspend the statute of limitations on collection from the time of the request until the conclusion of the Tax Court case – approximately two years.

Flash forward to 2011 and the IRS initiates a suit to enforce its lien and foreclose upon certain real property. Ms. Giaimo argues that the statute of limitations on collection expired in 2009, ten years after assessment, while the IRS argues that the statute of limitations on collection expires two years later because of the CDP hearing and Tax Court petition. To avoid the problem of having the statute suspended as a result of the Tax Court case, Ms. Giaimo argues that she brought the Tax Court case to contest the levy and not to contest the lien. The 8th Circuit suggests that her argument arises because of the interplay of IRC 6320 (the CDP lien statute) and 6330 (the CDP levy statute). If you look at the two statutes, you find that they do not mirror each other but rather 6320 borrows from 6330. Many of the CDP provisions reside in 6330, and 6320 basically says to go look at 6330 and follow the directions there. Picking up on the differences in the statutes, Ms. Giaimo argues that her Tax Court suit was based on the levy. Since it did not involve a challenge to the notice of federal tax lien, the statute of limitations on collection was not tolled by the Tax Court case.

The 8th Circuit does not buy what she was selling. It looks at the two statutes, it looks at her Tax Court petition, and it determines that the petition sought to challenge the only thing it could challenge – the CDP lien determination. Her Tax Court petition did reference the tax levy, but the 8th Circuit finds that “regardless of what other issues Giaimo impermissibly might have attempted to raise in her Tax Court appeal, she placed a challenge to the lien before the Tax Court….”

Additionally, she argued that her Tax Court petition was untimely. The IRS argued that the fact of the Tax Court jurisdiction is res judicata because of the decision in the case and cannot be collaterally attacked. The 8th Circuit does not accept this argument but looks at the case. It finds that the “presumption of regularity applies to a long-closed proceeding.” It says that Ms. Giaimo has a heavy burden to show that jurisdiction did not exist. Here, she signed the petition four days before the deadline, the Tax Court deemed the petition timely, she failed to challenge jurisdiction while the case was pending, she did not appeal the decision and she failed to collaterally attack the decision for many years. The court found that she did not carry her heavy burden.

She argued that the Tax Court entered her petition on its docket on the third day after the deadline for filing the petition. The 8th Circuit points to the mailbox rule to swat away this argument. She also argued that the IRS had the burden to come up with her envelope to show the timely mailing. The 8th Circuit finds that the IRS does not have such a burden in a case in which she raises the issue many years after the event.

There is nothing remarkable about the decision. Her arguments were somewhat unique. She argues on the opposite side of the argument most petitioners make, because she is trying to undo something that she set in motion. The case points again to a downside in bringing a CDP case without a plan. When a taxpayer makes a CDP request and files a CDP petition, their only plan at the time might be to delay the collection of the liability. If that is the plan, the request and the petition will work, but it comes with a price. She pays the same price as the petitioners in the Holmes case, which is that she keeps open the statute of limitations for the IRS to bring suit. In another recent post, Mr. Mayweather filed a CDP petition to delay collection but with a plan to use that time to collect his fight purse and pay off the liability. Filing the CDP request and petition can have many beneficial aspects but it has consequences, and thinking about those consequences before initiating the proceeding matters.

 

 

Collection Due Process Determination Letter Continues to Mislead Taxpayers into Filing Their Tax Court Petition Too Late

The Harvard Tax Clinic is litigating the issue of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to hear cases filed late. The Tax Court has soundly rejected our arguments that it has jurisdiction to hear Collection Due Process (CDP), discussed here, and Innocent Spouse (IS) cases, discussed here, filed after the respective 30 and 90 day periods following the issuance of the determination letters to the taxpayers. Not only has the Tax Court rejected our arguments, but the 2nd and 3rd Circuits have agreed with the Tax Court with respect to the IS statute. We expect to argue about the CDP statute in the 4th and 9th Circuits later this fall.

In the CDP cases, the issue concerns situations in which the taxpayers filed one day late relying on the language of the determination letter explaining to them the time within which they needed to file a Tax Court petition. In each case, the taxpayer filed on the 31st day and in each case, in responding to the motion to dismiss filed by the IRS, the taxpayer explained why they felt their petition was timely. In the Cunningham case cited below, Chief Judge Marvel described Ms. Cunningham’s interpretation of the notice as novel, and so it may seem to lawyers trained to read the type of language used in the determination letter, but after eight cases in a little over two years, the novelty has worn off and it has become clear that the language is misleading people on a regular basis. (One of the eight cases involves a pro se petitioner who is a lawyer. So, it is not only lay people who have found the language confusing.)

We blogged about this problem in a post on March 24, 2016, at a time when only three pro se taxpayers had been misled since mid-2015. See here http://procedurallytaxing.com/cdp-notice-of-determination-sentence-causing-late-pro-se-petitions/. In effect, this is an update post because five more pro se taxpayers have been misled since our last post. We have never gone back to look for orders before mid-2015 in which similar dismissals may have happened, so the figure of eight pro se taxpayers misled may actually severely understate the problem that has existed since, probably, 2006 or 2007, when the notice of determination was redrafted to include the confusing language for the first time.

Whether or not the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear a case filed late because of the misleading notice, the notice itself needs to be changed now in order to avoid the continuation of a bad situation.

read more...

I wrote about the third letter in the collection notice stream that the IRS has been sending for the past 18-24 months that misstates the law. The good news with respect to that letter is that I am told that the IRS agreed to change the letter to remove the language that misstates the law and that tells the taxpayer that the IRS can levy upon their property when it cannot levy upon their property. Based on the information provided to me, the new, improved third letter in the notice stream will go out starting in January of 2018. Until then, taxpayers will continue to receive the incorrect letter; however, I am encouraged that the IRS is changing the letter in response to concerns about its accuracy. I know that changing letters is a slow process at the IRS because of the procedures it has for approving letters and getting them into mass mailings, though I wish it were not so slow when a letter is actually wrong. Because I have not seen the new, improved third letter in the notice stream, I cannot say how improved it is.

Based on the ability of the IRS to listen and adapt regarding the wrong letter it was using in the notice stream, I am hoping that it will also change the letter that it uses in sending a taxpayer a notice of determination. Carl Smith has been tracking Tax Court orders over the past few years. He has found eight cases in which the language of the notice of determination letter has misled the taxpayer into filing Tax Court petition on the wrong day:

Order dated June 26, 2015, in Duggan v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 4100-15L, on appeal, Ninth Circuit Docket No. 15-73819;

Order dated December 7, 2016, in Cunningham v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 14090-16L, on appeal, Fourth Circuit Docket No. 17-1433;

Order dated March 4, 2016, in Pottgen v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 1410-15L;

Order dated January 14, 2016, in Swanson v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 14406-15S (The Swanson case order does not discuss any argument that the language of the notice of determination misled the taxpayer.  But, Carl Smith went down to the Tax Court and looked at Swanson’s opposition to the motion, wherein Swanson attached the notice of determination and quadruple-underlined the words “day after” in the sentence that is misleading all these pro se people, including Swanson.  It is because of the language of that sentence that he argued his filing was timely — an argument rejected in the order);

Order dated April 20, 2017, in Wallaesa v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 1179-17L;

Order dated May 31, 2017, in Saporito v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 8471-17L;

Order dated May 31, 2017, in Integrated Event Management, Inc. v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 27674-16SL;

Order dated September 26, 2017, in Protter v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 22975-15SL.

We could provide good advice to these individuals that waiting until the last day to file your Tax Court petition is not a good idea. It is a good practice to send the petition at least a week before the last day to file in order to provide some cushion, though we understand that this may not always be possible, given the short deadline in CDP (30-days) and the fact that taxpayers do not receive the notice of determination until several days after the IRS mails it. Despite this nice advice that could have saved these petitioners, we all know that filing on the last day is normal for many pro se petitioners as well as many lawyers. There should not be a question about what is the last day. The notice should make that clear.

The notice of determination creating this confusion states:  “If you want to dispute this determination in court, you must file a petition with the United States Tax Court within a 30-day period beginning the day after the date of this letter.”  (Emphasis added).  That is not the statutory language.  The statute provides:  “The person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter).”  § 6330(d)(1) (emphasis added).  Prior to a 2006 amendment of § 6330(d)(1) (an amendment which centralized all CDP review only in the Tax Court), the notice of determination more closely tracked the statutory language, stating: “If you want to dispute this determination in court, you must file a petition with the United States Tax Court for a redetermination within 30 days from the date of this letter.”  See Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-29 at *3 (language from notice issued in 2001; emphasis added).

The IRS apparently chose to write a sentence in the current version of the notice that conflates the words of the statute with elements of Tax Court Rule 25(a)(1) (discussing how to count days) and Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(1) (“The taxpayer may appeal such determinations made by Appeals within the 30-day period commencing the day after the date of the Notice of Determination to the Tax Court.”).  However, the IRS failed to alert taxpayers as to the rules it was summarizing or where taxpayers could find examples of how the 30-day rule operated (including omitting any discussion of weekend days).  It has become clear that this language is misleading to many pro se taxpayers.  Indeed, it is because pro se taxpayers have difficulty understanding how to count days that, in 1998, Congress specifically required the IRS to place a last date to file on notices of deficiency and amended § 6213(a) to provide that taxpayers can rely on any incorrect dates shown. § 3463, Pub. L. 105-206.  (Unfortunately, Congress forgot to write the same sentences requiring showing the last date to file on the new notices of determination issued under §§ 6330(d)(1) and 6015(e)(1) that were adopted in the same statute.)

The National Taxpayer Advocate has written about problems with the innocent spouse notice before:

Problem

Even though the IRS’s relief determination under IRC § 6015 is subject to judicial review, the IRS is not required to provide and does not provide taxpayers with the last date to petition the U.S. Tax Court in the final determination letters it issues to them in connection with requests for innocent spouse relief. In contrast, IRS deficiency determinations are similarly subject to judicial review, but Congress has directed the IRS to assist taxpayers by providing them with the last date to petition the Tax Court in notices of deficiency. Providing such assistance is important because it may be difficult for some taxpayers to determine the deadline for filing a petition in Tax Court without professional assistance, assistance which many taxpayers who need relief may be unable to afford. Sixty-five percent of the taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief make less than $30,000 per year. Thus, it may be even more helpful for the IRS to include the last date to petition the Tax Court in innocent spouse determination letters than to include it in notices of deficiency.

Perhaps one reason the IRS does not include the last date to petition the Tax Court in its notice of determination letters is that if the IRS enters a date beyond the requisite period and the taxpayer relies on it, then the taxpayer could miss the filing deadline. In contrast, if the IRS enters a date beyond the requisite period for filing a Tax Court petition in a notice of deficiency, then a taxpayer will not be harmed as long as he or she files the petition on or before the date contained in the notice of deficiency because IRC § 6213 (a) provides that a taxpayer may petition the Tax Court any time on or before the date specified in the notice.

[Example and footnotes omitted]

Recommendation

Require the IRS to include the last date to petition the Tax Court in any final determination letter the IRS issues in connection with an election or request for innocent spouse relief in a manner similar to that provided by IRC § 6213 (a). Provide that a taxpayer may petition the Tax Court within 90 days of the date of the determination or by the date specified in the letter, whichever is later.

I understand that the NTA will have something about the CDP notice problem in her next annual report.

The filing deadline language in the notice of determination for CDP cases is also inconsistent with the filing deadline language for other similar IRS-issued notices that constitute “tickets” to the Tax Court.  Notices of deficiency issued under § 6212 have long stated: “If you want to contest this deficiency in court before making any payment, you have 90 days from the above date of this letter (150 days if addressed to you outside of the United States) to file a petition with the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.”  See Erickson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1991-97 at *21 (language from 1988 notice; emphasis added); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 357 (2001) (same, except for addition of the word “mailing” before “date” in language from 1999 notice).  Notices of determination for Tax Court review of innocent spouse relief claims under § 6015(e)(1) state: “You can contest our determination by filing a petition with the United States Tax Court. You have 90 days from the date of this letter to file your petition.”  See Barnes v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 248, 250 (2008) (language from 2001 notice; emphasis added).

The IRS should change the language in the notice of determination now. Undoubtedly, this will not stop late petitions. It should, however, greatly decrease the number of late petitions caused by confusing language. The language of the CDP notice now provides the date by which the taxpayer must make their CDP request. It is hard to object to that type of clarity.

 

 

Designated Orders: 9/18 – 9/22/2017

Professor Patrick Thomas brings us this week’s Designated Orders, which this week touch on challenges to the amount or existence of a liability in a CDP case without the right to that review, a pro se taxpayer fighting through a blizzard of a few differing assessments and an offset, and the somewhat odd case of the IRS arguing that a taxpayer’s mailing was within a 30-day statutory period to petition a determination notice. Les

Thank goodness for Judge Armen’s designated orders last Wednesday. In addition to Judge Halpern’s order in the Gebman case on the same day (which Bryan Camp recently blogged about in detail), Judge Armen’s three orders were the only designated orders for the entire week.

read more...

A Review of the Underlying Liability, without a Statutory Right

Dkt. # 7500-16L, Curran v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

The Curran order presents a fairly typical CDP case, though both the IRS, and I’d argue the Court, give the Petitioners a bit more than they were entitled to under the law. Mr. Curran was disabled in 2011, and received nearly $100,000 in disability payments from his employer, Jet Blue. Under section 104(a)(3), such payments are included in gross income if the employer paid the premiums for the disability policy (or otherwise contributed to the cost of the eventual disability payments). If the employee, on the other hand, paid the premiums, the benefits are excluded from gross income.

It appears that Jet Blue paid for Mr. Curran’s benefits, but Mr. Curran did not report these on his 2011 Form 1040. Unfortunately for Mr. Curran, employers (or, in this case, insurance companies contracted with the employer to provide disability benefits) are required to report these benefits on a Form W-2. The IRS noticed the W-2, audited Mr. Curran, and issued a Notice of Deficiency by certified mail to Mr. Curran’s last known address, to which he did not respond. The IRS then began collection procedures, ultimately issuing a Notice of Intent to Levy under section 6330 and a Notice of Determination upholding the levy.

The Court does not critically examine the last known address issue, but presumes that the Petitioner has lived at the same address since filing the return in 2012. So, ordinarily, Petitioners would not have had the opportunity to challenge the liability, either in the CDP hearing or in the Tax Court.

Nevertheless, the IRS did analyze the underlying liability in the CDP hearing, yet concluded that Mr. Curran’s disability payments were included in gross income under section 104(a)(3). The Court also examines the substantive issue regarding the underlying liability, though notes that Petitioners do not have the authority to raise the liability issue. Of particular note, the IRS’s consideration of the liability does not waive the bar to consideration of the liability, and most importantly, does not grant the Court any additional jurisdiction to consider that challenge. Yet, Judge Armen still engages in a substantive analysis, concluding that Petitioners’ arguments on the merits would fail.

It’s also worth noting that the Petitioners provided convincing evidence that, at some point after 2011, they repaid some of the disability benefits (likely because he also received Social Security Disability payments, and his contract with the insurance company required repayment commensurate with those SSDI benefits). Under the claim of right rule, Petitioners were required to report the benefits as income in the year of receipt. Repayment of the benefits in a latter year does not affect taxation in that earlier year; rather, the Petitioners were authorized to claim a deduction (for the benefits repaid) or a credit (for the allocable taxes paid) in the year of repayment.

Three Assessments, Two Refund Offsets, and One Confused Taxpayer

Dkt. # 24295-16, McDonald v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In LITC practice, we often encounter taxpayers who are confused as to why the IRS is bothering them, what the problem is, and even why they’re in Tax Court. Indeed, at a recent calendar call I attended, a pro se taxpayer asked the judge for permission to file a “Petition”. This mystified the judge for a moment; further colloquy revealed the Petitioner actually desired a continuance.

In McDonald, we see a similarly confused taxpayer, though I must also admit confusion in how the taxpayer’s controversy came to be. Initially, the taxpayer filed a 2014 return that reported taxable income of $24,662, but a tax of $40.35. Anyone who has prepared a tax return can immediately see a problem; while tax reform proposals currently abound, no one has proposed a tax bracket or rate of 0.16%. Additionally, Mr. McDonald did self-report an Individual Shared Responsibility Payment (ISRP) under section 5000A of nearly $1,000 for failure to maintain minimum essential health coverage during 2014.

So, the IRS reasonably concluded that Mr. McDonald made a mathematical error as to his income tax, and assessed tax under section 6213(b)(1). Such assessments are not subject to deficiency procedures. Because the assessment meant that Mr. McDonald owed additional tax, the IRS offset his 2015 tax refund to satisfy the liability. Another portion of his refund was offset to his ISRP liability (which appeared on a separate account transcript—likely further confusing matters for Mr. McDonald).

But then the IRS noticed, very likely through its Automated Underreporter program, that Mr. McDonald did not report his Social Security income for 2014. Unreported income does not constitute a mathematical error, and so the IRS had to use deficiency procedures to assess this tax. The IRS sent Mr. McDonald a Notice of Deficiency, from which he petitioned the Tax Court.

Mr. McDonald filed for summary judgment, pro se, arguing that he had already paid the tax in question. Indeed, he had paid some unreported tax—but not the tax at issue in this deficiency proceeding. Rather, this was the tax that had already been assessed, pursuant to the Service’s math error authority—and of course the ISRP, that Mr. McDonald self-assessed. Accordingly, Judge Armen denied summary judgment, since Petitioner could not prove his entitlement to the relief he sought.

Headline: IRS Argues for the Petitioner; Loses

Dkt. # 23413-16SL, Matta v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

I just taught sections 7502 and 7503 to my class, so this order is fairly timely. Judge Armen ordered the parties to show cause why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely petition.

Now why the Petition was filed in the first instance, I can’t quite discern. The Notice of Determination, upon which the Petition was based, determined that the taxpayer was entitled to an installment agreement, and did not sustain the levy. The Notice was dated on September 12, 2016, but the mailing date was unclear. (This is where the eventual dispute lies).

A petition was received by the Court on October 31, 2016. Clearly, this date is beyond the 30-day period in section 6330(d) to petition from a Notice of Determination. However, the Court found that the mailing date of the petition was October 13, 2016, as noted on the envelope. The mail must have been particularly slow then. This creates a much closer call.

The twist that I can’t quite figure out is that it’s the Service here that’s arguing for the Petitioner’s case to be saved, rather than the Petitioner, who doesn’t respond. The Service argues that, although the Notice was issued on September 12, it wasn’t actually mailed until September 13—which would cause the October 13 petition to fall within the 30-day period. The Service argues that because the Notice arrived at the USPS on September 13, that’s the mailing date.

But Judge Armen digs a bit deeper, noting that the USPS facility the Service references is the “mid-processing and distribution center”, and that it arrived there at 1:55a.m. Piecing things together, Judge Armen surmises that the certified mail receipt, showing mailing on September 12, must mean that the Notice was accepted for mailing by the USPS on September 12, and then early the next morning, sent to the next stage in the mailing chain. That means the Notice was mailed on September 12, and that accordingly, the Petition was mailed 31 days after the determination.

Helpfully for Petitioner, it looks as if decision documents were executed in this case, as Judge Armen orders those to be nullified. Perhaps the Service and the Petitioner can come to an agreement administratively after all, as Judge Armen suggests.

Late Filed Return Issue Overlooked in Recent Collection Due Process Case

On July 28, 2017, in the Collection Due Process (CDP) case of Conway v. Commissioner, Docket Number 6204-13S L, the Court issued an order determining that petitioner did not discharge her tax liabilities for several years.  The Tax Court has the authority Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 120-121 (2003) to determine discharge issues in CDP cases.  The case is interesting for what the IRS did not argue, what it conceded, the standard of review of a CDP case in the 1st Circuit and how timing plays into the outcome.

read more...

Ms. Conway failed to timely file returns for the years 2002 and 2006-2010.  This familiar story lands her in bankruptcy court for the District of Massachusetts on February 10, 2012 where she received a discharge of her chapter 7 case on May 8, 2012.  Regular readers of this blog know that someone living in the First Circuit who does not timely file their income tax return can never discharge the liability on that return because of the decision in Fahey v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, _ F.3d _ (1st Cir. February 18, 2015).  See blog posts here, here and here discussing the issue.

The funny thing about the Conway decision is that even though Ms. Conway failed to timely file her returns for all of the years at issue and even though controlling circuit law, under the Golsen rule, made the outcome of her case a slam dunk victory for the IRS, the Fahey case never gets mentioned.  This could be because the people involved were not carefully reading PT, or for other reasons, or a combination of both.

After Ms. Conway received her discharge, the IRS did not abate her liabilities for the years mentioned above.  At that time, almost three years before the Fahey decision, a decision with which the IRS does not yet agree, the IRS decision to keep open her liabilities for these years was not based on her late filing but on the timing of the assessments for the years 2006-2010 and on a mistake as to 2002.  In August, 2012 the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien against her for her outstanding liabilities and sent her the required CDP notice.  She timely filed a CDP request and sought relief, inter alia, because the tax debts were discharged in her recently completed bankruptcy case.  In February, 2013 the Settlement Officer (SO) issued a notice of determination sustaining the NFTL.

Ms. Conway filed a CDP Tax Court petition on March 15, 2013 raising, inter alia, the bankruptcy discharge as a reason for removing the NFTL.  The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment on November 29, 2013.  In that motion, the IRS conceded that the SO made a mistake as to 2002 and should have written off that liability; however, the IRS argued that as to the remaining years the exception to discharge in Bankruptcy Code 523(a)(1) prevented the discharge.  (The IRS attorney pledged to fix the 2002 year and make sure it was abated.) The IRS argued that the “SO did not abuse her discretion under the standard of review adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Dalton v. Commissioner, 682 F.3d 149 (1st Cir. 2012), rev’g 135 T.C. 393 (2010).”  On January 6, 2014, petitioner filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment.  At that point, the case stood ready for decision and at that point Fahey was just a glimmer in the eye of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

The Court decides in Conway that the 2006-2010 taxes are excepted from discharge because they were assessed within 240 days of the date of filing the bankruptcy petition.  If taxes were at all a factor in the decision to file bankruptcy, and I have no idea, I fault taxpayer’s bankruptcy lawyer for filing during this 240-day window because it prevents them from discharge under 523(a)(1)(A) since these taxes still had priority status; however, even in the pre-Fahey world, she would have had to wait two years after filing her late returns in order to avoid the exception from discharge under 523(a)(1)(B).  The Tax Court had ample reason to find her taxes excepted from discharge here and was correct in doing so.  At the time the IRS filed its summary judgment motion, it was correct to concede 2002 and it was correct not to argue Fahey.

Because the Tax Court took over three and ½ years to decide what appears to be a relatively simple discharge case, the IRS had the opportunity to supplement its summary judgment motion with the intervening Circuit authority.  Based on the docket sheet of the case and the Court’s opinion, it appears that it did not do so; however, the IRS did file a request to file a status report earlier this year and I cannot see what was in that request.  I thought that the IRS, even though not agreeing with the one-day late discharge rule of Fahey and two other circuits, was making the argument in the three circuits with controlling authority on the one day late rule.  So, I do not know if the failure to point Fahey out to the court here was a decision representing a change in position that it would argue the one-day late rule in those circuits, or a failure to recognize the opportunity to make this argument, or simply a decision that it was going to win anyway and why add yet another reason when the opinion should come out at any second.  I bring it up for those watching the one day rule and the IRS reaction to it.  Because of the decision in the Fahey case, the IRS decision to concede 2002 could have been reversed.  I do not know how the Tax Court would have reacted to an effort by the IRS to withdraw its concession because the law of the circuit changed while the Tax Court was working on its opinion.  Because the IRS did not attempt to withdraw its concession, we will never know.

The case also raises the application of the First Circuit’s decision in Dalton.  In Dalton, the First Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held that the findings of law in CDP determination are only tentative and so the Tax Court does not need to give deference to the SO’s legal conclusions.  The IRS argued in its motion that despite the SO’s legal mistake as to the dischargeability of 2002, the Court should sustain the notice of determination because the SO did not abuse her discretion under the standard of review adopted in DaltonDalton seems to stand alone in its view of the deference accorded to SOs.  This issue deserves attention and may get litigated further in other circuits.

Ms. Conway was going to lose her case even before the Fahey decision because of the timing of her late filed returns and her bankruptcy petition.  She benefits here by filing her case before the Fahey decision came out because of the IRS concession with respect to 2002.  She loses most of her case because of late filing.  Somehow taxpayers need to understand the benefits of filing on time even if they cannot pay.  In circuits like the First, it is now critical because it is a lifetime bar on discharge.  Even in other circuits, late filing will create the types of problems Ms. Conway faced here and will not allow debtors to obtain the full measure of the benefits of bankruptcy.

 

Designated Orders: 8/21 – 8/25/2017

PT returns from a long holiday weekend as Professor Patrick Thomas discusses some recent Tax Court designated orders. Les

Substantively, last week was fairly light. In this post, we discuss an order in a declaratory judgment action regarding an ESOP revocation and a CDP summary judgment motion. Judge Jacobs also issued three orders, which we won’t discuss further.

“read

Additionally, Judge Panuthos, in his first designated order of this series, discusses a recalcitrant petitioner (apparently, a Texas radiologist) whose representative, without clear reason, rejected an IA of $10,000 per month—notwithstanding that the petitioner’s current net income totaled nearly $45,000 per month. In related news, I appear to have chosen the wrong profession.

Avoid Sloppy Stipulations – Adverse Consequences in a Declaratory Judgment Proceeding

Dkt. # 15988-11R, Renka, Inc. v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

This is not Renka’s first appearance on this blog (see Stephen’s prior post here, order here). Renka initially filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in 2011 regarding the Service’ revocation of its ESOP’s tax-exempt status, which resulted from events occurring in 1998 and 1999.

The current dispute before Judge Holmes involved the administrative record. In cases involving qualified retirement plans (of which ESOPs are but a subset), a few different standards apply. If a declaratory judgment action involves an initial or continuing qualification of the plan under section 401(a), Tax Court Rule 217(a) ordinarily constrains the court to consider only evidence in the Service’s administrative record. However, as Judge Holmes notes, a revocation of tax-exempt status, as occurred in Renka, allows a broader consideration of evidence. Stepnowski v. C.I.R., 124 T.C. 198, 205-7 (2005).

But in Renka, the parties stipulated to the administrative record, and so when Renka attempted to introduce evidence outside the record, the Service objected. While Renka complained that they didn’t specifically state that the stipulated records constituted the entire administrative record, Judge Holmes wasn’t having it. Indeed, Tax Court Rule 217(b) requires the parties to file the entire administrative record—which, the parties purportedly did.

Where justice requires, the court may use its equitable authority to allow evidence not ordinarily contemplated by the Rules. Such a rule includes Rule 91(e), which treats stipulations as conclusive admissions. Renka’s equitable argument is, unfortunately, fairly weak; it merely argues that the documents it proposes to introduce fall under the definition of “administrative record” under Rule 210(b)(12). But they don’t even do that—the documents related to an “entirely different ESOP”, which was not at issue in this declaratory judgment action.

In the end, Judge Holmes keeps the evidence out. Take-away point here: while parties are required to stipulate under Rule 91(a) (and indeed, sanctions exist for failing to do so under Rule 91(f)), they must craft and qualify their stipulations carefully. Otherwise, important evidence could remain outside the case, as here.

CDP Challenge – Prior Opportunities and Endless Installment Agreements

Dkt. # 11046-16L, Helms v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

Here’s a typical pro se CDP case with a few twists. The petitioner owed tax on 2007 and 2008, though had also owed on prior years that were not part of this case. After filing his tax returns late, the petitioner began a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2012. The Service filed proofs of claim for both the 2007 and 2008 years; 2008 was undergoing an audit, so the liability wasn’t fixed at the time. Ultimately, the bankruptcy plan was dismissed for failure to make payments, and the Service resumed collection action (the liabilities were not dischargeable in bankruptcy).

Three years after the bankruptcy’s dismissal, the Service issued a Notice of Intent to Levy and the Petitioner requested a CDP hearing. In the Appeals hearing, the Petitioner more or less explained that he wanted both an accounting of the liability and to settle the liability. The Service requested a Form 433-A and other delinquent returns, which he did submit.

Instead of an Offer in Compromise, the Service offered an Installment Agreement of approximately $2,000 per month; after the Petitioner submitted additional expenses, the Service lowered the amount to about $800 per month. But after that, the Petitioner didn’t respond, the Service issued a Notice of Determination, and the Petitioner timely filed a Petition.

The Service filed for summary judgment and, while the Petitioner didn’t formally respond, he did serve the Service with a response, which they incorporated into their reply. The Court incorporated these arguments as those raised by the Petitioner, which the Court interpreted as arguments (1) challenging the liability and (2) challenging the Installment Agreement because the Petitioner believed it would last “indefinitely.”

Judge Gustafson held that the Petitioner wasn’t eligible to challenge the liability because he already had a prior opportunity during his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding to dispute the liability, but chose not to do so. Though unmentioned by Judge Gustafson, the Petitioner may have also had an opportunity to dispute the 2008 liability, since it arose from an examination. Regardless, the bankruptcy proceeding, once the Service filed its proofs of claim, provided this prior opportunity. See IRM 8.22.8.3(8)(4).

Finally, Judge Gustafson held that the Service had committed no abuse of discretion in proceeding with the levy. Even though Petitioner potentially had valid concerns regarding an indefinite Installment Agreement, he did not raise that issue with Appeals, and so forfeited that argument in the Tax Court. The Service really didn’t have another choice but to issue the Notice of Determination, failing communication from the taxpayer (here, the taxpayer was silent for 3 weeks). Moreover, Installment Agreements ordinarily last only until the liability is satisfied, the taxpayer defaults on the plan, or the statute of limitations on assessment expires.

Rolling the Beds and Wheelchairs to the Curb – Applying the Hardship Provision of IRC 6343 to Corporations

Starting in March the Tax Court has issued several Collection Due Process opinions involving nursing homes: Lindsay Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 9 (March 23, 2017); Lindsay Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-50 (March 23, 2017); Crescent Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-94 (May 31, 2017); Sulphur Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-95 (May 31, 2017); Silvercrest Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-96 (May 31, 2017); Hennessey Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-97 (May 31, 2017); Seminole Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-102 (June 5, 2017). For good measure, there was a 10th Circuit case during this same span – United States v. Hodges, 684 Fed. Appx. 722 (10th Cir. April 10, 2017).  When I worked for Chief Counsel it was my opinion that the worst types of collection cases to encounter were the cases involving nursing homes that were not paying their employment taxes.  Even though the IRS could potential seize the assets of the business or levy on the Medicare or other stream of funds, taking these types of actions would shut down the nursing home leaving a number of relatively helpless people homeless.  Closing down a nursing home had very little upside except for stopping an entity from pyramiding taxes.  So, seeing several of these cases in a short span made me wonder if something had changed at the IRS.  Nothing I read about these cases makes me think that a magic solution has occurred.  I would like to know the IRS strategy for these cases because closing down these businesses without a plan would seem unwise.

The first case decided, Lindsay Manor Nursing Home, breaks new ground by addressing the issue of hardship in IRC 6343.  As discussed below, the Court upholds the interpretation of hardship in the applicable regulation finding that a corporation cannot suffer economic hardship and so cannot use the prospect of economic hardship as a basis for arguing that the IRS cannot levy on corporate assets no matter how dire the corporation’s financial situation.  This important decision has a domino effect on the outcome of the CDP cases of the related nursing homes.

read more...

In defending these cases in the CDP process, taxpayer’s attorney made a couple of arguments that failed.  I want to focus on those arguments even though in the back of my mind I am still wondering what will happen now that the nursing homes have lost their CDP cases.  The first argument concerns the hardship exception to levy and the second argument, which I have difficulty understanding, concerns the meaning of prior involvement.

The nursing homes in the recent decisions all operated as corporations.  They argued that the levy action proposed by the IRS in its Notice of Intent to Levy would create havoc and financial ruin for these corporations.  The petitioner in Lindsay Manor attacked Treas. Reg. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i) which limits hardship to individual taxpayers.  Petitioner argued that the regulation should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with IRC 6343(a)(1)(D).  The statute does not specify that it applies only to individual taxpayers.  Petitioner argued that the term “taxpayer” in section 6343 is a defined term in IRC 7701(a)(14) and the definition is broad including corporate taxpayers.  This is a logical, statute based argument that seems to be made here for the first time.  Even though the taxpayer ultimately loses, the argument was certainly worth making.

The Court responds to the argument by finding that it must look at the term in the context used included other instances of use of the term in IRC 6343, the meaning of the phrase “economic hardship” in IRC 6343(a)(1)(D) , and the grammatical structure of the statute.  The Court finds that the term taxpayer was used seven times in IRC 6343.  Twice its meaning clearly related to individuals and five times the meaning could have related to individuals or corporations.  So, the Court continues its search for the meaning of the term in this context.

The Court finds that the term “economic hardship” appears nowhere in the IRC.  Although the IRS argued that the answer lay in the use of this term the Court does not find the answer here and moves on with its inquiry.

The Court finds that the statute is “simply silent or ambiguous with respect to the meaning of taxpayer; the relationship between ‘hardship’ and a taxpayer’s ‘financial condition,’ and whether congress intended to require prospective relief.”  So, the Court looked at the legislative history.  In 1988, in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, Congress added (1)(E) which talks about necessary living expenses – something clearly related to individuals.  However, other aspects of legislative history left the Court uncertain of the applicability to individuals only.  Since the statute is unclear, the Court moved to Step 2 of the Chevron analysis to determine if the regulation is a permissible interpretation of the statute.

The Court finds that the interpretation of the statute chosen by the regulation is permissible because 1) the statute might be interpreted in a manner argued by either party; 2) choosing to apply hardship only to individuals is not inconsistent with IRC 6343(a)(1)(D); and 3) the regulation provides greater relief than the statute and does not limit the statute.

In addition to the argument concerning the meaning of hardship, petitioner also argued that the Settlement Officer had prior involvement in its case and this involvement barred her from making the determination.  Petitioner did not argue that the Settlement Officer had worked on a matter involving it prior to her assignment to this CDP case but rather that “she reviewed petitioner’s documents before the CDP hearing.”  Wow.  Petitioner’s hardship argument presented an innovative and thoughtful attack on the regulation.  This argument, at least as described by the Court, makes no sense to me and undercuts the validity of the first argument because it makes no sense.  Petitioner seems to argue that in a CDP hearing, which will almost always occur by phone, the call should take place and then the petitioner should sit silently by the phone while the Settlement Officer for the first time cracks open the file and begins to look at the documents in the case.  Depending on the size of the case, the silent portion of the CDP hearing could last quite a long time.  The Court took only four paragraphs to describe and resolve this argument.  This may have been three paragraphs too many.

As a result of the determination that the regulation validly interpreted the statute and that the Settlement Officer had the requisite impartiality, the Court denies the summary judgment motion filed by petitioner.  This opinion only addressed petitioner’s motion.

On the same day it ruled on petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, the Tax Court issued a second opinion in the case at T.C. Memo 2017-50, ruling on the motion for summary judgment filed by the IRS.  In this opinion, the court grants the IRS request for summary judgment.  The Court points out the long history of non-compliance by the taxpayer including many breached installment agreements.  Because another installment agreement was the collection alternative sought by the taxpayer and because of the failure of prior installment agreements coupled with nothing suggesting a new agreement would succeed, the Court found that the Settlement Officer did not abuse her discretion in denying an installment agreement as an alternative to levy.  The Settlement Officer determined that the taxpayer could satisfy the outstanding liability by liquidating or borrowing against its accounts receivable.  Another factor that tipped the scales against the taxpayer in the decision concerned the taxpayer’s current state of non-compliance.  As with almost any employment tax liability case where the taxpayer cannot keep current while seeking relief from levy, the Court finds this fact an important one in denying relief.

The other cases in the group followed the same script as the TC Memo opinion in Lindsay Manor even though they come out over a period of time following the release of that opinion.  All grant the motion for summary judgment requested by the IRS.  Although the IRS won these cases, the ability to potentially close these nursing homes by levying on their accounts receivable puts the IRS in a tough spot.  It does not want to condone pyramiding of employment taxes but it also does not want to negatively impact the lives of many vulnerable senior citizens.

An appeal has been filed with the 10th Circuit in Lindsay Manor.  Here is the docket sheet in the appeal:

05/23/2017 — [10469270] TAX CASE DOCKETED. DATE RECEIVED: 05/23/2017. DOCKETING STATEMENT DUE 06/06/2017 FOR LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC.. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DUE ON 06/06/2017 FOR COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC. TAX COURT RECORD DUE 07/03/2017 FOR ROBERT R. DITROLIO, CLERK OF COURT. [17-9002] [ENTERED: 05/23/2017 12:31 PM]

05/24/2017 — [10469509] TAX COURT RECORD FILED. NUMBER OF VOLUMES FILED: 6. [17-9002] TC [ENTERED: 05/24/2017 09:13 AM]

05/24/2017 — [10469551] MINUTE ORDER FILED – APPELLANT’S BRIEF DUE ON 07/03/2017 FOR LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC. (TEXT ONLY – NO ATTACHMENT) [17-9002] [ENTERED: 05/24/2017 10:09 AM]

05/25/2017 — [10470153] NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY MS. KATHLEEN E. LYON FOR CIR. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: Y (ALREADY LISTED). SERVED ON 05/25/2017. MANNER OF SERVICE: EMAIL [17-9002] [ENTERED: 05/25/2017 01:55 PM]

05/25/2017 — [10470135] NOTICE OF APPEARANCE SUBMITTED BY KATHLEEN E. LYON (LEAD COUNSEL) FOR APPELLEE CIR FOR COURT REVIEW. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES: YES. SERVED ON 05/25/2017. MANNER OF SERVICE: EMAIL. [17-9002]–[EDITED 05/25/2017 BY KLP TO DELETE THE ATTACHMENT; ENTRY FILED.] KEL [ENTERED: 05/25/2017 01:06 PM]

06/05/2017 — [10472178] NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY MR. DAVID JOSEPH LOOBY FOR LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: N. SERVED ON 06/05/2017. MANNER OF SERVICE: EMAIL. [17-9002] [ENTERED: 06/05/2017 11:36 AM]

06/05/2017 — [10472180] DOCKETING STATEMENT FILED BY LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC.. SERVED ON 06/05/2017. MANNER OF SERVICE: EMAIL. [17-9002] DJL [ENTERED: 06/05/2017 11:40 AM]

06/05/2017 — [10472174] NOTICE OF APPEARANCE SUBMITTED BY DAVID J. LOOBY FOR APPELLANT LINDSAY MANOR NURSING HOME, INC. FOR COURT REVIEW. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES: NO. SERVED ON 06/05/2017. MANNER OF SERVICE: EMAIL. [17-9002]–[EDITED 06/05/2017 BY KLP TO DELETE THE ATTACHMENT; ENTRY FILED.] DJL [ENTERED: 06/05/2017 11:25 AM]