Misclassified “Independent Contractor” Succeeds in Using Tax Code to Get Damages from Employer

We have nearly finished information return filing season. This is the time of year when Americans get their W-2s and 1099s, stuff them in folders and drawers, and hope that when it comes time to prepare their tax return they remember where the papers are. Information returns often lie forgotten until it’s time to answer questions from software prompts or from long-suffering preparers who play detective to ferret out a taxpayer’s economic life.  Some taxpayers can access their information returns seamlessly, but for most this is still a 20th century process that contributes to the huge costs of filing compliance. To be sure, information returns are the backbone of “voluntary” compliance—it is no surprise that when income is not subject to reporting taxpayers have a tendency to not include those items on their 1040s—and that will be true whether the 1040 is postcard size or in the form of a Hallmark Valentine’s Day card professing the IRS’s undying love for taxpayers who file and pay timely.

I digress—today’s post is about people who intentionally file incorrect information returns.

read more...

We have discussed this issue before, and Stephen and I have just heavily tweaked this issue in the Saltzman and Book IRS Practice and Procedure treatise. The cases tend to crop up when someone seeks to make someone else’s life miserable by fling a phony return to generate IRS attention in the form of underreporting letters and possible tax assessments. What could be more middle-finger flipping then sending the IRS an information return showing a former partner or significant other with all kinds of income supposedly but not really earned?

To deal with this, Congress added Section 7434 which provides that

[i]f any person willfully files a fraudulent information return with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return.

There are a surprising number of interesting legal issues that spin off this provision. One of the issues concerns whether the statute provides a remedy for someone who is truly an employee but is treated as an independent contractor and who then receives a 1099-MISC rather than a W-2. The cases are split, some saying that the statute only provides a remedy when an improper amount is reported, and other courts holding that the statute provides a remedy for any fraudulent action in connection with the information return, including filing the wrong form. Another key issue that the courts are wrestling with is whether liability is limited to the person who was required to file the information return under federal law. For example, some courts have declined to find personal liability if the filer was not the party required to file the information return. See e.g., Vandenheede v. Vecchio, a 2013 case from a federal district court in Michigan declining to hold liable two co-trustees who prepared and caused a false information return to be filed on another’s behalf.

This takes us to a case from last year that I read as I prepare the updates for the next round of the treatise. The case is Czerw v Lafayette Moving and Storage. In the case, a federal district court in NY considered the claims of Joseph Czerw, who worked over twenty years as a mover for the same employer. In prior years, Czerw received W-2s and was treated as an employee, which was consistent with his actual arrangement with the employer. In 2015 his employer had major financial difficulties, with checks bouncing. Unlike in past years, when he got W-2s, for that year Czerw received a 1099-MISC for over $5,000. Not only was the information return the wrong type, but Czerw had only been paid about $4,000. Even though Czerw contacted his employer to get him to treat him as an employee and reflect the proper amount he was paid, his employer declined to fix things.

Czerw sued his corporate employer and Matthew Ferrentino, the corporation’s sole owner and president, alleging that his employer and Ferrentino had actual knowledge that a W-2 form was the correct form to submit and that the 1099-MISC reflected the wrong amount he received. Czerw alleged that the defendants willfully, purposely, and fraudulently filed the false Form 1099-MISC as part of a scheme “to defraud state and federal taxing authorities . . . by lessening [] Lafayette’s tax obligations and the amount of its worker’s compensation insurance premiums.” The complaint sought $5,000 in damages—the statutory amount provided in the absence of actual damages or discretionary legal fees.

The defendants defaulted, but before the court granted damages it had to explore whether the statute provided for relief in Mr. Czerw’s situation. The first issue the court considered was whether liability extended not only to the corporation but also to Ferrentino individually. The order briefly explores the split in cases on the issue, and lines up squarely with the cases that extend liability “on any person who willfully causes a fraudulent information return to be filed.” Thus it found that Ferrentino in his individual capacity was also potentially on the hook for damages.

As to whether section 7434 can be used in misclassification cases in the absence of an incorrect amount reported, the order notes that the law is developing on this issue. The court was able to avoid coming down on any side because the 1099-MISC that was filed overstated the amount that Czerw received:

As Plaintiff concedes, however, some courts have held that “§ 7434(a) creates a private cause of action only where an information return is fraudulent with respect to the amount purportedly paid to the plaintiff.” Liverett v. Torres Advanced Enter. Solutions LLC, 192 F. Supp. 3d 648, 653 (E.D. Va. 2016) (emphasis added). Under that interpretation, the statute “provides no remedy for a person incorrectly classified as an independent contractor.” Tran, 239 F. Supp. 3d at 1298. But because Plaintiff alleges that the Form 1099-MISC incorrectly states the amount paid to him, the second element is satisfied regardless, and the Court need not address whether the alleged misclassification supports a claim under § 7434.

Conclusion

Employee misclassification is a major issue. Employers who misclassify employees are failing to provide unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. Those employers can also leave workers with large employment tax liabilities. Advocates who work in this field have Section 7434 as a possible mechanism to ensure fair treatment for workers and punish those who do the wrong thing. The Czerw order is helpful but as briefly reflected in this post there are some key legal issues that await further development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commenting on Regulations

A recent paper shines a light on the fascinating process of commenting on regulations. This year Tax Notes recognized the regulation writers at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and the Treasury Department as the most significant tax players. Because of the 2017 legislation and the downsizing of Chief Counsel’s office due to the budget reductions over the past eight year, the attorneys there did a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. They are very deserving of the recognition given by Tax Notes.

The recent paper, entitled “Beyond Notice-and-Comment: The Making of the § 199A Regulations” was written by Shu-Yi Oei of Boston College Law School and Leigh Osofsky of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The authors focus on the comments made to Treasury and the IRS regarding just one provision of the 2017 legislation. This provision resulted in a high volume of comments because of its nature. The paper not only looks at the volume and the substance of the comments but takes a hard look at the timing and how the timing of comments plays into the final product.

read more...

Although I have limited experience in writing regulations and in commenting on regulations, the article was eye opening in its detail of the process of submissions. In addition to formal submission, the article also comments on the informal ways that parties can influence regulations through the scholarly and popular press, including blogs.

The authors spent a fair segment of the article chronicling the comments on section 199A made prior to the call for formal comments. They detail their effort to find the early comments. These comments do not have the same type of recordkeeping that attaches to formal comments made during the notice and comment period. Their efforts to find these comments is interesting in itself. Also interesting is the impact the early comments had on the proposed regulation. The authors note the number of times the proposed regulations refer to the comments receiving during the period prior to the call for notice and comments. This section had the greatest impact on me because it told me that players with early access have influence at the most critical time. Certainly, parties making comments on the proposed regulation have an influence but having an influence in the formation of the regulation seems even more meaningful.

Because low income taxpayers have no ability to hire lobbyists or attorneys to make their case during the process of creation of a regulation, the Pro Bono and Tax Clinic Committee of the ABA Tax Section tries to comment on legislation and other notices when the IRS puts out a call for comments. At some low income taxpayer clinics around the country, there is also an effort to comment. The article makes me wonder if we are missing an opportunity to more proactively provide our voice on the formation of rules because we generally wait for the IRS to make a request.

If you have ever participated in making comments or wondered about the process, this article will open your eyes. Thanks to the authors for great work.

Bankruptcy Decisions Impacting Taxes in 2018

We provided a year in review look at the Collection Due Process cases decided in 2018 on which we wrote. Here is a similar year in review for bankruptcy cases involving tax issues. We wrote 18 posts on bankruptcy issues involving a wide range of issues. For the most part 2018 was not a year of groundbreaking jurisprudence in the intersection of bankruptcy and taxes but cases continue to clarify certain areas not previously addressed or to supplement prior decisional law. Because it is possible to litigate the merits of a tax liability in bankruptcy as well as to eliminate the liability completely under the right circumstances, it is not possible to fully discuss tax procedure without examining the law and the case in the bankruptcy area.

read more...
  • What is the effect of BC 523(a)(7) on the fraud penalty and how does bankruptcy impact the statute of limitations on collection?

In the case of United States v. Joel No. 3:13-cv-01102 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 18, 2018) the taxpayer committed fraud on the bankruptcy court. His bankruptcy case was reopened once the fraud was uncovered. At issue in this case is the impact of his bankruptcy case on the statute of limitations for collection.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/effect-of-a-revoked-discharge-on-the-suspension-of-the-collection-statute-of-limitations/

  • Interplay between the Federal Tax Lien and the Homestead exemption.

The bankruptcy trustee tries to use the federal tax lien to his advantage to bring property into the estate. The bankruptcy court holds that the trustee cannot step into the shoes of the IRS for the purpose of reaching property that he could not otherwise reach.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/the-federal-tax-lien-and-the-homestead-exemption/

  • Excluding pension plan from property of the estate.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled a couple of decades ago that pension plans are not included in property of the estate under BC 541, the issue of what is a pension plan remains and was addressed in this case. Here, the court holds that the taxpayers retirement plan did not qualify under ERISA and therefore the assets in the retirement account came into the bankruptcy estate for the creditors to use to satisfy their claims.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/bankruptcy-court-declines-to-exclude-retirement-plan-from-estate/

  • Tolling the Period for the IRS to obtain priority status for its claim

If the taxpayer files a prior bankruptcy case or submits an offer in compromise, the act can extend the period in which the IRS can file its claim as a priority claim. A pair of cases discuss how actions taken prior to bankruptcy can extend the statute. In the Clothier case the Assistant United States Attorney arguing the case initially, failed to fully apprise the bankruptcy court of the scope of the statute extension available which caused a motion for reconsideration and a revised opinion from the court once it understood the reach of the statute.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/suspending-the-priority-claim-period-and-an-update-on-clothier-v-irs/

https://procedurallytaxing.com/bankruptcy-court-limits-prior-supreme-court-decision-on-equitable-tolling/

  • Proper treatment of the EITC as source of funds for trustee vs taxpayer

Bankruptcy trustees regularly seek a chapter 13 debtors tax refund during the time the case is pending. The Seventh Circuit holds that the trustee does not have a right to a refund caused by the EITC if the taxpayer can show that the amount received by the taxpayer is needed for necessary expenses. Here there was evidence that the money the debtor received through the EITC tax refund allowed her to pay necessary expenses. Under these circumstances, the court did not order the debtor to pay over to the trustee the amount of the refund related to the EITC.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/proper-treatment-of-earned-income-tax-credit-in-calculating-disposable-income/

  • Who owns the refund in consolidated return cases

When some but not all members of a consolidated group go into bankruptcy the issue arises of who is entitled to refunds of the consolidated group and whether the refunds become property of the estate.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/who-owns-a-refund-consolidated-returns-and-bankruptcy-add-wrinkles-to-refund-dispute/

  • When can the bankruptcy court clawback money paid to the IRS by a fraudster

Cases regularly arise in which a party perpetrating a fraud pays taxes on the money gained by the fraud with the money fraudulent acquired. A circuit split exists on whether the bankruptcy court can clawback the money paid for the taxes in order to use it to repay the parties who lost it due to the fraudulent scheme.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/another-clawback-of-money-paid-to-the-irs/

  • The application of the voluntary payment rule in bankruptcy cases

The IRS allows taxpayers to designate the liability to which their payment will be posted if they make a voluntary payment. If the IRS levies to obtain money or otherwise obtains it involuntarily, it does not allow the taxpayer to designate how the payment will be applied. How does a bankruptcy payment fit into this scheme?

https://procedurallytaxing.com/bankruptcy-and-the-voluntary-payment-rule/

  • What happens when the IRS wrongly tells the taxpayer a debt was discharged by a bankruptcy case

Following bankruptcy many taxpayers have not spoken to their bankruptcy lawyer in a long time and rely upon the IRS determination regarding discharge. Sometimes the IRS person to whom they speak may give them wrong advice. What then?

https://procedurallytaxing.com/detrimental-reliance-on-the-irs/

  • Filing the notice of federal tax lien during the automatic stay

The stay prohibits collection action including filing the NFTL. In this case the IRS asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay to allow it to file the NFTL and the bankruptcy court agreed to do so.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/filing-the-notice-of-federal-tax-lien-during-the-automatic-stay/

  • Must the IRS affirmatively obtain permission of the bankruptcy court before pursing post discharge collection from a taxpayer.

The IRS makes a discharge determination in each bankruptcy case in which it is listed as a creditor. When it makes the decision that a debt is excepted from discharge, it sends the case back into the collection stream. It does not seek a ruling from the bankruptcy court before doing so. One bankruptcy court challenged this practice. If the IRS must seek a ruling from the bankruptcy court in every case in which it makes a discharge determination and determines that the bankruptcy case did not discharge the taxes, the bankruptcy courts will see a definite rise in the cases on their dockets since it is common for some taxes to pass through bankruptcy without being discharged.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/does-irs-bear-the-responsibility-to-affirmatively-obtain-a-ruling-from-the-bankruptcy-court-before-pursuing-collection-after-discharge/

  • Can a taxpayer obtain a discharge on a late filed tax return

There is a serious circuit split on the meaning on the language at the end of BC 523(a) regarding late filed tax returns. These cases continue to bubble up although the pace has slowed and the tide has turned against the per se one day late rule adopted by three circuits. 2018 did not produce any groundbreaking decisional law in this area but an opinion from the 9th Circuit continued to provide a basis for court opinions on the subject of late returns.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/mr-smith-continues-to-suffer-from-his-failure-to-file-and-other-updates-on-late-filed-returns/

  • Validity of IRS claims in bankruptcy

A pair of cases examines how and when to attack IRS claims in bankruptcy. One deals with who is authorized to file the claim while the other deals with the amount of the claim.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/irs-claims-in-bankruptcy/

  • Priority claim status of unpaid individual mandate tax (penalty)

Several liabilities imposed by the IRC carry the label tax but walk like a penalty and talk like a penalty. Bankruptcy courts have determined that several such liabilities cannot result in priority status claims. It recently applied the same logic to the liability imposed by the individual mandate of the ACA.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/priority-status-of-individual-mandate-tax-obligation/

  • Dischargeability of the first time homebuyer credit

In an issue similar to the priority provision for the individual mandate, a bankruptcy court addresses the dischargeability of the credit. The similarity between to two situations is the need for the bankruptcy court to examine what type of debt is really present and whether the debt created when someone does not fulfill their obligation under the homebuyer credit provisions is tax debt or some other type of debt.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/dischargeability-of-the-first-time-homebuyer-recapture-liability/

  • Cases raising the issue of excepting a liability from discharge due to the fraud exception

Taxpayers who fraudulently evade their liability cannot obtain a discharge. A pair of cases are discussed.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/bankruptcy-cases-involving-evasion-of-payment-and-classification-of-the-failure-to-file-penalty/

  • Who can avoid the federal tax lien in a bankruptcy case

A debtor tries to avoid the federal tax lien and fails in a situation in which the trustee would have succeeded.

https://procedurallytaxing.com/avoiding-the-federal-tax-lien-securing-penalties-in-a-bankruptcy-case/

 

Ponzi Scheme Victims Seek to Defeat the Federal Tax Lien with Constructive Trust Argument

All too often a person cheating others ends up pitting the defrauded individuals against the IRS in a battle over the remaining assets of the cheater. The most recent version of this longstanding problem exists now in the Ninth Circuit case of Wadsworth v. Talmage, 123 AFTR 2d 2019-305 (911 F.3d 994), (9th Cir. 2018) (order certifying question to the Supreme Court of Oregon). On December 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit declined to sustain the dismissal of the action by the district court and certified the issue of the meaning of a constructive trust in Oregon to the Oregon Supreme Court. Presumably, the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision on the application of constructive trusts in that state will allow the Ninth Circuit to reach a decision on whether property existed to which the federal tax lien could attach.

These types of cases put the IRS in the awkward position of taking the assets of the thief to satisfy outstanding tax debts resulting from the theft. By taking those assets, the IRS prevents the actual victims of the theft from receiving restitution. I am always pulling for the victims in these cases because it does not seem right to me that the tax authority should take the money instead of the actual victims of the theft. I have written about these types of situations previously in the bankruptcy context, here and here, in circumstances in which the issue was whether the court could order a clawback of the money from the IRS.

read more...

The Ninth Circuit describes the basic facts regarding the use of the money fraudulently obtained from investors:

John Wadsworth and other members of the RBT Victim Recovery Trust (collectively, “the Trust”) allege that Ronald Talmage, an investment manager, began fraudulently diverting his clients’ funds in the 1990s as part of a Ponzi scheme. Members of the Trust entrusted Talmage with “over $55 million” between 2002 and 2015.

In 1997, Talmage and his first wife purchased RiverCliff for almost $1 million. The property was purchased with the proceeds of Talmage’s Ponzi scheme. From 1998 to 2008, Talmage spent over $12.5 million of entirely stolen funds to improve the property. Talmage paid his first wife $1.5 million dollars in 2005 using money “stolen . . . from . . . Trust beneficiaries” to purchase her half-interest in RiverCliff after the couple divorced. Throughout this time, Talmage resided at RiverCliff.

Unlike the debtors in the bankruptcy cases linked above in which the issue was a clawback of money paid to the IRS, here the perpetrator of the scheme also failed to pay his taxes. Because he failed to pay his federal taxes, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien. The lien attached to RiverCliff and all of the property owned by Mr. Talmage. The IRS brought suit to foreclose its lien on the property. The Recovery Trust sought to intervene in that action and was denied. The Recovery Trust then brought this action seeking to quiet title to the property. At the district court level the IRS succeeded in having the suit dismissed. The referral to the Oregon Supreme Court comes because the Ninth Circuit sees the possibility that under Oregon law the Recovery Trust may have a superior property interest to the lien of the IRS.

Although the priority of the federal tax lien is determined under federal law, whether the taxpayer has a property interest to which the lien can attach is a question of state law. Looking at Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit found that opinions existed supporting both the majority and minority views of constructive trust:

The rights of the legal title-holder, and of lienors such as the Government, depend on when the constructive trust arises. Under the laws of the several states, a constructive trust can arise either at the moment a purchase is made with the fraudulently-obtained funds, or at the moment a court imposes the trust as an equitable remedy. Under the majority rule, a trust arises automatically at the moment of purchase. See In re Leitner, 236 B.R. 420, 424 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1999) (“[U]nder the majority state law rule, a constructive trust arises at the time of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the duty to reconvey the property, not at the date of final judgment declaring the trust . . .”); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT § 55 cmt. e (2011). In states following this rule, the legal title-holder is a constructive trustee who holds no rights beyond bare legal title. For purposes of the federal tax lien statute, 26 U.S.C. §6321, property held in a constructive trustee-taxpayer’s name therefore does not “belong” to the taxpayer, and tax liens cannot attach. See, e.g., FTC v. Crittenden, 823 F. Supp. 699, 704 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (finding that an “IRS lien does not attach” to business funds that are subject to a constructive trust under California law); Mervis Indus., Inc. v. Sams, 866 F. Supp. 1143, 1147 (S.D. Ind. 1994) (finding tax liens could not attach to property whose title is held by an embezzler because Indiana law “is clear” that “an embezzler, from the beginning, acquires no beneficial ownership in property purchased with stolen funds”).

Under the minority rule, a constructive trust arises only once it is imposed as a judicial remedy. In that case, the legal title-holder retains all the rights of a property owner until such a remedy is imposed by a court. Until that time, the property “belongs” to the title-holder for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6321 and federal tax liens against the title-holder can attach. If no court has imposed a trust when the tax liens attach, the beneficiaries of a potential constructive trust hold at most an inchoate claim to the property. For example, in Blachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 905 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Soo Sand & Gravel Co. v. M. Sullivan Dredging Co., 244 N.W. 138, 140 (Mich. 1932)), the Sixth Circuit found that “[u]nder Michigan law, a ‘constructive trust is strictly not a trust at all, but merely a remedy administered in certain fraudulent breaches of trusts.’” Because “a constructive trust does not arise until a judicial decision imposes such a trust under Michigan law,” beneficiaries of the trust alleged in that case held only an inchoate state-created lien, over which an attached federal tax lien takes priority. Id.

Because state law controls a critical question concerning the competition between the parties due to the issue of what property interest in the taxpayer held, the Ninth Circuit correctly certified the question to the Oregon Supreme Court. The specifics of Oregon law may impact few readers but the issue of constructive trust and the ways that states have construed ownership in these situations has broad application. The lawyers for the trust have done a great job of keeping the case going in the face of significant adversity after being rebuffed in their effort to intervene and being dismissed in the quiet title action. They have one more hurdle to leap before the defrauded investors (and probably the lawyers themselves) have a chance at using the value of the property purchased by Talmage to satisfy their claims.

Taxpayer’s Depression From IRS Improper Collection Action and A Claim for $34 Million in Damages

What happens when a taxpayer goes into a tailspin following mistakes that the IRS makes in connection with trying to collect taxes? Wrhel v. United States is a district court opinion out of Wisconsin where a taxpayer sought over $34 million in damages for the IRS’s wrongful collection actions. The case caught my attention because it requires the courts to consider the limits of responsibility when someone’s life goes off kilter as a result of what the court framed as relatively minor IRS mistakes.

read more...

I will summarize the facts to get to the heart of the case. Mr. Wrhel timely filed his 2010 tax return and received a refund. Unfortunately for Mr. Wrhel he neglected to include on the return about $1,100 in gambling winnings from a casino run by the Ho-Chunk Nation.

IRS issued an automated underreporting (AUR) notice and eventually a stat notice. The problem with those notices was that they were sent to a prior address of Wrhel’s in Iowa, and not to the Wisconsin address that was on his 2010 tax return. IRS wound up assessing $287 tax on the unreported gambling winnings. IRS then sent multiple collection letters to his old Iowa address; eventually IRS updated its records and sent collection letters to Wrhel at his Wisconsin address. Wrhel sent in a payment for the bill and also had about $100 of his state refund taken as a result of the assessment.

Because Wisconsin was his last known address for tax purposes, when Mr. Wrhel  petitioned the US Tax Court, the Tax Court eventually concluded that the stat notice (and thus the assessment) was invalid, leading the IRS to abate the assessment and issue a refund. Wrhel refused to cash the refund check because he believed that the IRS had miscalculated the amount he was owed. Part of the current dispute included Wrhel’s claim that he was entitled to a greater refund, and the consequences of his failing to cash the check that the IRS had sent him. I will skip that part but basically the court said he was not entitled to a greater refund and provided some information as to how Wrhel could get a replacement refund check.

The 2010 tax dispute led to problems in future years. Following the 2010 tax situation, Mr. Wrhel did not timely file his next three years’ tax returns. That inspired a visit to Mr. Wrhel’s home from a friendly revenue officer who left “literature” and information about the IRS collection process.  While Mr. Wrhel eventually filed the returns, Mr. Wrhel did not take kindly to the visit, and he believed that it violated Section 6304, which provides that IRS employees should not engage “in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax.”

This takes us to Section 7433, which provides that taxpayers may recover the “costs of the action” and “actual, direct economic damages sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the reckless or intentional or negligent actions of the [IRS] officer or employee.”

What were the actions that Wrhel claimed were improper? The first related to the home visit from the revenue officer which he believed amounted to harassment. The second stemmed from the collection notices that were erroneously issued to his wrong address that also generated the improper seizure of his small state tax refund. All of this business with the IRS seemed to really upset Mr. Wrhel. His distress is apparent from his filings:

I have suffered unnecessary anxiety, unnecessary unrest, unnecessary depression which caused me an inability to effectively operate my pepperidge farm business. This was unnecessary and not fair to pepperidge farm. . . . It further has wrecked all trust, faith, and belief in the United States Internal Revenue Service.

I have no desire to continue living in this country as a direct reckless disregard by the IRS and the subsequent seizure that took place.

Part of Wrhel’s unhappiness stemmed from being contacted directly and personally by a revenue officer, which Wrhel alleged was improper. The government fought hard on this point. Its first argument was that the revenue officer visit was not collection action as it was in connection with securing the filing of tax returns and only improper collection actions are within Section 7433. While the case law narrowly defines collection action, the opinion noted that the revenue officer left information about the collection process so it concluded that the revenue officer visit was collection activity. But the visit was not improper. An improper action would occur if, for example, the agent cursed or verbally abused the taxpayer or if the IRS bypassed a representative to visit the taxpayer. The opinion notes that there was no harassment, and without a Form 2848 on file there was no need for IRS to contact a representative about its house call. So the court found that there was no 7433 violation stemming from the visit. (BTW IRS has a brief info page on its website detailing when an IRS may make a visit—an important issue in today’s world of scammers).

For purposes of its motion for summary judgment, the government conceded that the IRS’s sending of the collection notices to the old Iowa address was a negligent improper collection action. This takes us back to Section 7433, which provides for a capped recovery for “actual, direct economic damages”, as well as reimbursement for costs of the action. The cap is $100,000 for negligent violations and $1M for reckless or intentional violations. The regulations also forbid recovery for emotional distress unless the distress leads to pecuniary damages. In the lawsuit, Wrhel tried to connect his emotional distress to actual economic damages. He alleged that the improper IRS actions led to his depression, substantial medical bills, repossession of his car and his ultimate sale of his business. For good measure, there was an affidavit from a psychiatrist who corroborated Wrhel’s distress being tied to his dealings with the IRS:

“[Wrhel] does perseverate somewhat on the belief that the Federal Government has stolen money from him. . . . I am somewhat uncertain about the nature of this perseveration on the government having taken money from him. It does certainly have a certain delusional quality to it, but at the same time, Mr. Wrhel denies any other psychotic symptoms, and notably as well his concerns are somewhat rooted in truth.”).

The court though pushed back on the damages issue, essentially saying that Wrhel’s desire for substantial damages was not reasonable in light of the IRS’s minor misconduct:

So what the § 7433 claim boils down to is Wrhel’s reaction to the notices sent to the wrong address, the levy of $94 from his state income tax refund, and the IRS’s bill for about $400, all for taxes on gambling winnings that Wrhel knew that he had avoided and that he would have had to pay if not for the IRS’s mistake. No one would be happy to learn that the IRS had been trying to recover taxes and had violated its own mailing rules in doing so, but again, this was not a completely fabricated bill: Wrhel indeed failed to disclose his gambling winnings. Put another way, I take Wrhel to be contending that he should be able to recover at the very least thousands of dollars in damages because the IRS sent mail to the wrong address and then recovered about $500 from him before reimbursing him.

To consider the issue of the appropriate amount of damages , the opinion circles back to tort law, and cites the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which provides that for allegations of negligent conduct inflicting emotional harm

“the actor’s conduct must be such that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional harm. . . . Objectively, an unusually susceptible person may not recover if an ordinary person would not have suffered serious emotional harm.” (emphasis added)

The court accepted that Wrehl in fact was suffering deeply, and that the evidence suggested that the IRS conduct contributed to his suffering. Yet that did not justify substantial damages as it was unreasonable to connect the alleged harm with the relatively minor misconduct:

Wrhel’s medical records provide some support for his position that he has suffered substantial mental distress from the interactions with the IRS [citing to the psychiatrist affidavit]…. And his many filings in this court underscore his anger at the IRS. He has repeatedly said that he has lost faith in the government and that he intends to move to another country. But the substantial harm that he says he suffered is simply not the type of harm that could reasonably be expected to be caused by the IRS’s violations in this case. So I conclude as a matter of law that Wrhel is not entitled to any damages flowing from emotional distress.

At the end of the day, the court awarded Mr. Wrhel $400, which was the filing fee for his district court action. The opinion concluded by recognizing Mr. Wrhel’s anger and his sense that the IRS conduct was tied in part to some sort of conspiracy relating to his father. But, as the opinion notes, IRS collection notices stem from an automated process, and it was not clear why the system failed in his case:

[T]here is no evidence to support this [conspiracy] theory, and the government maintains that its system is automated and it does not know why the system failed in this case. Hopefully in addition to his admittedly meager $400 judgment, Wrhel can take away from this case the knowledge that the IRS is as capable of making mistakes as taxpayers are.

I doubt that Mr. Wrhel will take solace in the closing words of the opinion.

 

Designated Orders: Bench Opinions and the Designated Orders Panel (12/24/18 to 12/28/18)

With the holidays and the beginning of the government shutdown, there were not many designated orders during the week of December 24 to December 28, 2018. In fact, Judge Carluzzo provided our lone orders, two bench opinions from Los Angeles to close out the year. Both of these bench opinions involve petitioners that seem to try Jedi mind tricks to convince the IRS that a letter they sent is actually different than what it appears to be.

Since it is a light week, I am also going to give an account of the designated orders panel from last month’s Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) grantee conference.

read more...

Bench Opinion 1

Docket Nos. 10878-16 and 7671-17, Luminita Roman, et al., v. C.I.R., available here.

Luminita and Gabriel Roman, the petitioners, appeared unrepresented in Tax Court and Luminita spoke on their behalf. Their argument is that the notices of deficiency issued to them were not valid and the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction in their cases. In fact, neither notice of deficiency was valid because they were not authorized by an individual with the authority to issue the notices of deficiency. In their view, each notice was generated by a computer, and computers have not been delegated authority by the Commissioner to issue notices of deficiency. The petitioners cited Internal Revenue Manual provisions as support. Judge Carluzzo states: “In that regard, we wonder if petitioners are confusing the authority to issue a notice of deficiency with the mechanical process of preparing, creating or printing one, but we doubt that we could convince petitioners to recognize that distinction.”

Judge Carluzzo goes through the analysis, noting the necessity for a valid notice of deficiency for Tax Court jurisdiction. Next, he states that the lack of a signature does not invalidate a notice of deficiency and the notices in question were issued by offices or officers of the IRS authorized to do so. Overall, the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof that the notices of deficiency were invalid and their motions must be denied.

Takeaway: This was a bad argument to make in Tax Court. Without any proof that a notice of deficiency is invalid, an argument like this is a long shot at trying to stop the IRS. It is better to argue the deficiency or other merits of the case than to make a claim that a notice issued by the IRS is invalid because they used computers.

Bench Opinion 2

Docket No. 25370-17SL, Roy G. Weatherup & Wendy G. Weatherup v. C.I.R., available here.

The petitioners appeared unrepresented in Tax Court, though Roy Weatherup is an attorney. As background, the Weatherups made payments on a tax liability for tax year 2012. After financial hardships, they submitted an Offer in Compromise that was rejected. During the period when the offer was pending, the couple continued to make payments on the liability. Following the rejection letter, the IRS issued a notice that their 2012 liability was subject to levy. The liability amount listed in that notice was computed as though the offer had not been accepted.

The Weatherups were eligible to request a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing and did so. In the hearing, they took the position that their liability was fully paid due to the Offer in Compromise they submitted. They state the rejection letter does not satisfy the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 7122(f). Since their view was that the offer was not rejected within 24 months from the date of submission, the offer was deemed accepted. In their view, the IRS rejection letter was only a preliminary rejection letter.

In their view, the rejection failed to take into account their financial hardship at the time and was otherwise inequitable, leading to an abuse of discretion. Even though they were invited to do so by the settlement officer, they chose not to submit a new Offer in Compromise.   They also did not propose any other collection alternative to the proposed levy.

Judge Carluzzo finds that the rejection letter meets the requirements of IRC section 7122(f) and was issued within the requisite 24-month period. He disagreed that it was a preliminary rejection letter because it meets the specifications of a rejection letter for an offer.

Since their offer was rejected, the liability remained with the IRS. Because the petitioners did not provide an alternative during the CDP hearing, there was nothing further to review. The expectation that the settlement officer would review the Offer in Compromise was misplaced as that was not the subject of the CDP hearing.

Judge Carluzzo granted the IRS motion for summary judgment, noting that the Weatherups would still be eligible to submit a new Offer in Compromise.

Takeaway: Again, the petitioners have taken an incorrect view of IRS procedure and based their arguments in Tax Court around it. While the IRS does issue preliminary determinations in innocent spouse cases, those are clearly designated “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION.” The IRS does not issue such notices regarding an Offer in Compromise so it is an error to expect one there. Even if the IRS had issued a preliminary rejection letter for their offer, why did the Weatherups then act as if the liability disappeared? This is another case where the petitioners needed to get their facts straight before they presented their arguments to the judge.

The Designated Orders Panel at the LITC Grantee Conference – December 4, 2018

For the LITC Grantee Conference, both Samantha Galvin and I were contacted to present on “Recent U.S. Tax Court Designated Orders.” Since that was half of the group that rotates through the blog postings on this website, we contacted Caleb Smith and Patrick Thomas to see if they would like to be included on the panel. Caleb was busy with organizing and moderating for the Low-Income Taxpayer Representation Workshop that would take place the day before the panel, but Patrick Thomas agreed to join the panel to discuss designated order statistics that he previously wrote about on this site here.

Keith Fogg introduced the panel, speaking about the nature of designated orders and the decision to start featuring designated order analysis on Procedurally Taxing since no other venues were paying attention to designated orders. Samantha and I alternated the beginning portions with Patrick finishing on the statistical analysis.

I began by introducing the designated orders group and Samantha talked about the nature of designated orders, comparing them with non-designated orders and opinions. She next spoke about the limited availability of designated orders through the Tax Court website (possibly available 12 hours on the website and then no longer searchable as a designated order) and showed the audience where the orders are available on the website.

Samantha spoke about lessons for taxpayers, saying that they should avoid being tax protesters because of potential section 6673 penalties. Also, taxpayers should respond in a timely fashion and they bear the burden of proof for deficiency and CDP cases.

I followed up on Samantha’s lessons for taxpayers. I reminded the group that the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over petitions that are not timely filed. I talked some about nonresponsive petitioner issues as I had here. Basically, petitioners that do not know court procedure and represent themselves in court are likely doing themselves a disservice. Petitioners also need to respond to court filings, substantiate their claims and have organized documents to submit to the IRS. I used some examples from recent designated orders for actions petitioners should avoid.

Next, Samantha turned to lessons for IRS and taxpayer counsel, looking at motions for summary judgment (following Rule 121, that there must be a genuine dispute of material fact to defeat the motion, with a reminder that the motions can be denied). She reminded the audience that communication between the parties is key, and that developing a comprehensive administrative record by writing letters to Appeals with everything discussed about the case is a helpful practice. Finally, it is best to follow informal discovery procedures and to treat a motion to compel as a last resort.

I tried to give a capsule judicial history of Graev v. Commissioner and Chai v. Commissioner, touching on the IRS penalty approval process. I noted that Judge Holmes gave factors for the standard for reopening the record which are that the evidence to be added cannot be merely cumulative or impeaching, must be material to the issues involved, and would probably change the outcome of the case. Additionally, the Court should consider the importance and probative value of the evidence, the reason for the moving party’s failure to introduce the evidence earlier, and the possibility of prejudice to the non-moving party.

Two months later, Judge Halpern used different factors. He stated the factors the Court has to examine to determine whether to reopen a record are the timeliness of the motion, the character of the testimony to be offered, the effect of granting the motion, and the reasonableness of the request. The third factor, the effect of granting the motion, is the most relevant.

It was my question why there are two different sets of factors the Tax Court uses to determine whether to reopen a record in these IRS penalty approval cases.

I also provided the standard for whistleblower cases, noting that the petitioners are not very successful in succeeding at Tax Court. Internal Revenue Code section 7623 provides for whistleblower awards (awards to individuals who provide information to the IRS regarding third parties failing to comply with internal revenue laws). Section 7623(b) allows for awards that are at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent of the proceeds collected as a result of whistleblower action (including any related actions) or from any settlement in response to that action. The whistleblower’s entitlement depends on whether there was a collection of proceeds and whether that collection was attributable (at least in part) to information provided by the whistleblower to the IRS.

Patrick then discussed the designated orders statistical analysis project. The project reviewed 525 unique orders between May 2017 and October 2018 (623 total orders, with duplicate orders in consolidated cases). During the presentation he spoke about the utility of designating orders (such as the speed to designate an order compared to publishing an opinion). From there, he looked at which judges predominantly use designated orders and the types of cases and issues conducive to designated orders. Patrick focused on a one year period (4/15/17 to 4/15/18), with 319 unique orders. For the breakdown regarding types of cases, judges and more, I recommend you go to the link above to view Patrick’s work.

Patrick had several takeaways to conclude the panel. First, a substantial number of judges (13) do not designate orders or seldom designated orders. Do those judges substantially issue more opinions? Are their workloads substantively different from those who issue more designated orders?

Second, three judges (Gustafson, Holmes and Carluzzo) accounted for nearly half of all designated orders. Why is there such a disparity between these judges and the rest of the Court?

Third, judges issued only 112 bench opinions during the research period. That was a small amount compared with the overall number of cases (2,244 cases closed in April 2018 alone). Of the 112 bench opinions, only 26 (23%) were designated. Judges might consider designating those orders so they highlight their bench opinions to the public.

Last, there is a disparity between small cases on the docket (37% of all cases) and designated orders in small tax cases (12.85% of all designated orders). Are small cases simply too routine and less deserving of highlighting to the public?

Later in the week, we found out more information from the judges themselves. There is a process when submitting a Tax Court order electronically where a judge selects that the order becomes designated. Some judges find the process more expedient than the published opinion process. One judge I spoke with did not find too much value in our study of designated orders but was glad we were able to gain from the process.

 

 

After The Shutdown: Dealing with Time Limitations, Part IV — Equity

In Part IV of the series “After the Shutdown,” Professor Bryan Camp examines the role of equity in addressing time limitations that have become tangled by the shutdown. Christine

It is unconscionable to enforce against taxpayers a statutory time limitation when Congress itself denied taxpayers the ability to protect their rights during all or part of that time period by forcing the closure of the IRS and the Tax Court.  That is, Congress failed to fund either the Tax Court or the IRS, causing both to shut down for between 31 (Tax Court) and 35 (IRS) days.  This failure caused both the agency and the Court to be closed to taxpayer’s attempts to resolve disputes about either the determination or collection of tax.  This failure is an act of Congress just as much as the statutory limitations periods are acts of Congress.  And Congress should not be able to demand that a taxpayer act within a certain time period while at the same time denying the taxpayer any ability to act during all or part of that time period.  Equity should, and I believe can, prevent that result.

The above proposition is the basis for this, my last Post in the “After the Shutdown” series.  Part I discussed how a reopened Tax Court might apply the Guralnik case to ostensibly late-filed petitions.  Part II explained the new thinking about how jurisdictional time periods differ from non-jurisdictional.  Part III explained why the time period to petition the Tax Court in §6213 should no longer be viewed as a jurisdictional limitation.  I invite those readers interested in how the new thinking would apply to the time periods in §6330(d) and §6015(e) to look at my paper posted on SSRN, which I am trying to get published in a Law Review.  Legal academics must publish or perish and, apparently, blogging does not count.

Today’s post explores why the Tax Court should be able to apply equitable principles to evaluate the timeliness of taxpayer petitions filed after the shutdown, regardless of whether any of the applicable limitations periods are jurisdictional or not.

Before diving in to equity, I wanted to point out that Congress itself could actually save a lot of litigation here by passing a very simple off-Code statute that says something like: “For purposes of computing  time limitations imposed in Title 26 on taxpayers to petition the Tax Court, the days between December 22, 2018 and January 28, 2019 shall be disregarded.”  Congress could do that.  Congress should do that (for the reasons I explain below).  But you can bet you sweet bippy that Congress won’t do that.  It made this mess.  But it is unlikely to clean it up.  So it will fall to the Tax Court to sort through cases.  When it does so, I believe the circumstances of the shutdown strongly support the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling.

read more...

The Tax Court is truly a unique court. It is neither fish nor fowl, as Prof. Brant Hellwig so nicely explains in his article “The Constitutional Nature of the U.S. Tax Court,” 35 Va. Tax Rev. 269 (2015). That is, all efforts to type the Tax Court as part of the Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, or Executive Branch of the federal government are flawed, both as a matter of theory and as a matter of practice. Channeling Felix Cohen and other Legal Realists, Brant sensibly concludes that we don’t really need to worry about “where” the Tax Court belongs in the Constitutional structure. It’s indeterminate position poses no threat to the structural integrity of the federal government, and its useful work in resolving taxpayer disputes with the IRS does not depend on its precise location in any branch.

But there is no doubt that the Tax Court exercises the “judicial power” of the United States. The Supreme Court said so in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991). And part of that “judicial power” is the power to apply equitable principles and doctrines to the disputes that are properly brought before the Court for resolution. Prof. Leandra Lederman has a lovely article on this subject: “Equity and the Article I Court: Is the Tax Court’s. Exercise of Equitable Powers Constitutional?” 5 Fla. Tax Rev. 357 (2001).

It is important to remember that equitable doctrines are not simply free-floating grants of power. Equitable doctrines are linked to, and bounded by, a set of principles. But what distinguishes equitable principles from legal rules is that the application of equity is highly contingent on the facts before the court. The great legal historian F. W. Maitland put it this way in his 1910 Lectures On Equity: “I do not think that any one has expounded or ever will expound equity as a single, consistent system, an articulate body of law. It is a collection of appendixes between which there is no very close connection.” (p. 19) And in this 1913 law review article, Professor Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld discussed the difficulty of teaching equity as a system of rules separate from legal rules. I think it this way: equity fixes problems that legal rules cannot fix.

One equitable doctrine that might apply here is equitable tolling. When litigants show that, despite diligent efforts, some extraordinary circumstance prevented them from protecting their rights by timely filing within a period of limitations, a court will equitably toll the limitation period. See e.g. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). The idea of “tolling” means that the limitations period is suspended for the tolling period. That is, it stops running and then starts running again when the tolling period ends, picking up where it left off. Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018).

Remember, this is equity, not a hard and fast legal rule or doctrine. So how much diligence a litigant must show varies with circumstances. Similarly, how extraordinary the barrier had to be also varies with circumstance. If the Tax Court applies that doctrine, it could decide—consistent with the logic of my very first paragraph—that the days in which Congress’s failure to fund the Court forced it to shut its doors should stop the running of any applicable limitation period. The Court may decline to apply equitable tolling, however, for two reasons.

First, the Tax Court has repeatedly said it cannot equitably toll jurisdictional time periods and it believes that the relevant time periods in the Tax Code are jurisdictional. I believe the Tax Court is simply wrong that the deficiency and CDP time periods are jurisdictional. That’s what I explained in the prior blog posts and in my SSRN paper.

Even if the time periods are jurisdictional, however, I believe there is good authority to toll them nonetheless. The authority is from the Supreme Court. In Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967), 4,100 plaintiffs of Japanese descent whose assets had been seized by the U.S. during World War II sued for recovery years after the applicable limitation period had ended. The district court dismissed the cases “on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions because they were not commenced within the time set forth in section 34(f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act.” 356 F.2d 351, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Both the district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed their suit for the standard reason: equitable principles did not apply to when limitation periods were a waiver of sovereign immunity. The D.C. Circuit gave the standard analysis: “All conditions of the sovereign’s consent to be sued must be complied with, and the failure to satisfy any such condition is fatal to the court’s jurisdiction.” 356 F.2d at 356.

The Supreme Court disagreed. While noting the general rule, it characterized the rule as a presumption and said that one needed to look at the particular statutory scheme at issue to discern purpose. Whether or not the time period was jurisdictional was totally absent from the Court’s approach to applying equitable tolling. The Court concluded it was “much more consistent with the overall congressional purpose to apply a traditional equitable tolling principle, aptly suited to the particular facts of this case and nowhere eschewed by Congress, to preserve petitioners’ cause of action.” 386 U.S. at 501.

The Supreme Court’s focus in Honda (and later in other cases, as I explain in my paper) was on the relationship between Congress and the limitation period. When you approach the limitation periods in §6213 and §6330(d) in that way, I believe the approach used by the Supreme Court in Honda strongly support application of equitable tolling, in two ways.

First, as I have argued here, the Tax Court itself has relied upon the great remedial purposes of §6213 and §6330 to in fact enlarge what it believes are jurisdictional time periods under certain circumstances. A careful reading of its cases shows that what animates its decisions is the remedial purpose of the statutory scheme that allows taxpayers a day in court before either (1) being forced face a tax assessment and its consequences or (2) being forced to pay an assessed tax. To count the shutdown days as part of a limitations period would run counter to that remedial purpose.

Second, I again restate the idea of my first paragraph. This is not a situation where a taxpayer would seek equitable tolling because of some individual government employee’s bad behavior. This is Congressional bad behavior. Another way to think of the relationship is this: if the time periods are part of Congress’s waiver of Sovereign Immunity, and if only Congress can waive Sovereign Immunity, then one can reasonably find that Congress itself has here waived its immunity by ceasing to fund the government.

The second reason that the Tax Court might look askance at applying equitable tolling here is that the doctrine usually applies in a fact pattern where the party seeking tolling has done all it can. Here, there may be instances where that is not true. For example, a taxpayer may not have even attempted to file a petition when the last day ran during the shutdown period. Or the taxpayer may not have even been prepared to file during the shutdown period and only prepares and files once the shutdown period ends. Most importantly, a taxpayer’s period might have been disrupted by the shutdown period but may not have ended during the shutdown period. How is the Tax Court supposed to measure a taxpayer’s diligence in that situation, when no one knew until Friday that the government would reopen on Monday?

I do not know the answer to these questions because equity is a case-by-case determination. The Tax Court can help avoid the time and effort of applying equitable tolling by applying a uniform counting rule that simply disregards the shutdown days, based on the idea underlying FRCP 6, as I will argue in an article I hope to publish in Tax Notes soon. Even there, however, there will be cases that are not covered even by a broad reading of FRCP 6. That will be the cases where the last day of the period came after the shutdown ended. Yet there may be such cases that command the sympathy of the Tax Court. I think the Court has the power to act and to apply equitable tolling in the cases where the circumstances support it.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Earlier Decisions Denying Debtor Right to Alter IRS Lien after Bankruptcy

On November 7, 2017, I posted on the case of In re Nomillini in which the debtor sought to limit the secured claim of the IRS based on the confirmation of his chapter 13 plan. The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion dated December 18, 2018, denied the debtor’s motion to cut off the rights of the IRS lien in debtor’s property. Here, the debtor’s plan did not seek to limit the rights of the IRS as a secured creditor. The court relied on the normal rule that a lien against a debtor passes through the bankruptcy unaltered absent a specific attack on the lien as a part of the bankruptcy proceeding.

read more...

The Ninth Circuit stated the general rule as follows:

For a debtor to avoid a creditor’s lien or otherwise modify the creditor’s in rem rights, the debtor’s confirmed plan must do so explicitly and provide the creditor with adequate notice that its interests may be impacted. Id. at 873. Any ambiguity in the plan will be interpreted against the debtor. Id. at 867.

Mr. Nomillini did not mention the IRS lien in his chapter 13 plan. He gave no notice to the IRS during his bankruptcy proceeding that he sought to reduce or eliminate its lien on his property. He sold his home. He entered into an agreement with the IRS that its lien would attach to the proceeds. The sale of the home brought a greater price than anticipated by the IRS when it filed its original lien. Based on the sale price, the IRS amended its claim to increase the amount of its lien claim to match the proceeds. Mr. Nomillini sought to limit the IRS lien claim to the amount of the original claim. He then brought an action seeking to avoid the IRS lien to the extent that it exceeded the original claim. The lower courts dismissed the case and the 9th Circuit affirmed.

Lien claims not only pass through bankruptcy unimpacted (absent a specific challenge) but the amount of a lien claim can change during or after a bankruptcy as the value of the property increases or decreases. When the IRS filed its original claim in this case, it had to value its lien claim and claim any portion not covered by equity in Mr. Nomillini’s property as an unsecured claim. Here, the value of the secured property turned out to be low either because the IRS made a wrong determination at the outset or because the property continued to increase in value. In either event the debtor does not receive a windfall because of the low value in the initial claim.

Once the property was sold, the value of the property was set and the IRS amended its claim up to the amount of the sales proceeds. The Ninth Circuit joins the lower courts in determining that the IRS has the right to do this. Had the property sold for less than the amount of the lien claim that the IRS made, the value of the lien claim would have decreased rather than increased. For this reason creditors often seek to protect themselves from a downward movement of value in secured property by seeking adequate protection. The IRS does not do this often because of the time involved to seek adequate protection and, in cases in which its lien is secured by real property, because of the difficulty in proving that the property will decrease in value.

The case resolves the issue in a manner consistent with existing law. The lesson here is that the value of a lien claim is not fixed at the time of filing bankruptcy.