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.

Designated Orders: 7/24 – 7/28/2017

Professor Patrick Thomas of Notre Dame discusses last week’s designated orders. Les

Last week’s orders follow up on some previously covered developments in the Tax Court, including the Vigon opinion on the finality of a CDP case and the ongoing fight over the jurisdictional nature of section 6015(e)(1)(A). We also cover a very odd postal error and highlight remaining uncertainties in the Tax Court’s whistleblower jurisprudence. Other orders this week included a Judge Jacobs order and Judge Wherry’s order in a tax shelter case. The latter case showcases the continuing fallout from the Graev and Chai opinions.

read more...

Deposits in a CDP Liability Challenge? – Dkt. # 14945-16L, ASG Services, LLC v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

The first order this week follows on the heels of the Vigon division opinion, about which Keith recently wrote. In a challenge to the underlying liability in a CDP case, ASG paid the liabilities at issue in full in August 2016, and the Service quickly followed with a motion to dismiss for mootness, given that no further collection activity would take place. Judge Gustafson (Vigon’s author) orders ASG to answer three hypotheses, which attempt to distinguish ASG from Vigon.

Judge Gustafson contrasts ASG’s situation with the taxpayer in Vigon, given that the Service has not indicated an inclination to assess the liabilities again in ASG. Indeed, this may be because the IRS cannot assess ASG’s liabilities a second time due to the assessment statute of limitations under section 6501. As a corollary, Judge Gustafson posits that ASG is asking for a refund of the tax, without any contest as to a collection matter. Thus, as in Greene-Thapedi, the court may lack jurisdiction to entertain the refund suit. Finally, the Court notes that even if the refund claim could proceed, ASG would need to show that it had filed a claim for a refund with the Service. Judge Gustafson requests a response from ASG (and the Service) on these suggestions.

Separately, ASG noted in its response to the motion to dismiss that “Petitioner paid the amounts to stop the running of interest.” Judge Gustafson therefore ordered ASG to document whether these remittances were “deposits”, rather than “payments,” along with the effect on mootness. Under section 6603, deposits are remittances to the Service that stop underpayment interest from running. However, deposits are ordinarily always remitted prior to assessment, during an examination. The Service must return the deposit to the taxpayer upon request, and, if at the end of the examination the resulting assessment is less than the deposit, the Service must refund the remainder.

It’s unclear whether a remittance made during a CDP proceeding challenging the underlying liability could be treated as a deposit, though Judge Gustafson seems to be opening the door to this possibility.

The Continuing Saga of Section 6015(e)(1)(A) – Dkt. # 21661-14S, Vu v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

Vu is one of four innocent spouse Tax Court cases in which Keith and Carl Smith have argued that the period under section 6015(e)(1)(A) to petition the Tax Court from the Service’s denial of an innocent spouse request is not jurisdictional. Les wrote previously about this case when Judge Ashford issued an opinion dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Vu is unique among the four cases; in the three other Tax Court dockets (Rubel, Matuszak, and Nauflett), petitioners argue that the time period is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling in circumstances where the Service misled the taxpayers into filing late. In contrast, Ms. Vu filed too early, but by the time she realized this, it was too late to refile. As a result, Judge Ashford dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, because of an untimely petition.

Shortly after the opinion, Keith and Carl entered an appearance in Vu and filed motions to reconsider, vacate, and remove the small tax case designation, arguing that the Service forfeited the right to belatedly raise a nonjurisdictional statute of limitations defense.

Last week, Judge Ashford denied those motions. Substantively, Judge Ashford relied on the opinions of the Second and Third Circuits in Matuszak v. Commissioner and Rubel v. Commissioner, which hold that the time limitation in section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional. (The Tax Court also recently ruled against the petitioner in Nauflett, but Keith and Carl plan to appeal this to the Fourth Circuit). Given that, therefore, Judge Ashford believed there to be no “substantial error of fact or law” or “unusual circumstances or substantial error” that would justify granting a motion to reconsider or motion to vacate, she denies those two motions.

To compound matters, Vu also filed her petition requesting a small case designation; decisions in small tax cases are not appealable. While Vu moved to remove the small case designation, Judge Ashford denied that motion as well. The standard for granting a motion to remove a small case designation is whether “the orderly conduct of the work of the Court or the administration of the tax laws would be better served by a regular trial of the case.” In particular, the court may grant such a motion where a regular decision will provide precedent to dispose of a substantial number of other cases. But because Judge Ashford views there to already be substantial precedent against Vu’s position, she denies this motion as well.

Keith and Carl plan to appeal Vu to the Tenth Circuit anyway, arguing that the ban on appeal of small tax cases does not apply where the Tax Court mistakenly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a case. This argument will be one of first impression.

A second argument will be that the denial of a motion to remove a small case designation is appealable. In Cole v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1992) the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an S case for lack of jurisdiction, noting that neither party had actually moved to remove the small case designation. In Risley v. Commissioner, 472 Fed. Appx. 557 (9th Cir. 2012), where there is no mention of the issue of a motion to remove the small tax case designation, the court raised, but did not have to decide, whether it could hear an appeal from an S case if there was a due process claim. A due process violation allegation might be another occasion for appealing an S case, but there will be no due process violation alleged in the appeal of Vu.

Keith and Carl also note that they will not be filing a cert petition in either Matuszak or Rubel. They will only do so if they can generate, through Nauflett or Vu, a circuit split on whether the time period under section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.

Postal Error? – Dkt. # 9469-16L Marineau v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In Marineau, Judge Leyden tackles the Service’s motion for summary judgment in a CDP case. The facts start as is typical: the Service filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Petitioner responded that the Service hadn’t sent the Notice of Deficiency to their last known address in Florida. Dutifully, the Service responded with a copy of the Notice of Deficiency showing the taxpayer’s Florida address and a Form 3877 indicating the NOD was sent by certified mail to that address. Both the NOD and the Form 3877 have the same US Postal Service tracking number.

But then things take a turn. The Service also submitted a copy of the tracking record for that tracking number from the post office. It shows that the NOD was sent from Ogden, Utah, but that it was attempted to be delivered in Michigan, rather than Florida. The NOD was unclaimed and eventually returned to the Service.

Judge Leyden appears to be as perplexed as I am by this situation. So, she ordered the Service to explain what happened. I’ll be looking forward to finding out as well.

Remand and Standard of Review in a Whistleblower Action – Dkt. # 28731-15W Epstein v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In this whistleblower action, the Service and the Petitioner apparently agreed that the Petitioner was entitled to an award (or perhaps, an increased award). The Service filed a motion to remand the case so that a new final determination letter could be issued. The Petitioner opposed this motion, as he believed that the Tax Court could decide the issue for itself, without need to remand.

Judge Lauber appears to be cautious towards remanding a case, for two reasons: first, it’s unclear whether the Court has the authority to remand a whistleblower case. While CDP cases are subject to remand, due to the abuse of discretion standard applicable in most cases, cases in which the Court may decide an issue de novo are, according to Judge Lauber, generally not subject to remand. (I’m not sure that’s entirely correct, as CDP cases challenging the underlying liability are indeed subject to remand.) Relatedly, the Court isn’t yet even sure what the standard of review for a whistleblower case is.

Judge Lauber manages to avoid these issues. Because the Court retains jurisdiction where the Service changes its mind about the original whistleblower claim post-petition (see Ringo v. Commissioner), Judge Lauber does not believe there’s any point in remanding the case for issuance of a new letter. The Service can simply issue the letter now, and the Court can enforce any resulting settlement through a judgment. Of course, it can’t hurt to not have to decide the tricky issues surrounding the Court’s standard of review and possibility of a remand

 

Mixing a Pro Se Taxpayer and Confusing Innocent Spouse Deadlines Leads to Bad Result

In Vu v Commissioner, a summary case from late last year, the Tax Court held that a pro se taxpayer did not establish the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an IRS’s denial of a request for innocent spouse relief. What makes the case unusual is that the taxpayer Amanda Vu did file a petition requesting relief but she did so before the IRS issued what it styled as a notice of determination and just prior to 6 months elapsing after her request to the IRS for relief was made. In other words, her petition jumped the gun on the two separate avenues needed to confer the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.

read more...

Before digging into the case I note that I came across the case and wrote a draft of this post without realizing that Carl and Keith are now representing the taxpayer Ms. Vu. As I discuss below, what intrigued me initially about the case was how the result was unfair. Carl and Keith and the Harvard Tax Clinic have filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and remove the case’s small case designation. I will discuss below why the Tax Court dismissed the case, and why I agree with the Tax Court judge that the outcome inequitable and hope that the legal argument Carl and Keith have advanced persuade the Tax Court to reconsider its approach.

I also note that we have discussed premature petitions before, albeit in the context of straight up deficiency cases. In Tax Court Order Finds Jurisdiction Even When Taxpayer Files a Petition Before the IRS Issues Notice of Deficiency a taxpayer filed a petition prior to the stat notice but in response to other correspondence IRS issued in its exam. I discussed how the Tax Court in Weiss v Commissioner went out of its way to confer jurisdiction, essentially allowing the taxpayer’s response to IRS motion to dismiss the case confer jurisdiction, so long as the taxpayer amended its petition and the IRS’s motion and the taxpayer’s response were issued prior to the actual 90-day period ran. I speculated that the problem of premature petitions filed in good faith was likely a common one, and that the Weisses were lucky in that the IRS motion, and their response, were within the 90-day period.

Vu was not nearly as fortunate as Weiss. I will simplify the facts to bring home the procedural conundrum Vu found herself in.

She, with a friend’s assistance, submitted a request for innocent spouse relief that she signed and dated February 28, 2014. IRS recorded it as received on March 24, 2014.

Vu testified that she received from IRS on June 12 an “Innocent Spouse Relief Lead Sheet” that was dated June 4, 2014. The document was designated Workpaper # 615 and reads in part:

Conclusion: (Reflects the final determination on the issue.)

Conclusion for 6015(b):

Note: A summary of your conclusion should go here. Ensure that reference is made as to what factors are met if allowing or granting partial relief, and what factors are not met

It was concluded that the Taxpayer does not meet innocent spouse relief under IRC 6015(b).

*******

Conclusion for 6015(c):

Note: A summary of your conclusion should go here. Ensure that reference is made as to what factors are met if allowing or denying partial relief, and what factors are not met if disallowing or granting partial relief.

It was concluded that the Taxpayer does not meet innocent spouse relief under IRC 6015(c).

*******

Conclusion for 6015(f):

Note: A summary of your conclusion should go here.

It was concluded that the Taxpayer does not meet innocent spouse relief under IRC 6015(f).

*******

Vu sent in a petition to Tax Court and it had a September 8, 2014 postmark, and Tax Court received it on September 12, 2014.

About one month after Vu filed her petition, on October 9, 2014 IRS mailed Vu a final determination denying her request for innocent spouse relief.

On November 3, 2014, IRS filed an answer. In the answer it denied issuing a notice of determination from New Mexico and indicated that it issued a notice of determination from Phoenix on October 9, 2014. IRS did not in the answer indicate that the petition Vu filed was premature; that was too bad because if it had flagged the issue, the taxpayer, like the early bird in Weiss, could have cured her defect and filed a petition that would have clearly been timely.

On January 27, 2015 Vu, more than 90 days after issuing what it called a final determination and over four months after Vu filed her petition, IRS filed a motion to dismiss Vu’s petition on the ground that she filed it prior to the time that the IRS issued its October 9 notice of determination.

Vu did not respond to the Tax Court’s order ordering a response to the motion. The motion was argued at a June 2015 calendar in New Mexico.

The Law

A petition to Tax Court is timely in innocent spouse cases if it is made (1) within 90 days of the mailing of a notice of final determination of relief, or (2) if the IRS has not yet mailed a notice of determination, at any point after six months has transpired since the taxpayer’s request for relief was made with the Commissioner.

Applying the above rules to Vu meant that the Tax Court would have had jurisdiction under two alternate theories:

  • if it considered the IRS’s Innocent Spouse Relief Lead Sheet IRS issued sometime in June a notice of determination and Vu filed a petition within 90 days of that determination, or
  • if at the time she filed her petition to Tax Court 6 months had elapsed following her request for relief and IRS had issued no determination in the case.

On both grounds the Tax Court held that Vu came up empty leaving the Tax Court to conclude that it had no jurisdiction in the case.

Both issues are interesting and walk us down some complicated procedural rules. First let’s look at issue 1. The opinion indicates that it likely would have been willing to conclude that the Workpaper #615 correspondence was a determination, noting cases such as Barnes v Commissioner that neither the statute or regs impose a specific form or spell out the content of what should be in a determination and the language of the workpaper led the taxpayer to conclude it was a final IRS determination. The problem for Vu was that there was no evidence in the record when IRS issued that correspondence, making it impossible to conclude that the petition she filed was within 90-days (and allowing the court to punt on concluding definitively that the Workpaper was a determination).

There were two possible dates: June 4, when the document was dated, or June 12, when Vu claimed to receive it. Determining which was correct was key, because if it were issued on June12th the petition she mailed on September 8 would have been filed within 90 days, using the mailbox rule that allows date of mailing to be the date of filing. If it were issued on June 4th the petition would have been filed outside the 90-days.

According to the Tax Court Vu did not offer any evidence as to why June12th was the correct date:

As for the June 12, 2014, date, petitioner however did not present any evidence whatsoever showing that any relevant action occurred on June 12, 2014, and has specifically failed to establish that respondent provided her the requisite final determination notice on that date.

What about issue 2, the 6-month rule? That issue turned on whether Vu’s request was considered made on February 28, when she signed, dated and testified that she mailed it, or March 24, when IRS records treated the request as received. If the operative date were February, then Vu’s petition would have conferred jurisdiction, as the petition she mailed on September 8 and which the Tax Court received on September 12 would have been filed after 6 months had elapsed from her administrative request for relief and prior to the IRS’s issuance of the October 9 final determination.

Vu came up empty here too. How it gets there requires a detour to Section 7502, the mailbox rule. The Vu opinion treats the statutory language “made” in the same manner as if it interpreted when the request were filed. The opinion treated the request for relief as having been filed or made in March (when IRS received it) and not when  mailed in late February. It does so because the mailbox rule under Section 7502 is actually an exception to the general rule that a document is filed when it is received by the IRS. Recall that the mailbox rule of Section 7502 only applies when documents are filed with and received after the expiration of a filing period. Here, the filing period limitation relates to the time period to bring an administrative request for innocent spouse relief, and that limitation was years in the future:

Because petitioner’s Form 8857…was filed before respondent initiated any collection action with respect to that year (indeed, before respondent even issued the joint notice of deficiency to petitioner and Mr. Nguyen with respect to that year), we find that respondent timely received the form on March 24, 2014; section 7502 therefore does not apply, and the relevant date for section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) is not six months after the alleged mailing date of the form but six months after the date of receipt of the form, or September 25, 2014.

The opinion made clear why Vu came up short:

Consequently, we can exercise jurisdiction over the petition herein only if it was filed “at any time after the earlier of” October 9, 2014 [the date of the formal notice of determination], or September 25, 2014 [six months after Vu’s request was made], see sec. 6015(e)(1)(A)(i), and “not later than” January 7, 2015, see sec. 6015(e)(1)(A)(ii). Because the petition was filed with the Court on September 12, 2014, it does not meet this requirement and we thus lack jurisdiction over it.

This opinion noted the unfairness of the outcome:

While we acknowledge that this is an inequitable result, as petitioner filed her petition believing in good faith that it was timely and her opportunity to file another petition has now expired, we are unfortunately constrained by the statute, and our role is to apply the tax laws as written.

Final Thoughts

This is a bad outcome. I do not understand why counsel for IRS did not alert Vu of the premature petition issue earlier in the process. It appears that counsel for the IRS did not appreciate the 90-day issue fully until it filed the motion; otherwise one would have hoped that counsel would have filed the motion in lieu of the answer. That would have given Vu time to file a petition within the 90-day window, as the taxpayer in Weiss did. I also note that the IRS only raised the 6-month issue at the hearing itself on the motion, which was many months after the IRS filed its motion to dismiss.

We have discussed before the difficulties associated with confusing IRS correspondence. When you add to the mix the reality that many taxpayers are pro se and not equipped to understand the nuances of differing IRS procedures you can get to a place where a taxpayer is denied her day in court despite efforts to have her case heard.

There is a possibility that the Tax Court will change its mind and the case will get heard. Keith and Carl in their motion to set aside the dismissal argue that the IRS forfeited the right to make an SOL argument by waiting too long in this case, as it should have been made in the answer. This is an argument similar to the way the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Kontrick v. Ryan held that a bankruptcy debtor waited too long in his case to raise the untimeliness of a creditor’s filing because the time period was not jurisdictional, so had to be raised earlier in the case.  Kontrick is the Supreme Court opinion that first began the narrowing of the use of the word “jurisdictional”.

We have discussed the issue of jurisdictional deadlines repeatedly; the most recent was Carl’s discussion of Tilden earlier this week, an opinion that does not help the argument in Vu. Admittedly there is no direct precedent in support of Vu’s argument, and the Tax Court in Pollock v Commissioner has previously held that the deadline under Section 6015(e)(1)(A) was jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. To be sure, there is no long line of Supreme Court precedent holding deadlines under Section 6015 jurisdictional, and the Tax Court’s opinion in Pollock was prior to the Supreme Court and other courts’ narrowing of the term jurisdictional. Moreover, the language in Section 6015(e) consists of a single sentence containing both jurisdictional grants and time periods to file a petition, a type of statute that the Supreme Court has previously held to be not jurisdictional.

Keith and Carl have a few cases other than Vu in the pipeline making this argument and I hope the courts at a minimum address the changing law and meaningfully apply those changes to these and other deadlines where IRS conduct has contributed to taxpayer confusion and the denial of a day in court.

Tilden v. Comm’r: Seventh Circuit Reverses Tax Court’s Untimely Mailing Ruling

Frequent guest blogger Carl Smith provides a detailed analysis of Friday’s 7th Circuit opinion in the Tilden case.  The opinion discusses two issues: 1) whether the time to file a petition in Tax Court in a deficiency case is jurisdictional and 2) the proper application of the timely mailing regulations.  Carl analyzes both issues in the case.  Keith

I have blogged on this case four times before here, here, here and here.  In my last post, I said I was grabbing a bowl of popcorn to watch how the Seventh Circuit ruled in the appeal of Tilden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-188. In an opinion issued on January 13, the Seventh Circuit again changed course – abandoning the argument two judges on the panel had raised sua sponte at oral argument – that the time period to file a Tax Court deficiency petition might no longer be jurisdictional under current non-tax Supreme Court case law on jurisdiction.  Instead, the court (following decades of Tax Court and Circuit court precedent) continued to hold that the time period to file a deficiency petition is a jurisdictional requirement.

However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s holding that the envelope containing the petition was not entitled to the benefit of the timely-mailing-is-timely-filing rules of the regulations under section 7502.  In the case, the Tax Court had held that USPS tracking data showed the envelope placed in the mail beyond the last date to file.  The Seventh Circuit criticized the usage of tracking data as evidence of the date of mailing.  Rather, the Circuit court held that the petition had been timely filed under the private postmark provision of the regulations, not a different provision of the regulations on which the Tax Court had relied.

read more...

Tilden Facts

Tilden is a deficiency case.  The envelope containing the petition bore a private postage label from stamps.com, dated the 90th day.  Apparently, the envelope was placed in the mail by an employee of counsel for the taxpayer, and that employee also affixed to the envelope a Form 3800 certified mail receipt (the white form), on which the employee also handwrote the date that was the 90th day.  The Form 3800 did not bear a stamp from a USPS employee.  Nor did the USPS ever affix a postmark to the envelope.

The envelope arrived at the Tax Court from the USPS.  The USPS had handled the envelope as certified mail.  That meant that the USPS internally tracked the envelope under its “Tracking” service.  Plugging the 20-digit number from the Form 3800 into the USPS website yielded Tracking data showing that the envelope was first recorded in the USPS system on the 92nd day.  The envelope arrived at the Tax Court on the 98th day.

In Tilden, the IRS moved to dismiss the case based on the ground that the USPS Tracking data showed the petition was mailed on the 92nd day.

In his objection, the taxpayer disagreed, arguing that this was a situation covered by Reg. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(1).  That regulation states:

(B) Postmark made by other than U.S. Postal Service.–(1) In general.–If the postmark on the envelope is made other than by the U.S. Postal Service–

(i) The postmark so made must bear a legible date on or before the last date, or the last day of the period, prescribed for filing the document or making the payment; and

(ii) The document or payment must be received by the agency, officer, or office with which it is required to be filed not later than the time when a document or payment contained in an envelope that is properly addressed, mailed, and sent by the same class of mail would ordinarily be received if it were postmarked at the same point of origin by the U.S. Postal Service on the last date, or the last day of the period, prescribed for filing the document or mailing the payment.

The taxpayer argued that the stamps.com mailing label, combined with the Form 3800, was a “postmark” not made by the USPS that legibly showed a date that was the 90th day and that the 8-day period between the 90th day and receipt by the Tax Court was when mail of such class would “ordinarily be received”.  Thus, under the regulation, the petition was timely filed.

In responding to the objection, the IRS changed position and now argued that the taxpayer had the wrong portion of the regulation, and that the relevant portion of the regulation was actually Reg. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(2), which provides:

(2) Document or payment received late.–If a document or payment described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)(1) is received after the time when a document or payment so mailed and so postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service would ordinarily be received, the document or payment is treated as having been received at the time when a document or payment so mailed and so postmarked would ordinarily be received if the person who is required to file the document or make the payment establishes–

(i) That it was actually deposited in the U.S. mail before the last collection of mail from the place of deposit that was postmarked (except for the metered mail) by the U.S. Postal Service on or before the last date, or the last day of the period, prescribed for filing the document or making the payment;

(ii) That the delay in receiving the document or payment was due to a delay in the transmission of the U.S. mail; and

(iii) The cause of the delay.

The IRS argued that the petition had arrived beyond the time it would “ordinarily be received”, triggering the taxpayer’s obligation to prove the three conditions of the relevant portion of the regulation – none of which had been proved.

Tilden Tax Court Ruling 

In his opinion, Judge Armen held that both parties had relied on the wrong portions of the regulation.  He believed the relevant portions of the regulation were found at:

(1) Reg. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(2), which provides:

(3) U.S. and non-U.S. postmarks.–If the envelope has a postmark made by the U.S. Postal Service in addition to a postmark not so made, the postmark that was not made by the U.S. Postal Service is disregarded, and whether the envelope was mailed in accordance with this paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) will be determined solely by applying the rule of paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section; and

(2) Reg. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(A), which provides:

If the postmark does not bear a date on or before the last date, or the last day of the period, prescribed for filing the document or making the payment, the document or payment is considered not to be timely filed or paid, regardless of when the document or payment is deposited in the mail.

Judge Armen admitted that no postmark from the USPS actually appeared on the envelope, but he cited his opinion in Boultbee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-11.  In Boultbee, a deficiency petition was mailed from Canada, but bore no timely postmark from the USPS (only a timely postmark from the Canadian mail service).  Still, the USPS Tracking information showed that the envelope entered the USPS mail stream before the end of the filing period.  The judge held that such tracking information could serve as a postmark of the USPS, making the petition timely mailed.

Relying on Boultbee, he held in Tilden that the envelope was deemed to bear a USPS postmark as of the tracking information date.  Then, relying on the portion of the regulation dealing with a situation where there is both a USPS postmark and a private postmark, he said the USPS postmark (the tracking information date) governed, so the petition was untimely.

Tilden Motion for Reconsideration 

In a motion for reconsideration filed by the taxpayer, the taxpayer, among other things, argued for applying the common law mailbox rule.  The taxpayer reported that the IRS told him that the IRS objected to the granting of the motion for reconsideration.

But, when the IRS actually filed a response to the motion, the IRS changed position again and now did not object to the granting of the motion.  The IRS noted that section 7502 has been held to supersede the common law mailbox rule in most Circuits (with one exception not relevant to this case).  And, in any case, the common law mailbox rule couldn’t apply here where there was actual delivery – and delivery was on a date after the due date.  You still needed section 7502 to make the late envelope timely.

But, the IRS now took the position that the envelope had been received at the limit of, but still within, the time in which the envelope would be expected to “ordinarily be received” if mailed on the 90th day from Utah, where the taxpayer’s attorney’s office was.  In part, the IRS concession was based on the delay to be expected because (as many people forget), since the 2001 anthrax in the mail scare, all mail to the Tax Court gets irradiated.  Thus, the IRS conceded that the taxpayer’s petition was timely under the portion of the regulation on which the taxpayer relied, Reg. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(1).  The IRS, without mentioning Boultbee, simply told the court that the court had relied on the wrong provisions of the regulation, since there was no actual USPS postmark in this case, just tracking data.

Somewhat incensed that neither party responded to Boultbee — the lynchpin of his prior ruling in Tilden —  Judge Armen denied the motion for reconsideration, telling the parties the truism that the court’s jurisdiction may not be conferred by mere concession by the parties.

Seventh Circuit Oral Argument

At the oral argument in the Seventh Circuit, two judges on the panel, sua sponte, raised a different issue:  Whether the time period in section 6213(a) to file a deficiency petition is still a jurisdictional requirement in light of non-tax Supreme Court case law since 2004 that generally excludes compliance with filing periods from jurisdictional status, unless (1) there is a “clear statement” that Congress wants the particular time period to be jurisdictional or (2) for decades, the Supreme Court in prior rulings has held the particular time period jurisdictional (stare decisis).  Anyone listening to the oral argument (posted on the Seventh Circuit’s website) would tell you that the court was leaning toward holding the time period not jurisdictional and that the IRS had now waived any complaint in the case that the time period (now a mere statute of limitations) had been violated.

But, unbidden, after the oral argument, the parties filed supplemental briefs on this question, with the parties taking opposite views on whether the deficiency filing period is jurisdictional.

Seventh Circuit Holding

Apparently, the panel had second thoughts about what it raised sua sponte.  Instead, it held that the time period in section 6213(a)’s first sentence was a jurisdictional requirement.  After acknowledging that case law cited to it from prior Circuit opinions, including itself, had not discussed the applicability of the current Supreme Court case law on jurisdiction to the Tax Court deficiency filing period, the Seventh Circuit, found three reasons to support its holding:

First, the court implicitly looked to the “clear statement” exception, finding a “magic word” (Slip op. at 5):  There was a reference to “jurisdiction” in a later sentence in section 6213(a) limiting the Tax Court’s power to issue injunctions against premature assessment or collection of the deficiency to when “a timely petition . . . has been filed”.  The Seventh Circuit wrote:  “Tilden does not want either an injunction or a refund; he has yet to pay the assessed deficiencies. But it would be very hard to read §6213(a) as a whole to distinguish these remedies from others, such as ordering the Commissioner to redetermine the deficiency (sic).” Id.  (Comment:  What does the injunctive provision have to do with the first sentence?  Where is the “clear statement” that the first sentence filing period is jurisdictional?  Moreover, “timely” in the injunctive jurisdiction sentence obviously includes filings deemed timely by other Code provisions such as section 7502, 7508 (combat zone extensions), and 7508A (disaster area extensions), so “timely” doesn’t show Congress wanting the 90-day period in the first sentence of section 6213(a) to be rigidly applied.)

Second, the court noted the pre-2004 longstanding holdings of the Tax Court and many Circuits that the time period was jurisdictional (i.e., stare decisis).  “We think that it would be imprudent to reject that body of precedent, which (given John R. Sand & Gravel) places the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims, two Article I tribunals, on an equal footing.”  (Slip op. at 6)  In John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008), the Supreme Court had held that, purely on a stare decisis basis, it would not follow its current rules on what is jurisdictional because for over 100 years (in multiple opinions), the Court had held the 6-year time period to file a Court of Federal Claims petition under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. section 2501) is jurisdictional.  (Comment:  But, in Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the filing period in the Article I Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not jurisdictional.  And, for tax cases, the relevant comparable time period to file a refund suit in the Court of Federal Claims is not 28 U.S.C. section 2501, but I.R.C. section 6532(a); Detroit Trust Co. v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 223 (1955); on which the Supreme Court has never made a jurisdictional ruling.  Moreover, the stare decisis exception to the current Supreme Court case law is to a long line of Supreme Court precedents on the particular time period, not to precedents of lower courts, on which the Seventh Circuit was relying.)

Third, the Seventh Circuit accepted the conclusion of the Tax Court that the section 6213(a) time period was jurisdictional in the Tax Court’s recent opinion in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 15 (June 2, 2016), which held that the CDP petition filing period under section 6330(d)(1) is jurisdictional in part because of the Tax Court’s reliance on its precedents that all filing periods in the Tax Court are jurisdictional.  (Comment:  This is pretty circular.  Is this even a separate reason, or just a restatement of the previous stare decisis ground?)

As to the section 7502 issues, the Seventh Circuit said the Tax Court had relied on the wrong provisions of the regulation.  The right provision was the one relied on by the taxpayer and, eventually, the IRS – the rules for private postmarks where there is no USPS postmark.  The Seventh Circuit did not consider tracking data to be a USPS postmark, writing, as well:

“For what it may be worth, we also doubt the Tax Court’s belief that the date an envelope enters the Postal Service’s tracking system is a sure indicator of the date the envelope was placed in the mail. The Postal Service does not say that it enters an item into its tracking system as soon as that item is received . . . .” (Slip op. at 7)

The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that parties are not allowed to collude to give a court jurisdiction that it doesn’t otherwise have, but the appellate court held that there was no apparent collusion in this case, and the Tax Court was bound to accept the IRS’ factual concession (after the motion for reconsideration) that the envelope had been placed timely in the mails (a factual concession that had no evidentiary support, by the way).  (Comment:  This holding is going to shock a lot of Tax Court judges.)

Finally, the Seventh Circuit excoriated the lawyers who failed to put a proper postmark on the envelope:  “Stoel Rives was taking an unnecessary risk with Tilden’s money (and its own, in the malpractice claim sure to follow if we had agreed with the Tax Court) by waiting until the last day and then not getting an official postmark or using a delivery service.”  (Slip op. at 8)

Additional Observations             

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Tilden certainly doesn’t help the argument that Keith and I are pursuing in the Circuit courts that the time periods in which to file CDP and innocent spouse petitions in the Tax Court are not jurisdictional.  However, a stare decisis argument is harder as to those two filing periods:  There is only one published opinion of a Circuit court holding that the CDP filing period is jurisdictional (and it did not mention the recent Supreme Court case law on jurisdiction) and there are no opinions of any Circuit courts on whether the innocent spouse filing period is jurisdictional.  Keith and I are not giving up.

Without citing Boultbee, the Seventh Circuit casts doubt on Boutlbee’s reliance on USPS tracking data – at least for purposes of finding the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction.  This alone is a major event.

As pointed out in my prior posts, there are a number of cases in the Tax Court where the proceedings have been stayed pending the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Tilden.  We can expect some of them to generate opinions soon, including possibly a Tax Court court conference opinion discussing whether or not the Tax Court now agrees with the Seventh Circuit as to which regulation provisions govern and how relevant USPS tracking information is.  Ironically, one of the cases awaiting this ruling is factually identical to Tilden and apparently involves the same law firm making the same postmark mistake (though that case would be appealable to the Eighth Circuit).

Finally, a National Office attorney informed me last month that there is a “reverse Tilden case” pending in the Tax Court – i.e., one where the postmark is untimely (not sure if it is USPS or not), but the tracking data shows the envelope in the USPS mail stream before the end of the filing period.  There’s always something . . . .

Procedure Grab Bag – Collection Financial Standards & 7-Eleven

Over the last two months, the IRS has made two administrative changes that we didn’t previously cover that impact the collection of taxes, predominately from low income taxpayers.  One is fairly negative (National Standards for collection potential), and I have mixed feelings about the other (paying taxes while buying a Big Gulp).

Deflation Nation

The Service has issued updated National Standards for taxpayer expenses when determining collection potential.  These amounts are what the Service views as reasonable expenses for food, housekeeping supplies, clothing, and miscellaneous expenses.  A taxpayer can rely on the National Standards without having to put forth any evidence of the actual expenses paid.  The Service also issues amounts by County for taxpayers for expenses relating to housing and utilities.  If a taxpayer seeks to claim expenses in excess of the National Standards (or local for housing), the taxpayer has to substantiate the same and prove the additional expense is necessary.  This can be onerous, especially for people using predominately cash, those who are ESL, and those with temporary housing.

The most recent National Standards, and at least some of the local housing and utilities amounts, have decreased from 2015.  The new 2016 amounts are:

read more...

Expense One Person Two Persons Three Persons Four Persons
Food $307 $583 $668 $815
Housekeeping supplies $30 $60 $60 $71
Apparel & services $80 $148 $193 $227
Personal care products & services $34 $61 $62 $74
Miscellaneous $119 $231 $266 $322
Total $570 $1,083 $1,249 $1,509

 

More than four persons Additional Persons Amount
For each additional person, add to four-person total allowance: $341

Source: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/national-standards-food-clothing-and-other-items

While in 2014 (and I think 2015), those amounts were:

Expense One Person Two Persons Three Persons Four Persons
Food $315 $588 $660 $794
Housekeeping supplies $30 $66 $69 $74
Apparel & services $88 $162 $209 $244
Personal care products & services $34 $61 $64 $70
Miscellaneous $116 $215 $251 $300
Total $583 $1,092 $1,249 $1,482

 

More than four persons Additional Persons Amount
For each additional person, add to four-person total allowance: $298

 

For larger families, the amount increased slightly, but for smaller families, the amount decreased, when many taxpayers making these types of offers were already feeling the pinch.  Various local amounts for housing and utilities also decreased, some of which by over $100.   When putting both together, collection potential is increased by well over $100, perhaps approaching $200 per month.  Having worked in the clinic at Villanova and assisting various pro bono clients in my private practice, I know most taxpayers using these standards felt the national amounts were difficult to live on and assumed significantly more discretionary income than they had.  That got squeezed a bit more with these adjustments.

7-Eleven Payment Heaven

The IRS has issued a new cash payment option largely aimed at helping unbanked taxpayers pay their taxes.  The notice can be found here.  The payment option allows taxpayers to use cash to pay their taxes at the over 7,000 domestic 7-Elevens (not sure it works in the roughly billion international 7-Elevens—I had no idea it was so popular overseas).   This is being done with a partnership with PayNearMe and ACI Worldwide’s  Officialpayments.com.  With rumors that the IRS will stop allowing walk in cash tax payments (already only allowed in limited locations) and taxpayers receiving penalties for certain cash payments, any additional payment method for those without bank accounts and credit cards is welcome.  I’ll be honest, the idea of 7-Eleven collecting our taxes is entertaining and seems quintessentially American (even if it is owned by a Japanese company).  It also makes me nervous, as outsourcing tax collection in other areas has not panned out well, and the franchise model strikes me as potentially allowing for less corporate oversight (7-Eleven in Australia is also currently battling a huge human rights issue over its wages).  Also, Slurpees are gross.  But, apparently other countries have been using 7-Elevens to pay some taxes and traffic tickets, so maybe this will work out splendidly.

Ignoring the major Slurpee issue, the IRS program requires the taxpayer to go to IRS.gov and to the payments page (so, no bank account, but easy access to the internet is needed).  There you select the cash option, and walk through the steps.  Once the taxpayer’s info is in the page, the taxpayer will receive an email from Officialpayments.com, which confirms their information.  The IRS then has to verify the information, at which point PayNearMe sends the taxpayer another email, with a link to a payment code and instructions (this is sort of seeming like a pain in the @$*).  The individual can then print the payment code, or send it to his or her smart phone.  The taxpayer then can go the closest 7-Eleven, make the payment, and receive a receipt.  Only $1000 per day can be paid, and there is a $3.99 charge per payment.

I applaud the notion, but the implementation, especially for low income and ESL, seems pretty onerous.  I’m not sure all taxpayers who may need to use this service have easy access to the internet, computers, email addresses, printers, and/or smart phones.  Not to mention, there are quite a few steps, this does take a while, and we are charging them to pay their taxes.

The IRS is also encouraging taxpayers to start the process well ahead of tax time, due to the three step process, and the fact that the funds “usually posts to the taxpayer’s account within two business days.”  The notice does not indicate what the payment date is for the penalties and interest, but the notice would seem to indicate it is the posting date and not the date the taxpayer hands the funds over to 7-Eleven.  I don’t think Section 6151 has a Kwik-E-Mart exception for time of paying tax, and I do not think 7-Eleven qualifies as a government depository under Section 6302, so taxpayers do need to be certain to allow for substantial time to pass between the payment date and the tax return due date.

Tax Court Won’t Rule in Similar Stamps.com Mailing Label Cases Until the Seventh Circuit Rules in Tilden v. Comm’r

Frequent guest poster Carl Smith was at last week’s ABA Tax Section meeting in Washington and brings us up to date on the Tilden case, now on appeal and which Carl discussed in a post from December. As Carl discusses, now that the case is on appeal the Tax Court seems to be taking a wait and see approach in other cases with similar issues.   Les

I wanted to pass along to PT readers some things I learned at the ABA Tax Section Court Procedure Committee meeting in Washington D.C. this past Friday. It has to do with the Stamps.com mailing case of Tilden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-188. I blogged on Tilden this past December. The things I learned, including after doing my own further investigations, are: (1) that Tilden is currently on appeal in the Seventh Circuit, (2) that four other currently-pending Tax Court cases present the same issue, and (3) that Chief Judge Thornton has stayed further proceedings in these four other cases – each appealable to different Circuits – “pending the ultimate outcome in Tilden”.

read more...

In Tilden, a taxpayer mailed a deficiency petition to the Tax Court, affixing both a postage label from Stamps.com showing the 90th day and a certified mail sticker.  When the envelope arrived at the Tax Court on the 98th day, the envelope bore no USPS postmark.  In its initial motion, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the IRS relied on one provision of the section 7502 regulations – arguing that internal USPS tracking information should be treated as a USPS postmark and that since the tracking information showed the envelope entering the USPS system after the 90th day, the petition was untimely.  During the course of later filings on the motion, the IRS, however, changed its position on which was the applicable regulation provision, pointing to a different one for dismissing the case.  The taxpayer took a third position – pointing to a third section 7502 regulation provision that the taxpayer thought applied and made the filing timely.

In Tilden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-188, the Tax Court agreed with the IRS’ first position and held the petition untimely based on the USPS tracking information.

The taxpayer then filed a motion for reconsideration — arguing that the Court was relying on the wrong provision of the section 7502 regulations.  Surprisingly, in responding to the motion, the IRS joined the taxpayer’s argument as to the proper regulation provision and now argued that, under this third provision of the regulations, the petition was timely.  In an unpublished order, the Tax Court refused to change its ruling.

So, in Tilden, the IRS had taken three different positions on which provision of the section 7502 regulations applied – coming to its own conclusion different from the Court.

At the ABA Tax Section Court Procedure Committee meeting this past Friday, Richard Goldman – a long-time Branch Chief in the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration)’s office – alerted the audience that Tilden had been appealed and that there were a number of similar Tax Court cases pending in which the court was suspending ruling on motions to dismiss until the appeals court rules in what will be a case of first impression in the appellate courts.

When I got back home, I did a little research. First, I found that on December 21, 2015, the taxpayer appealed the dismissal of Tilden to the Seventh Circuit, where the appeal has been given Docket No. 15-3838. From a PACER docket search, I learned that the case did not settle during a settlement conference – which may mean that the Department of Justice disagrees with the IRS about whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction in the case.  Next, the opening appellant’s brief is due June 13, 2016, and the government’s answering brief is due on July 13, 2016. Until the DOJ files its answering brief this summer, we really won’t know what position the government takes in the appeal. Finally, Tilden is represented by counsel in the appeal, so this will likely not be a badly-argued case for the taxpayer. However, it is that counsel whose office affixed the Stamps.com label.

Using the Tax Court’s order search function and searching for orders issued since last December that mentioned Tilden, I located the following four pending Tax Court cases in which the IRS initially moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, but is now asking (in supplemental filings) that the court not dismiss the cases because the IRS relied on the wrong provision of the section 7502 regulations in its initial motion: Corey v. Commissioner, Docket No. 13312-15 (pro se case, appealable to Ninth Circuit); Frieda G. Oliner Irrevocable Trust v. Commissioner, Docket No. 12766-15 (has counsel, appealable to the First Circuit); Pearson v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11084-15 (has same counsel as in Tilden, appealable to Eight Circuit); Piepmeyer v. Commissioner, Docket No. 30486-15S (pro se case; if “S” removed, appealable to the Sixth Circuit).

One of the orders I found quotes a little from the IRS supplemental filing as follows:

  1. On reflection and contrary to respondent’s motion, respondent believes the timeliness of the petition is properly determined under Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(1), because the postmark was made by other than the U.S. Postal Service and the item was received by the Court not later than the time when a document contained in an envelope that is properly addressed, mailed, and sent to the Court would ordinarily be received if it were postmarked at the same point of origin by the U.S. Postal Service on the last day of the period prescribed for filing.

  1. Because the petition in this case was received and filed by the Court on the 98th day from the date of the notice of deficiency and in light of the fact that the 90th day fell on a Sunday, respondent now believes the petition was timely placed in the mail by the petitioner not later than the last day of the period for filing, i.e., November 30, 2015; therefore, respondent asks that the motion be denied.

Order of Chief Judge Thornton, dated March 31, 2016, in Piepmeyer.

In each of the four cases, Chief Judge Thornton has issued an order formally staying proceedings “pending the ultimate outcome in Tilden”.

I will keep monitoring the Tilden appeal and these four other stayed Tax Court cases and report back to PT readers any important developments.

Private Carriers, APA Impact on Notices and New Blog

Les and I each wrote short, essentially follow up posts which we are combing into one.  We anticipate we will be writing more on mailing deadlines and on the APA impact on notices.  Keith

Using Private Carriers to Meet a Filing Deadline

In Notice 2016-30, IRS published a new list of designated private delivery services  (“designated PDSs”) for purposes of the timely mailing treated as timely filing/paying rule of section 7502. The Notice provides rules for determining the postmark date for these services. The Notice updates Notice 2015-38, which had updated Notice 2004-83. This marks the second time IRS has updated the rules in under a year after an eleven or so year run for the original notice.

The main change is that the notice, effective April 11, 2016, adds to the acceptable list a number of DHL-provided services. IRS dropped DHL in last year’s following DHL’s cutback in services.

The Notice reminds people that not all services offered by the anointed carriers qualify as PDS’s. We have discussed numerous times issues taxpayers and practitioners have had meeting petition deadlines. Failing to track which services qualify can have major consequences. Keith has discussed the sad case of Guralnik v Commissioner when the taxpayer used FedEx First Overnight to mail his petition, a service not found within the 2004 notice but one IRS added in 2015. In addition, a summary opinion from a couple of years ago, Sanders v Commissioner, involved a pro se taxpayer who sent in his petition on day 89 using UPS Ground. UPS Ground was then and is still not one of the many UPS services that the IRS treats as a PDS.

In Sanders, the petition arrived at Tax Court after the 90-day period elapsed. IRS moved to dismiss, and the Tax Court held that the petition was untimely “because UPS Ground has not been designated by the Commissioner as a private delivery service.”

Addressing the consequences the Tax Court added:

In so holding we acknowledge that the result may appear harsh, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner had nearly 90 days to file his petition but waited until the last moment to do so However, the Court cannot rely on general equitable principles to expand the statutorily prescribed time for filing a petition.

The Tax Court concluded that Sanders was not without recourse; he could pay the tax and file a refund claim and suit. Given that he deficiency was for two years and totaled over $40,000, with the Flora rule requiring full payment, that option may not have given Sanders much comfort.

Follow up on Statutory Notice and the Administrative Procedure Act Post

One commenter on the post suggested additional links.  After the post was written, QuinetiQ filed its reply to the Government’s brief.  So, this brief post will provide a quick update of documents available for those interested in this case.

In the post I provided a link to the Tax Court opinion; however, the commenter pointed out that the most pertinent document from the Tax Court case was an order, linked here, setting out the Court’s views on the motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction due to the (allegedly) improper notice of deficiency.  The order provides details about the Tax Court’s reasoning in denying the motion that I did not include in the original post.

In the 4th Circuit, QuinetiQ filed the opening brief as the appellant.  For some reason we could not access that brief and did not include it as a link in the post.  It is linked here.  Now that QuinetiQ has filed a reply brief, it is also available and is linked here.  The briefs filed by QuinetiQ make clear that it thinks the notice of deficiency in this case really provided no meaningful notice.  Not having seen that notice I can only imagine from other notices I have seen that the possibility certainly exists that the notice itself was bad.  Then the question is so what?  Must the taxpayer move forward on the substance of the matter gleaning what it can from the notice, from what it knew of the audit and from the information that comes out during the Tax Court case or can it get a court to strike the notice of deficiency as inadequate under provision s of the Administrative Procedure Act.  Do those provisions apply to an informal agency action such as a notice and, if they do, in applying them to this notice, should it be stricken?  Is this just another example of tax exceptionalism that needs to fall or is the notice of deficiency something totally covered by the IRC, outside of the APA, and subject to very relaxed standards for what provides adequate notice.

 

New Tax Blog

A group of tax professors, some of whom publish great material on tax procedure, have just started a new blog for those who might be interested.  Check it out at https://surlysubgroup.com/

 

 

Summary Opinions for November

1973_GMC_MotorhomeHere is a summary of some of the other tax procedure items we didn’t otherwise cover in November.  This is heavy on tax procedure intersecting with doctors (including one using his RV to assist his practice).  Also, important updates on the AICPA case, US v. Rozbruch, and the DOJ focusing on employment withholding issues.

read more...

I’ve got a bunch of Jack Townsend love to start SumOp.  He covered a bunch of great tax procedure items last month.  No reason for me to do an inferior write up, when I can just link him.  First is his coverage of the Dr. Bradner conviction for wire fraud and tax evasion found on Jack’s Federal Tax Crime’s blog.  Why is this case interesting?  Because it seems like this Doc turned his divorce into some serious tax crimes, hiding millions offshore.  He then tried to bring the money back to the US, but someone in the offshore jurisdiction had flipped on him, and Homeland Security seized the funds ($4.6MM – I should have become a plastic surgeon!).  His ex is probably ecstatic that the Feds were able to track down some marital assets.   I am sure that will help keep her in the standard of living she has become accustom to.

  • I know I’ve said this before, but you should really follow Jack Townsend’s blogs.  From his Federal Tax Procedure Blog, a write up of the Second Circuit affirming the district court in United States v. Rozbruch.  Frank Agostino previously wrote up the district court case for us with his associates Brian Burton and Lawrence Sannicandro.  That post, entitled, Procedural Challenges to Penalties: Section 6751(b)(1)’s Signed Supervisory Approval Requirement can be found here.  Those gents are pretty knowledgeable about this topic, as they are the lawyers for the taxpayer. As Jack explains, the Second Circuit introduces a new phrase, “functional satisfaction” (sort of like substantial compliance) as a way to find for the IRS in a case considering the application of Section 6751(b) to the trust fund recovery penalty.
  • The Tax Court in Trumbly v. Comm’r  has held that sanctions could not be imposed against the Service under Section 6673(a)(2) where the settlement officer incorrectly declared the administrative record consisted of 88 exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the declaration but were not actually attached.  The Chief Counsel lawyer failed to realize the issue, and forwarded other documents, claiming it was the record.  The Court held that the Chief Counsel lawyer failed to review the documents closely, and did not intentionally forward incorrect documents.  The Court did not believe the actions raised to the level of bad faith (majority position), recklessness or another lesser degree of culpability (minority position).  Not a bad result from failing to review your file!
  • This isn’t that procedure related, but I found the case interesting, and I’ve renamed the Tax Court case Cartwright v. Comm’r as “Breaking Bones”.  Dr. Cartwright, a surgeon, used a mobile home as his “mobile office” parked in the hospital parking lot.  He didn’t treat people in his mobile home (which is good, because that could seem somewhat creepy), but he did paperwork and research while in the RV.  Cartwright attempted to deduct expenses related to the RV, including depreciation.  The Court found that the deductions were allowable, but only up to the percentages calculated by the Service for business use verse personal use.  I’m definitely buying an Airstream and taking Procedurally Taxing on the road (after we find a way to monetize this).
  • The IRS thinks you should pick your tax return preparer carefully (because it and Congress have created a monstrosity of Code and Regs, and it is pretty easy for preparers to steal from you).
  • Les wrote about AICPA defending CPA turf in September.  In the post, he discussed the actions the AICPA has been taking, including the oral argument in its case challenging the voluntary education and testing regime.  As Les stated:

The issue on appeal revolves whether the AICPA has standing to challenge the plan in court rather than the merits of the suit. The panel and AICPA’s focus was on so-called competitive standing, which essentially gives a hook for litigants to challenge an action in court if the litigant can show an imminent or actual increase in competition as a result of the regulation.

On October 30th, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the lower court, and held that the AICPA had standing to challenge the IRS’s Annual Filing Season Program, where the IRS created a voluntary program to somewhat regulate unenrolled return preparers.  The Court found the AICPA had “competitive standing”, which Les highlighted in his post as the argument the Court seemed to latch on to.   For more info on this topic, those of you with Tax Notes subscriptions can look to the November 2nd article, “AICPA Has Standing to Challenge IRS Return Preparer Program”.  Les was quoted in the post, discussing the underlying reasons for the challenge.

  • Service issued CCA 201545017 which deals with a fairly technical timely (e)mailing is timely (e)filing issue with an amended return for a corporation that was rejected from electronic filing and the corporation subsequently paper filed.  The corporation was required to efile the amended return pursuant to Treas. Reg. 301.6011-5(d)(4). Notice 2010-13 outlines the procedure for what should occur if a return is rejected for efiling to ensure timely mailing/timely filing, and requires contacting the Service, obtaining assistance, and then eventually obtaining a waiver from efiling.  There is a ten day window for this to occur.  The corporation may have skipped some of the required steps and just paper filed.  The Service found this was timely filing, and skipping the steps in the notice was not fatal.  The Service did note, however, that efiling for the year in question was no longer available, so the intermediate steps were futile.  A paper return would have been required.  It isn’t clear if the Service would have come to the same conclusion if efiling was possible.
  • Sticking with CCAs, in November the IRS also released CCA 201545016 dealing with when the IRS could reassess abated assessment on a valid return where the taxpayer later pled guilty to filing false claims.   The CCA is long, and has a fairly in depth tax pattern discussed, covering whether various returns were valid (some were not because the jurat was crossed out), and whether income was excessive when potentially overstated, and therefore abatable.  For the valid returns, where income was overstated, the Service could abate under Section 6404, but the CCA warned that the Service could not reassess unless the limitations period was still open, so abatement should be carefully considered.