Designated Orders June 18 – 22: Mailing Issues

Caleb Smith from University of Minnesota brings us this week’s designated orders. Two of the orders present interesting issues regarding the mail and the Court’s jurisdiction. One concerns the timing of the mailing by the petitioner while the other concerns the location of the mailing by the IRS. As with almost all mailing issues, the jurisdiction of the Court hangs in the balance. Keith

There is yet no sign of summer vacation in D.C., as the Tax Court continued to issue designated orders the week of June 18. Indeed, if the Tax Court judges are hoping to get away from the office for a while their orders don’t show it: one of the more interesting ones comes from Judge Gustafson raising sua sponte an interesting jurisdictional question for the parties to address. We begin with a look at that case.

read more...

The Importance of Postmarks: Murfam Enterprises LLC, et.al v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 8039-16 (order here)

Most of this order deals with Judge Gustafson essentially directing the parties to play nice with each other. The order results from petitioner’s motion to compel the IRS to respond to interrogatories and to compel the IRS to produce documents. Since litigation in Tax Court is largely built around informal discovery and the stipulation process, there usually needs to be some sort of break-down between the parties before the Court will step-in to compel discovery.

One could read this order for a study of the boundaries of zealous (or over-zealous) representation of your client. Some of the deadlines proposed by petitioners for the IRS to respond appear to be less than fair, and it does not appear that petitioners tried too hard to work things out with the IRS prior to filing the motions to compel -according to the IRS, only one call was made, before business hours, without leaving a message. All of this leads to a mild tsk-tsk from Judge Gustafson: “communication during the discovery process and prior to the filing of the subject motions has been inadequate.”

But the more interesting issue, in my opinion, is the jurisdictional one that Judge Gustafson raises later. It is, after all, an issue that could render all of the discovery (and the entire case) largely moot: did Murfam mail the petition on time?

Judge Gustafson notes that under the applicable law, a tax matters partner must petition the court within 90 days after the notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) is mailed. We are told that the IRS mailed the FPAA on December 21, 2015, which we may as well accept as true for present purposes. (As a practitioner, one should note that the IRS date on the notice is not always the date of the actual mailing, which would control. See post here. Assuming the FPAA was actually mailed on December 21, 2015, Murfam would need to mail their petition by March 21, 2016, because 90 days later (March 20) falls on a Sunday. See IRC 7503.

This appears to be an easy question: did Murfam mail the petition by March 21, 2016? Because the Court did not actually receive the petition until April 2, 2016, we get into the “timely mailing” rules of IRC 7502. And here things get interesting. The envelope in which the petition was sent has a mostly illegible postmark. The day the petition was mailed is smudged, and may be either March 16 or March 26. The problem is, only one of those two dates (i.e. the 16th) is a timely mailing.

Carl Smith recently posted on the Treasury Regulation on point for these sorts of issues, with the interesting question of whether there is any room left for the common law mailbox rule in the same sphere as the Treasury Regulation. A slightly different question exists in Murfam, and the regulation specifically provides what to do with “illegible postmarks” at Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(A). Essentially, it provides that the burden of proof is on the sender to show the correct date. How, exactly, would one be expected to do that? That is where things would likely become difficult, and the practitioner may need to be creative. Though not quite the same issue, my favorite case for proving mailing is the Estate of Wood v. C.I.R., 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) taking place in small-town Easton, Minnesota… a place where, much like Cheers, everybody knows your name. So much so that the “postmistress” was able to credibly testify that she specifically remembered sending the tax return in the mail on the day in question. It is unclear whether Murfam could rely on similar credible testimony to prove the date of the mailing.

I would also note that, at present, this is likely more of an academic point than anything else: the parties can stipulate that the petition was timely filed (and while I cannot access their stipulations, my suspicion is that they came to an agreement on that point… how much more efficiently things do progress when the parties work together). But, apart from again serving as a reminder on the importance of sending (certain) mail certified, the point to keep in mind is the evidentiary issues that can easily arise when mailing important documents.

The Importance of Addresses: Gamino v. C.I.R., dkt. # 12773-17S (order here)

Lest the importance of proper mailing issues be doubted, it should be noted that there was another designated order issued the same day primarily concerning mailing addresses. In Gamino, the IRS sent out a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) to the taxpayer at two different addresses. Those delivery attempts were in May of 2015. The petition that the taxpayer sent, and which Judge Guy dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, was mailed in May of 2017. Clearly the 90 days have passed. The only argument remaining for the taxpayer would involve, not the date of the mailing, but the address.

Neither of the NODs appear to have been “actually” received by the taxpayer at either address, although that may well have been by the taxpayers refusal to accept them -the NOD sent to the address the taxpayer was known to live at was marked “unclaimed” after multiple delivery attempts. However, actual receipt is not necessary for an effective NOD so long as it is sent to the “last known address.” Here the Court does not go into great detail of how to determine what the correct last known address would be. In fact, it appears as if that may be an issue, since the Court is squarely confronted with whether it was an effective mailing. But rather than dredge up the last filed tax return (perhaps Mr. Gamino never files?) or the other traditional methods the Service relies on for determining the last known address (see Treas. Reg. 301.6212-2) the Court relies on the petitioner effectively shooting himself in the foot during a hearing. That is, the fact that at a hearing on the issue Mr. Gamino “acknowledged that he had been living at the [address one of the NODs was sent to] for over 10 years.” No other information or argument is given as to why this should be treated as the proper “last known address,” but “under the circumstances” the Court is willing to treat it as such.

This order leaves me a bit torn. From a purely academic standpoint, it is not clear to me that just because the taxpayer was actually living somewhere that place should be treated as their “last known address.” In fact, that seems to go against the core concept behind the last known address and constructive receipt: it isn’t where you actually live, it is where the IRS (reasonably should) believe you to live. So the IRS sending a letter to anywhere other than my last known address should, arguably, only be effective on actual receipt.

On the other hand, a taxpayer shouldn’t be able to throw a wrench in tax administration just by refusing mail from the IRS. One could argue that such a refusal is “actual receipt” of the mail. In that respect, I would bet that Judge Guy got to the correct outcome in this case. But the order is nonetheless something of an anomaly on that point, since there should be much easier ways to show “last known address” and “actually living” at the address isn’t one of them. My bet is that the IRS couldn’t point to the address on the last filed return as the taxpayer’s “last known address” because that address may well have been a P.O. box (where one of the two NODs was sent, and returned as undeliverable). Taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be able circumvent the valid assessment of tax by providing undeliverable addresses… Although, even if you don’t “live” at a P.O. box, if that was the address you used on your last tax return, shouldn’t that be enough for a valid last known address? Truly, my mind boggles at these questions.

Changed Circumstances and Collection Due Process: The Importance of Court Review

English v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 16134-16L (order here)

On occasion, I wonder just how IRS employees view the role of “collection due process” in the framework of tax administration. Is it a chance to earnestly work with taxpayers on the best way of collecting (or perhaps foregoing) collecting tax revenue? Or is it just one more expensive and time-consuming barrier to collecting from delinquents? With some IRS employees (and counsel) I get the feeling that if they had to choose, they would characterize it as the latter. The above order strikes me as an example of that mindset.

Mr. English appears to be pursuing a collection alternative to levy, and is dealing with serious medical issues. I obviously do not have access to his financial details, but it should be noted that he is pro se, and that his filing fee was waived by the Court. This isn’t to guarantee that Mr. English may be dealing with financial hardship, but it is a decent indicator.

Further, this does not appear to be a case where the taxpayer simply never files a tax return and/or never submits financial information statements. In this case, the issue was the quality of the financial statements that were submitted (apparently incomplete, and with some expenses unsubstantiated). IRS appeals determined that Mr. English could full pay and sustained the levy. IRS counsel likely thought they could score a quick win on the case through summary judgment.

But that does not happen in this case, and for good reason.

Since the time of the original CDP hearing, Mr. English’s medical (and by extension, financial) position has seriously deteriorated. For one, he is now unemployed. For another, his left leg was amputated above the knee. The amputation occurred in late September, 2016. The unemployment was in July of 2017. In other words, both occurred well before the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment in 2018. Why did IRS counsel think that summary judgment upholding the levy recommendation, made by an IRS Appeals officer that was confronted with neither of those issues, was right decision? I have truly no idea. But I’ve come across enough overworked IRS attorneys to have a sense…

Fortunately, we have Judge Buch who apparently does appreciate the value of CDP. It is not clear whether Mr. English made any motion for remand to IRS appeals (it actually appears that he did not), but Judge Buch sees Mr. English’s “material change in circumstance” as good enough reason for it. And so, at the very least, the judicial review afforded CDP hearing provides Mr. English with another chance to make his case.

Odds and Ends

The remaining designated orders will not be given much analysis. One illustrates the opposite side of Mr. English in a CDP case: the taxpayer that does pretty much nothing other than petition the Court, while giving essentially no financials or other reasons for the IRS Appeals determination to be upheld (order here). The other deals with an apparently wrong-headed argument by an estate to exclude an IRS expert report (order here).

 

Does the Mailbox Rule Survive a 2011 Reg. Under Section 7502?

We welcome back frequest guest blogger Carl Smith who discusses important forthcoming arguments regarding the mailbox rule.  This seemingly simple procedural provision gives rise to its fair share of litigation because it can make or break a case.  The cases that Carl flags are worth watching for those in need of the mailbox rule to preserve the timeliness of a submission.  Keith

 Before section 7502 was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1954, courts determined the timeliness of various filings required under the Internal Revenue Code under a common law mailbox rule under which, if there was credible extrinsic evidence of timely mailing via the U.S. mails, then a document was presumed to have been delivered (despite denials of receipt), and if the mailing was made before the filing date, the mailing effected a timely filing. Of course, the use of certified or registered mail was excellent proof of timely mailing under the mailbox rule, but testimony about timely use of regular mail could be believed by the court, as well.

Over the years, some Circuits have faced the issue of whether the enactment of the statutory timely-mailing-is-timely-filing provision of section 7502 preempted or supplemented the mailbox rule. Compare Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9thCir. 1992)(mailbox rule still valid); Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990)(same); withMiller v. United States, 784 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1986)(mailbox rule preempted by section 7502); Deutsch v. Commissioner, 599 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1979)(same). See alsoSorrentino v. Internal Revenue Service, 383 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2004)(carving out a middle position).

In 2011, a Treasury Regulation under section 7502 was amended to specifically provide, in effect, that the common law mailbox rule no longer operated under the Code.  Since then, a few district courts have faced the question of the validity of this regulation.  Two courts have held the regulation valid under the deference rules of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).  McBrady v. United States, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2016);Jacob v. United States, No. 15-10895, 2016 WL 6441280 at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2016).  Another district court, in an unpublished opinion in a tax refund suit, followed Andersonand applied the mailbox rule, without discussing the regulation.  Baldwin v. United States, No. 2:15-CV-06004 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

While no court of appeal has yet ruled on the validity of the regulation, on August 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument both on the government’s appeal of Baldwinand the taxpayers’ allegedly late appeal from an unrelated Tax Court Collection Due Process (CDP) case.  Both cases squarely present the issue of whether the Ninth Circuit should hold that its Andersonopinion has been superseded by a Treasury regulation abolishing the mailbox rule – a regulation that must be considered valid under Chevrondeference.

read more...

Baldwin

Baldwin is a tax refund suit.  There, the taxpayers reported a loss on their 2007 income tax return, filed on or before the extended due date of October 15, 2008.  They wished to file an amended return for 2005, carrying back the 2007 loss to generate a refund in 2005.  Under section 6511(d), this had to be done by filing the amended return within three years of the due date of the return generating the loss – i.e., by October 15, 2011.  The taxpayers, while living in Connecticut, had properly filed their original 2005 return with the Andover Service Center, but by 2011, original returns of Connecticut residents needed to be filed at the Kansas City Service Center.  In 2011,Reg. § 301.6402-2(a)(2)provided that “a claim for credit or refund must be filed with the service center serving the internal revenue district in which the tax was paid.” That would be Andover.  But, instructions to the 2010 Form 1040X (the one used by the taxpayers) told Connecticut taxpayers to file those forms with Kansas City, where original Forms 1040 for 2010 were now being filed.  (In 2015, the regulation was amended to provide that amended returns should be filed where the forms direct, not where the tax was paid.)

The taxpayers introduced testimony by one of their employees that the employee mailed the 2005 amended return by regular mail on June 21, 2011 from a Hartford Post Office to the Andover Service Center.  But, the IRS claimed it never received the Form 1040X prior to October 15, 2011, and that the filing was in the wrong Service Center.

The district court credited the testimony of mailing, citing the Anderson Ninth Circuit opinion that allowed for the common law mailbox rule to apply.  The Baldwincourt’s opinion does not mention the August 23, 2011 amendment to the regulation under section 7502 (quoted below) that purports to preempt use of the mailbox rule.  The court went on to find that, given the conflict between the regulation under section 6402 and the form instructions, a taxpayer was then “simply required . . . [to] mail his amended return in such a way that it would, as a matter of course, be delivered to the proper service center to handle the claim within the statutory period.”  Finding that this was done here, the court held the refund claim timely filed.  The Court also observed:  “The fact that the IRS routinely forwards incorrectly addressed refund claims as a matter of course also suggests that the IRS does not consider an address problem to be fatal to a refund claim.”

Then, the Baldwin court, over the government’s objections, found that a net operating loss had been incurred in 2007 and could be carried back to 2005, resulting in a refund due the taxpayers of $167,663.  To add insult to injury, the court also held that the government’s litigating position in the case, after a certain point, was not substantially justified, so the court imposed litigation costs payable to the taxpayers under section 7430 of $25,515.

The government appealed, arguing not only that there was no valid net operating loss in 2007 to be carried back (and so the litigation costs, as well, should not have been imposed), but that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the refund claim was not filed within the time set forth in section 6511(d).

Waltner

The Waltners are a couple who have been to the Tax Court may times, and even have been sanctioned under section 6673for making frivolous arguments (even their attorney has sometimes been sanctioned thereunder).  Their Tax Court case at Docket No. 8726-11L involved an appeal by them of multiple CDP notices of determination involving multiple years of income tax and frivolous return penalties under section 6702.  In an unpublished orderon April 21, 2015, Judge Foley granted the IRS’ motion for summary judgment with respect to some of the notices of determination, but not as to all notices.  The parties later reached a settlement on the other notices, which was embodied in a stipulated decision entered by the court on January 21, 2016.  Under section 7483, this started a 90-day window in which the Waltners had to file any notice of appeal.

An August 9, 2016 unpublished order of then-Chief Judge Marvel describes what happened next:

On August 4, 2016, petitioners electronically filed a Statement Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court (With Ex.).  Among other things, in that Statement petitioners assert that: (1) on April 15, 2016, petitioners sent by regular U.S. mail to the Tax Court a notice of appeal in this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and (2) that notice of appeal (a) either may have been lost by the U.S. Postal Service, or (b) may have been lost after delivery to the Tax Court.  Attached to the Declaration of Sarah V. Waltner as Exhibit A, is a copy of Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Because this case is closed, petitioners’ Statement Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court (With Ex.) may not be filed.

On August 15, 2016, the Waltners then admittedly filed a proper notice of appeal with the Tax Court.   But, the Ninth Circuit questioned whether the appeal was timely and sought briefing on this issue.  The DOJ argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely.

DOJ Argument

 Here are the links to the Baldwin Ninth Circuit appellant’s brief, appellees’ brief, and the reply brief.  Also, here are the links to the Waltner Ninth Circuit appellants’ brief, appellee’s brief, and the reply brief in the Ninth Circuit.  Although the two cases are not consolidated with each other, they have been scheduled to be argued one after the other before the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena on August 31, 2018.  And the DOJ briefs are clearly coordinated in their argument.

The DOJ arguments are predicated on the Treasury’s section 7502 regulation, Chevron, and Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).

As amended by 76 Fed. Reg. 52561-01 (Aug. 23, 2011), Reg. § 301.7502-1(e)(2)(i)provides, in relevant part:

Other than direct proof of actual delivery, proof of proper use of registered or certified mail, and proof of proper use of a duly designated [private delivery service] . . . are the exclusive means to establish prima facie evidence of delivery of a document to the agency, officer, or office with which the document is required to be filed.  No other evidence of a postmark or of mailing will be prima facie evidence of delivery or raise a presumption that the document was delivered.

The DOJ argues that section 7502, when enacted (and still today) is ambiguous as to whether it preempts the common law mailbox rule.  The DOJ contends that there is thus a gap to fill, which, under Chevron, can be filled by a reasonable regulation. The Circuit split over whether the mailbox rule has been preempted is evidence of two reasonable interpretations of section 7502.  The regulation is valid because it chooses one of those two reasonable interpretations.

In Brand X, the Supreme Court held that Chevron deference must even apply to a regulation that takes a position that has been rejected by a court, so long as the court opinion did not state that it found the statute unambiguous.  If the statute was unambiguous, then there can be no gap under ChevronStep One to fill.  PT readers may remember the extensive discussion of Brand X in the section 6501(e) Treasury Regulation case of United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 U.S. 478 (2012).

The DOJ argues that Anderson did not describe its interpretation of section 7502 to still allow the mailbox rule as one required by an unambiguous statute.  Accordingly, under Brand X, the 2011 amendment to the section 7502 regulation is entitled to Chevron deference, in spite of Anderson.

We’ll see in Baldwin and Waltner if the government can effectively overrule Anderson by its regulation.

Observations

I will not needlessly extend this post by explaining my beef with the DOJ’s other arguments that compliance with the filing deadlines for refund claims under section 6511 and for notices of appeal under section 7483 are “jurisdictional” conditions of the courts.  I don’t think that either deadline is jurisdictional under current Supreme Court case law that makes filing deadlines now only rarely jurisdictional.  And, sadly, none of the taxpayers in these two cases made an argument that the filing deadlines are not jurisdictional – probably because it makes no difference in the outcome of their cases whether the filing deadlines are jurisdictional or not.  The taxpayers are not arguing for equitable tolling, just the mailbox rule (which is not an equitable doctrine that would be precluded by a jurisdictional deadline).  I only regret that I did not learn of either of these two cases earlier, when I could have filed amicus briefs raising the issue of whether the two filings deadlines are really jurisdictional.  At least the courts, then, might have noted that it is a debatable question whether these two filing deadlines are jurisdictional.

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.