Pecker Buys Procedurally Taxing For Undisclosed Sum

David Pecker, whose company owns the National Enquirer, purchased all rights to the name and likeness and prior posts of Procedurally Taxing for an undisclosed sum. Pecker, whose National Enquirer has been in the news of late due to its cozy relationship with President Trump, has long felt the need to enter the nascent world of legal blogging, especially tax, with its cross over to and connection with the world of entertainment.

In commenting on the purchase, Pecker noted that just in the last few weeks we have seen Cardi B talk about tax policy, rapper DMX get sentenced to jail for tax evasion, an innocent taxpayer sue Howard Stern and the IRS for an employee talking about her tax account on the shock jock’s radio show, and John Oliver sing the praises of tax exemptions as he discusses prosperity gospel.

read more...

Noting the extensive reach that PT has in the bar, the bench and in government, Pecker hopes to leverage his company’s marketing and publicity to expand the blog’s footprint.

“Tax is everywhere,” said Pecker. “Outlets like Procedurally Taxing do not have a clue about the real world.”

While we are working out the final details, it appears that Keith, Stephen, and I, the founding bloggers, will remain affiliated with the blog in some capacity, though it is expected that we will significantly reduce time spent on the blog to allow well known celebrity authors to post.

The first post, due to be published Monday is entitled “Frequent Contributor Carl Smith Abducted by Aliens Claiming to Know Precise Constitutional Status of Tax Court.” Written by Fogg’s Harvard Law School colleague Steve Shay, who specializes in international and intergalactic transactions, the post hopes to explore issues that have long troubled not only the tax bar but also the public at large.

Pecker has released Monday’s post in preview form to a number of tax celebrities. Frank Agostino commented:  “The aliens have made a Graev mistake.  There is no evidence that the initial determination to abduct was personally approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the alien making the abduction.  I plan to appeal this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Milky Way Circuit.  Or, at least go out and buy a Milky Way bar.”

Nina Olson thought:  “Carl Smith’s abduction no doubt violates a number of provisions of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that I recently got Congress to incorporate into section 7803.  I won’t help Carl, but I will closely monitor any litigation in this area.”

Tax Court Chief Judge L. Paige Marvel expressed surprise that PT was aware of the abduction. “Information about the abduction,” she said, “is contained within the Tax Court files of a case Smith brought, but the information is not available on line.  To get this information, someone had to go to the Tax Court Public Files Office in D.C. or pay 50 cents a page for it to get it mailed out.  Who would do that?”

Pat Smith of Ivins Philips argued that Carl Smith’s abduction was invalid as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and looked forward to any court case that might overcome the limits of the Galactic Anti-Abduction Injunction Act.”

President Trump tweeted that “Regardless, the Trump campaign and Trump Administration did not speak to any of the aliens who abducted Smith.  There was NO COLLUSION.  Covfefe.”

Hillary Clinton noted that Carl Smith was a resident of Manhattan, a locale that voted overwhelmingly for her in 2016.  “Obviously, the aliens wanted someone smarter to probe.”

And Now a Quick Break from Procedure to Recognize Dorothy Steel

Guest blogger Bob Kamman picked up this story last week and the judicial conference slowed down our production line. This is a great story about a former revenue officer who has gone on to bigger (and better?) things with her career. It’s nice to see someone working in tax procedure collecting taxes having a good post-IRS career. Keith

Is there life after IRS? That’s a question that many writers and readers of this blog have likely asked ourselves. No one has a better answer than a 91-year-old former IRS revenue officer from College Park, Georgia.

“Hopefully, somebody who at 55 or 60 has decided, ‘This is all I can do,’ they will realize they have 35 more years to get things together,” Steel said. “Start now. It’s never too late. … Keep your mind open and keep faith in yourself that you can do this thing. All you have to do is step out there.”

That is a quote from her in this article in the Washington Post

“Dorothy Steel was born and raised in Detroit and eventually worked for the federal government as a senior revenue officer for the Internal Revenue Service for decades before retiring on Dec. 7, 1984 — a date she rattles off with impeccable memory,” the Post reports. The article adds, “she bounced around the world as part of her job.” So what has she done lately?

Proved, beyond a doubt, that if you can collect federal taxes you can do anything, even if you are an African-American woman north of 90 years old.

She is a scene-stealing actress in the current box-office blockbuster, “Black Panther.” It’s the 14th-highest grossing movie of all time, and moving up the list. She plays the role of a merchant elder. Acting experience? She started in community theatre for seniors when she was 88. At 89, she got an agent and began getting parts in television shows and commercials.

Steel turned down the chance to audition for “Black Panther” the first time she was asked, because she was not interested in some “comic-strip movie” and she didn’t think she could do an African accent. Her grandson, 26, explained to her that this was not just any comic strip. And she listened to hours of Nelson Mandela speeches on YouTube, to develop the accent. She agreed to the audition, and was asked to join the cast.

Yes, there is life after IRS. Some of us may even be fortunate enough, to have an income at age 91 that is as much as what Dorothy Steel will pay in taxes this year.

TBOR and CDP

On March 20, the Tax Court entered an order remanding a Collection Due Process (CDP) case back to Appeals to consider the collection alternative requested by the taxpayer. The remand resulted from the request of the IRS over the strenuous objection of the taxpayer. That’s not the normal scenario for a remand. The taxpayer also sought to have the IRS levy, which it refused to consider at the Appeals level of this CDP case. The facts explain the reason for this seemingly topsy turvy situation. The case also involves significant arguments by the taxpayer about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and how the actions of the IRS are abrogating those rights. Les and I discussed this case, and others, in our panel presentation this week at the Tax Court Judicial Conference. I will briefly touch on the other cases that we discussed during the panel.

read more...

Mr. Dang is a refugee from Vietnam. After arriving in the United States and quickly integrating, he eventually went into business. Although the business had success initially, it subsequently failed. Mr. Dang had the misfortune to hire a disreputable tax advisor who got him into trouble with the IRS during the period in which the business operated. He has an outstanding liability in the neighborhood of $100,000. That amount of liability allowed Mr. Dang to have his case handled by a revenue officer.

Mr. Dang, through his counsel at a low-income taxpayer clinic, explained to the revenue officer that his IRA was the only asset he had with which he could satisfy his outstanding tax obligation. He asked the revenue officer to levy on his IRA so that he could avoid the 10% (approximately $10,000) excise tax under IRC section 72(t). After some initial resistance, he appeared to have succeeded in convincing the revenue officer to levy on the IRA; however, before the levy occurred, the IRS assigned the case to a new revenue officer and she declined to levy on the retirement account. Instead, she asked Mr. Dang to pull the money out of the IRA and pay off the debt.

Eventually, the IRS issued a CDP notice and Mr. Dang requested a hearing. At the hearing, he requested that the IRS levy on his retirement account. The Appeals employee declined to accept that levying on his retirement account could serve as a collection alternative. He denied relief and issued a determination letter sustaining the right of the IRS to levy on Mr. Dang. A Tax Court petition followed and in their answer to the petition, the lawyers at Chief Counsel IRS admitted that the Appeals employee should have considered Mr. Dang’s request and considered whether a levy on the retirement account would serve as the best way to collect from Mr. Dang. The answer filed on December 1, 2017, stated “respondent will seek to remand this case to Appeals for a supplemental Collection Due Process hearing in which the Settlement Officer’s errors can be corrected.” The answer also stated that respondent “admits petitioner’s CDP hearing was incomplete and did not properly consider all collection alternatives.”

On January 3, 2018, the IRS filed its motion to remand. In that motion, respondent said:

  1. SO True incorrectly believed this request did not qualify as a ‘collection alternative’ and was thus outside the scope of Appeals CDP hearing jurisdiction….
  2. SO True’s determination regarding Appeal’s ability to consider the request was incorrect. Appeals should have evaluated petitioners’ request to pay his liability via a levy on petitioner husband’s Individual Retirement Account and determined whether it was in the best interests of the taxpayers and the government.
  3. Pursuant to Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1€(3) Q&A-E6, taxpayer can request a ‘substitution of assets’ be considered as a collection alternative during a CDP hearing. Requesting respondent collect from a specific revenue source or asset is an acceptable ‘collection alternative’ request and should be considered by Appeals….
  4. A remand for a supplemental hearing is appropriate when it will be helpful or productive…. A remand would be helpful and productive because resolution of this issue would preserve the parties and the Court’s time and resources.”

Petitioners objected to the motion, arguing that it was unnecessary to remand the case and that the Tax Court should simply order the IRS to levy on his retirement account. In the brief filed in support of their objection, petitioners made several arguments and requested “sanctions for violating the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, unnecessarily delaying the resolution of this matter, and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation.” They stated “by refusing to levy on Petitioners’ IRA but insisting upon a voluntary withdrawal from that same IRA, RO Neville rendered meaningless the taxpayer relief enacted by Congress.” They cited to several violations of TBOR, including the right to a fair and just tax system and the right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax.

In remanding the case, the Court gave the IRS a very short time frame to hold the remand hearing and render its opinion regarding taxpayer’s request. Short time frames are a regular feature of CDP cases for taxpayers but not very often for the IRS. It will be interesting to watch this case not only for the substance of the argument that the IRS should levy upon the IRA but also for the role that TBOR might play in the ultimate resolution of the case.

In the panel discussion at the judicial conference, we not only discussed this case but discussed the case of Winthrop Towers previously blogged here, the Harris case  we blogged here and the case of Facebook previously blogged here. It is interesting that in the government brief in opposition to the relief requested by Facebook that it took time to distinguish the Winthrop Tower’s case.

As more and more litigants begin to focus on TBOR, it will be interesting to see how the rights enshrined in legislation in 2015 will impact outcomes of cases (and outcomes of administrative action.) National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who participated on the panel at the judicial conference said that she did not know how this might turn out but she was watching anxiously. She also said that quotes attributed to her in the government’s brief in opposition quoted her discussing the administrative publication of TBOR and not the legislative enactment. She indicated that by putting it into the Code, Congress changed the impact of TBOR in ways that we do not yet know.

Conclusion

In addition to the CDP and TBOR issues brought to light by this case, the case also raises the issue of levy on retirement accounts. The IRS requires that front line employees get approval two levels up in order to levy on retirement accounts. That approval process generally inures to the benefit of holders of those accounts but serves as a disadvantage to someone like Mr. Dang who wants the IRS to make the levy on his retirement account while the revenue officer does not want to go through the trouble. It seems like there should be a relatively easy path to levy upon a retirement account when it is made at the taxpayer’s request. It is also troubling that those with retirement accounts have their assets more protected from IRS collection action than poorer clients whose only retirement is social security and from whom the IRS can take 15% with no extra approval.

 

Tax Court Conference Ends By Looking to the Future

The last panel at the Tax Court Judicial Conference was a look to the future, considering current and future issues that could affect the way the court does business. The panel, moderated by Chief Judge Marvel, included the Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada, Miriam Fisher of Latham & Watkins, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, and Drita Tonuzi, Deputy Chief Counsel.

One indication of a successful panel is the sense that you both learned a lot and also wanted the panelists to keep going. The 80-minute panel flagged a number of issues (like possible new and revised jurisdiction, the court’s thorny constitutional status) and spent some time on a subset issues, including a tantalizingly brief discussion of EITC and its impact on the court, possible Tax Court rule changes, ways to increase efficiency and reduce litigation costs, the impact of globalization on Tax Court practice, and the possibility of expanding access to documents filed with the Court.

Access to filed Tax Court documents is an issue that seems to be front and center for the Court; as part of the materials the Chief Judge referred to a blog post that our sometimes Forbes colleague Peter Reilly wrote called Tax Court IRS and Secret Law. That post, in a nutshell, heavily criticized current Tax Court practice when it comes to allowing nonparties access to court documents, stating that the “Tax Court is letting us down when it comes to electronic transparency.”

As a blogger, researcher and sometime advocate, I find that easy access to briefs in cases in district court and appellate courts is very helpful. Current Tax Court practice essentially limits e-access to documents to parties, and those who have the resources or friends to go the Tax Court in DC can go and make make copies.

The Chief Judge tried to move the discussion away from labels (it is fair to say that the Chief Judge is not a fan of procedures being called secret or stealth) and toward what she referred to as a “constructive dialogue” that would take into account both the public’s legitimate need to know and the privacy concerns around often sensitive personal information that is embedded in the mostly pro se docket that makes up the court’s basket of cases.

As part of an effort to move the conversation, the Chief Judge flagged some specific possible changes, including the following:

  • Expanding the types of documents that can be accessed electronically (like briefs, dispositive motions);
  • Limit e-access to cases where both parties are represented; and
  • Restrict e-access to certain types of people, including possibly those who register

In a question, Judge Buch raised the possibility of allowing e-access to documents that Counsel files, and Judge Leyden suggested the possibility of allowing parties to elect into allowing e-access. The Chief Justice of the Canadian Tax Court said that in the near future all documents in the Canadian Tax Court will be e-accessible, with that court responsible for redacting some personal information.

The dialogue that Chief Judge Marvel encourages is welcome. So was some of the clarifying information at the start of the presentation, including reminders of the pro se nature of the Tax Court and that PACER limits access to Social Security and immigration cases, cases that like tax cases are embedded with lots of sensitive information. My sense is though that the Tax Court judges recognize that the balance is shifting on this issue, the balance between transparency and privacy is not currently correctly calibrated, and that Counsel’s access to all briefs and filings gives it a leg up over the private bar that could be remedied without major harm. Judge Buch’s suggestion to allow access to Counsel filings would be an easy start, though I think it is not too much of a leap to allow access to classes of documents like briefs and dispositive motions in all cases where there is counsel.

Now, when it comes to transparency and consistency for Tax Court orders….well that is another story and perhaps the subject of a future panel.

Friends of the Benedictines in the Holy Land Wins Tax Exempt Status but Loses Request for Fees Associated with Application Delays

In a precedential opinion, the Tax Court ruled on the request of an applicant for tax-exempt status for administrative and litigation fees. The Court denied those fees in Friends of the Benedictines in the Holy Land, Inc. v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. No. 5 (2018). I think the case merits a precedential opinion because of the ruling on the administrative proceeding period in a case involving exempt status. No aspect of the opinion addresses the substance of the request for exempt status because the IRS conceded that issue at the very outset of the case in the fall of 2013. Since that time, the case focused on whether the taxpayer could receive an award for administrative costs and attorney’s fees.

read more...

Friends of the Benedictines requested exempt status on July 12, 2012, about the time the IRS exempt organization sank deeply into the mire of the allegations of improper treatment of certain applications. Perhaps because of the distractions going at the time in the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS or perhaps due to the normal time lag for consideration of certain exemption requests, the IRS did not act on the request. The docket sheet in the case indicates that Marcus Owens, a former head of the Exempt Organization Division, was initially counsel in the case. The opinion states that counsel for petitioner called an IRS attorney around September 18, 2013, to ask about the status of the case. Petitioner’s counsel was told that the case was still in process and no definite date of disposition was known.

IRC 7428(a), (b)(2) provides that an applicant for exempt status can petition the Tax Court for a determination of that status if the IRS denies the request or if 270 days passes and the IRS fails to act upon the request. On Friday, September 20, Friends of the Benedictines filed a Tax Court petition. On Sunday, September 22, the IRS issued a determination letter recognizing Friends of the Benedictines as a 501(c)(3) organization. I have occasionally filed petitions which the IRS has conceded before answer but I have never had a two-day turn around with a concession on the weekend. This was impressive. I guess all of the exempt organization people were working overtime anyway to deal with the other problems that existed at the time.

Because of some non-relevant procedural issues, it took three months to get the decision entered by the Court but there was no fight in the Tax Court case since the IRS immediately granted what the taxpayer requested. Having won the substance of the case, taxpayer then requested that the IRS pay its administrative costs and attorney’s fees. Here the IRS balked. There was no two-day turn around to concession on this issue. The case settled in for a 4 and ½ year visit to the Tax Court despite the concession on the merits two days after filing.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted a series of billing statements related to the work done on the case. Some identify a different part as the client. After some back and forth to get more clarity to the billing statements and more clarity concerning the request and whether it was for administrative or litigation expenses, the material was submitted and it became clear that petitioner wanted reimbursement for both administrative and litigation expenses. The court decided the case without hearing based on the materials submitted by April of 2014.

No qualified offer existed in this case. We recently discussed a case in which the taxpayer succeeded in obtaining attorney’s fees without a qualified offer but that is difficult. The Tax Court recounted the statutory requirements of IRC 7430(b) and (c) the petitioner needed to establish in order to win: 1) it is the prevailing party; 2) it did not unreasonably protract the proceedings; 3) the amount of the costs requested is reasonable; and 4) it exhausted the administrative remedies available. The IRS conceded that taxpayer met 2 and 4, but contested the other two elements necessary for petitioner to win. To succeed, the taxpayer must meet all four elements.

The IRS first argued that there were no administrative proceedings in a case involving a request for exempt status. The Court disagreed. Unlike a private letter ruling request that the IRS need pay no attention to, a request for exempt status leads to a Tax Court proceeding if the IRS fails to respond after the appropriate interval and the petitioner wants judicial redress. Looking at all of the elements of the exempt status request and the broad definition of administrative status, the Court concluded that the request did indeed involve an administrative proceeding that could give rise, in appropriate circumstances, to an award of costs.

The IRS then argued that petitioner could not be the prevailing party with respect to administrative costs because the IRS never took a position. How could the petitioner prevail over the IRS which did not say yea or nay to its request? Petitioner argued that administrative costs should not be “limited to those incurred after the issuance or receipt of a notice or letter.” The Court responded to this argument by stating that to agree with petitioner, “we would have to find an unwritten exception to the statute and hold that the notice or letter requirement is inapposite when the claim for administrative costs rests on the fact that the IRS has failed to act.” In the end, however, the Court takes a pass on this issue finding that petitioner only provided evidence of litigation costs.

I wondered how you would measure administrative costs if the administrative issue begins with the submission of the request for exempt status. At the point of submission, all of the initial “administrative” work is done.   In a case like this in which the IRS does not but also requests nothing of the taxpayer, it does not seem as though the taxpayer has administrative costs. It costs nothing to sit and wait, as frustrating as that might be.

Nonetheless, the Court passes over the issue by finding that all of the fee requests from petitioner really relate to the “litigation” of the case. Litigation here is a two-day period over the weekend when the IRS cranks into gear on the exemption requests and pumps out a thumbs up. The IRS argued that its position in the judicial proceeding was substantially justified. The Court notes that the applicable statute, IRC 7430(c)(7), “does not specify when the United States takes a ‘position’ in a judicial proceeding.” The Tax Court has generally held that the IRS establishes its litigating position when it files its answer but notes that it could be established earlier under certain circumstances.

Here, the lightening quick concession of the case, 58 days before the answer was due, establishes that the IRS position in litigation was justified. In reaching this conclusion, the Tax Court rejected the reasoning of a pair of district court cases, Grisanti v. United States, No. 3:05CV12-D-A (N.D. Miss 2006) and Powell v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1986), that held unreasonable delays or positions during the administrative process could not be cured by a quick concession in the court proceeding. The Tax Court said that it bifurcates the administrative and court aspects of a case and could not accept the reasoning of these cases that a bad position during the administrative aspect of a proceeding washes over into a determination of the justification of the IRS’s litigating position.

Before closing, the Tax Court expresses sympathy for the position of the petitioner. Unless a case is brought where the appeal will go to the 5th Circuit, it looks like concessions before or near the filing of the answer will insulate the IRS from attorney’s fees except in those cases in which the taxpayer makes a qualified offer during the pre-notice visit to Appeals. The case shows again the difficulty facing taxpayers who seek attorney’s fees in Tax Court cases.

 

 

 

Tax Court Judicial Conference Kicks Off Tonight: A Brief Take On Exotic Jurisdiction

Keith and I are both in Chicago to attend the Tax Court’s Judicial Conference. I am looking forward to seeing some old friends and colleagues, attending panels on a range of topics, and speaking on a panel with Keith, Nina Olson and Judge Peter Panuthos about the role that taxpayer rights play in representing taxpayers.

One of the panels I will attend is called “A Trip Through the Tax Court’s Exotic Jurisdiction.” I am especially looking forward to that, as I have been writing lately about the role that administrative law generally and the APA in particular plays in cases that are not traditional deficiency cases. Last week in updating the Saltzman Book treatise as part of our regular three times a year update I have revisited Kasper v Commissioner, a case we on PT discussed briefly when it came out and which is one of the more interesting procedure cases of the past year. As readers may recall, that case held that the standard of review in whistleblower cases is arbitrary and capricious and the scope of that review is limited to the administrative record.

In reaching its conclusion, Kasper revisits and places in context the Tax Court’s approach in other cases that are not traditional deficiency cases. Tax procedure can be complex enough when dealing with straightforward deficiency cases (consider for example the Borenstein case that PT discussed which Keith and Georgia State Tax Clinic Director Ted Afield have just filed an amicus brief that looks at an odd situation when a taxpayer filed an original return with a refund claim just prior to filing a petition). Congress over the past few decades has added to the Tax Court’s basket a number of other types of cases, including the whistleblower provisions Kasper addressed, CDP which 20 years on still presents a steady stream of tough issues (see Lavar Taylor’s latest guest posts on alter egos) and the rules relating to employment tax determinations under Section 7436.

All of this is preface for a recent Program Manager Technical Advice  that discusses the limits of Section 7436. Readers may recall that 7436 provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to determine in employment tax audits whether someone is properly classified as an employee or whether the employer is entitled to so-called 530 relief (essentially a safe harbor allowing escape from liability if certain conditions are satisfied). There have been a bunch of interesting procedural issues spinning off 7436; for example I discussed last year the Tax Court order that concluded that Section 7436 did not provide it jurisdiction to determine whether an S corp’s wages were artificially low:

Section 7436(a)(1) only confers jurisdiction upon this Court to determine the “correct and the proper amount of employment tax” when respondent makes a worker classification determination, not when respondent concludes that petitioner underreported reasonable wage compensation, as is the case here.

The PMTA involves a similar legal issue in a different context. In the PMTA, the IRS considered a non-US corporate taxpayer with a US Sub. The overseas parent sent its employees into the US to provide computer and engineering services to US clients. The overseas parent paid the employees for the engineering and computer work they did in the US. The overseas parent did not withhold on the payments it made to its employees for the work those employees performed in the US, essentially arguing that it was not engaged in business in the US and was able to rely on statutory and regulatory exceptions on overseas employers who have temporary employees working in the US and who earn limited salaries (while some treaties have specific rules on this the PMTA indicates that the parent resided in a jurisdiction that did not have a treaty with the US).

IRS examined and concluded that the parent should have withheld on the wages that were paid to its employees. The PMTA concludes that its conclusion regarding the withholding liability would not be a determination under 7436 and the parent was not entitled to go to Tax Court:

[T]here is no dispute that the [nonresident alien(NRA) parent corp] performing computer and engineering services on behalf of the foreign corporation are employees, that the services were performed within the United States, and that such NRAs received compensation from the foreign corporation for those services. Rather, the foreign corporation is asserting that it is not liable for income tax withholding because it was not engaged in a trade or business within the United States. This argument is not based on a position that the NRAs are not employees. Thus, there is no actual controversy over the worker classification of the NRAs. Rather, the foreign corporation’s disagreement is premised on the position that the NRAs are employees, but that because the employees worked for a foreign corporation while temporarily in the United States and were compensated less than a threshold amount the foreign corporation did not have a trade or business within the United States

Conclusion

Of course the IRS does not get to decide the contours of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction but as the PMTA discusses IRS employment tax audits can raise issues not squarely within the language of 7436. Absent Tax Court jurisdiction, taxpayers can get court review in the federal district courts or the Court of Federal Claims. That comes after assessment, and some payment of the tax, triggering other issues and perhaps more litigation costs.

ARE ALLEGED ALTER EGOS, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST AND/OR TRANSFEREES ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN COLLECTION DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER SECTIONS 6320 AND 6330? PART 2

Today, guest blogger Lavar Taylor continues his discussion of the interplay of the laws regarding third parties liable for a tax debt and the ability of those third parties to obtain CDP rights. If you have not had the chance to read his initial post on this topic, you might want to take time to read that one before digging into this one. These posts not only explore the ability of these third parties to obtain CDP rights but help anyone not familiar with the various ways that the IRS can seek payment of a taxpayer’s liability to gain a better understanding of the collection process. Keith

In Part 1 of this series of blog posts, I explained how the relevant statutes and regulations, together with the rationale of the Court deciding Pitts v. United States in favor of the IRS, support the conclusion that persons/entities who are alleged by the IRS to be the alter ego, successor in interest, and/or transferee of the party who incurred the tax liability (“original taxpayer”) are entitled to their own independent Collection Due Process (“CDP”) rights under §§ 6320 and 6330 of the Code. In the present blog post, I explain why I believe that the IRS is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it denies alleged alter egos, successors in interest, and transferees their own independent CDP rights under §§ 6320 and 6330.

read more...

The IRS, in the current version of the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”), instructs revenue officers to treat partners in a general partnership which incurred unpaid federal taxes as “persons liable for the tax” for purposes of administratively enforcing the partnership’s unpaid tax liability. Per the IRM, these general partners are to be given CDP Lien and Levy notices under sections 6320 and 6330, in addition to the CDP Lien and Levy notices provided to the taxpayer partnership. Thus, IRM section 5.19.8.4.2(5)(08-05-2016), titled CDP Hearing Requests, provides in section (5) as follows:

If the tax liability involves a partnership, a request for a CDP hearing under IRC 6330 would cover all partners in the partnership. Under IRC 6320, the partnership and partners listed on the NFTL receive the CDP hearing notice. A partner with authority to represent the partnership could request a hearing for the partnership or a partner listed on the NFTL could request a CDP hearing as an individual partner.

Similarly, IRM 8.22.5.3.1.4(4) (03-29-2012), titled Determining Timeliness-Levy, provides that “[f]or partnerships, Collection may issue separate notices to individual partners as well as the partnership entity.” IRM Section 8.22.6.5 (03-29-2012), titled Partnership Liability, states as follows:

1. Under state law, general partners in partnerships are liable for taxes assessed against the partnership. In United States v. Galletti, 541 U.S. 114 (2004), the Supreme Court held the Service’s assessment against a partnership serves to make the general partner liable for the tax. While the Supreme Court did not address administrative collection, Galletti is consistent with the Service’s long-standing legal position that it can enforce a tax lien and take administrative levy action against a general partner based on the assessment and notice and demand directed to the partnership. See Chief Counsel Notice 2005-003 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2005-003.pdf .

2. A partner’s individual CDP hearing request:

— DOES NOT affect Collection’s ability to collect from the partnership or other individual partners’ assets

— DOES affect Collection’s ability to collect from that partner’s individual assets.

Chief Counsel Notice 2005-003 explains in detail the rationale for the IRS’s position that the IRS may pursue administrative collection action against general partners personally for taxes incurred by and assessed against the partnership itself. Essentially, the IRS takes the position that it may take advantage of state law to pursue collection of a tax liability against someone other the person who incurred the tax liability. That concept is not a new one – it is the bedrock of the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39 (1958), which deals with the assertion of transferee liability under what is now section 6901 of the Code. In the case of a general partner of a general partnership, the IRS is using the relevant state’s version of the Uniform Partnership Act, which provides that general partners are personally liable for partnership debts.

Why is the IRS speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it grants partners in general partnerships their own CDP rights under §§ 6320 and 6330 with respect to taxes incurred by the partnership but denies those same CDP rights to alleged alter egos, successors in interest and transferees of the original taxpayer? Simply put, the IRS, in seeking to hold third parties liable as the alleged alter ego, successor in interest, and/or transferee of the original taxpayer, is invoking state law to hold a third party liable for the taxes of the original taxpayer.

Conceptually, there is no difference between the IRS invoking state law to hold a general partner of a general partnership liable for the partnership’s tax liability and the IRS invoking state law in an effort to hold someone other than the original taxpayer liable for that tax liability as an alleged alter ego, successor in interest, and/or transferee of the original taxpayer. While determining whether a person or entity is a partner of a general partnership is normally a simpler task than determining whether a person or entity is an alter ego, successor in interest, or transferee of the original taxpayer, both types of determinations involve the application of state law to a given set of facts to determine whether a third party can be held liable for taxes owed by the original taxpayer.

It is clear that state law governs the question of whether a third party can be held liable as an alter ego, successor in interest, and/or transferee of the original taxpayer for taxes assessed against the original taxpayer. See, e.g., Commissioner v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39 (1958) (transferee), Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, (9th Cir. 1986) (alter ego), TFT Galveston Portfolio, Ltd. v. Comm’r, 144 T.C. 96 (2015) (successor in interest), see also Fourth Inv. LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (nominee). It seems to me that, if the IRS’s assertion of liability under state law to enforce a general partnership’s tax liability against a general partner of that partnership is sufficient to trigger CDP rights for the general partner, the IRS’s assertion of liability under state law to enforce a taxpayer’s tax liability against a third party as an alleged alter ego, successor in interest, or transferee should also be sufficient to trigger CDP rights for the alleged alter ego, successor in interest, or transferee.

In the Tax Court cases which we recently settled, the IRS argued that it was not being inconsistent in denying our client (which was an alleged alter ego/successor in interest of the original taxpayer) its own independent CDP rights while allowing those same rights to partners of general partnerships that incur tax liabilities. The IRS argued as follows:

The alter ego doctrine is used in federal tax cases to collect the liability of a taxpayer from a separate corporate entity that is operating to impair the government’s ability to satisfy the taxpayer’s legitimate tax liability. See Oxford Capital Corp. v. United States, 211 F.3d 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2000); Valley Fin. V. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Once respondent has determined that an entity is an alter ego, that entity’s assets may be levied upon for the debtor of the taxpayer because the law does not recognize the taxpayer and the alter ego entity as each having independent existence for purposes of debt collection. See Oxford Capital Corp., 211 F.3d at 284; see also United States v. Scherping, 187 F.3d 796, 801-02 (8th Cir, 1999).

There are two significant problems with the IRS’s argument (aside from the fact that the IRS’s argument fails to address successor in interest liability). First, there is both federal and California case law which makes clear that an entity is considered a valid, separate entity even when that entity is liable for a third party’s debt under the alter ego doctrine. In Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit upheld the application of the alter ego doctrine under Montana law against the shareholder of a corporate taxpayer. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit stated as follows:

Indeed, despite Wolfe’s contentions, it is not necessarily inconsistent to view a corporation as viable for the purpose of assessing a corporation tax, while disregarding it for the purpose of satisfying that assessment. Only those corporations that were established with no valid purpose are considered sham corporations, and thus not entitled to separate taxable status. See Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436, 439, 87 L. Ed. 1499, 63 S. Ct. 1132 (1943). A corporation could have a valid business purpose (giving it separate tax status), and at the same time be so dominated by its owner that it could be disregarded under the alter ego doctrine. Cf. National Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner, 336 U.S. 422, 431-434 & n. 13, 93 L. Ed. 779, 69 S. Ct. 726 (1949) (finding insignificant, for the purpose of determining whether a subsidiary corporation is entitled to separate taxable status, the fact that the owner retains direction of the subsidiary’s affairs, provides all of its assets, taxes all its profits, and exercises complete domination and control over its business). This view has been adopted by the Fifth Circuit. See Harris v. United States, 764 F.2d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1985) whether or not [the corporation] was a separate taxable entity is not the same question as whether it was an alter ego for the purpose of piercing the corporate veil”).

Thus, Wolfe, and the cases cited in the Wolfe opinion, make clear that a corporation can be a valid, separate entity from the original taxpayer for purposes of the CDP procedures, even if the IRS is seeking to hold a corporation liable under the alter ego doctrine for the taxes owed by the original taxpayer.

Similarly, California law, upon which the IRS was relying in the now-settled cases we were handling in Tax Court, makes clear that a third party entity which is held liable as the “alter ego” of the original obligor remains a valid, independent entity for purposes of California law. In Mesler v. Bragg Management Co., 39 Cal. 3d 290 (1985), the California Supreme Court made this point very clear while holding that a parent corporation could be sued as the alleged alter ego of its subsidiary, even though the plaintiff had previously reached a settlement agreement with the subsidiary. The Court stated in relevant part as follows:

[W]hen a court disregards the corporate entity, it does not dissolve the corporation. “It is often said that the court will disregard the ‘fiction’ of the corporate entity, or will ‘pierce the corporate veil.’ Some writers have criticized this statement, contending that the corporate entity is not a fiction, and that the doctrine merely limits the exercise of the corporate privilege to prevent its abuse.” (6 Witkin, op. cit. supra, §5, at p. 4317; see, e.g., Comment, supra, 13 Cal. L.Rev. at p. 237.)

***********************

The essence of the alter ego doctrine is that justice be done. “What the formula comes down to, once shorn of verbiage about control, instrumentality, agency, and corporate entity, is that liability is imposed to reach an equitable result.” (Latty, Subsidiaries and Affiliated Corporations (1936) p. 191.) Thus the corporate form will be disregarded only in narrowly defined circumstances and only when the ends of justice so require.

***********************

It is not that a corporation will be held liable for the acts of another corporation because there is really only one corporation. Rather, it is that under certain circumstances a hole will be drilled in the wall of limited liability erected by the corporate form; for all purposes other than that for which the hole was drilled, the wall still stands. 39 Cal. 3d at 300-301.

To the extent that state law is relevant in this context, California law supports the conclusion that an alleged alter ego is a separate entity which is entitled to its own independent CPD rights. (For taxpayers located outside of California, and outside of the Ninth Circuit, the relevant case law will obviously be different.)

The second problem with the IRS’s argument is that the two cases which it cited both pre-date the CDP procedures, which took effect in January of 1999, following the enactment of RRA 1998 in July, 1998. The resolution of the question of whether an alleged alter ego, successor in interest, or transferee of the original taxpayer is entitled their own independent CDP rights will likely depend on the statutory interpretation of the CDP provisions, §§ 6320 and 6330. There are no cases which address this issue. And as is explained in Part 1 of this series of blog posts, the question of how to interpret §§ 6320 and 6330 is likely to be influenced by looking to §§ 6321 and 6331.

Notably, § 6331 refers to the need to provide a “notice and demand” before levy action may be pursued. This is a reference to “notice and demand” as set forth in IRC § 6303(a), which requires the IRS to provide “notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof.” This notice must be sent to the person’s “last known address” within 60 days of the date on which the tax is assessed. Id. Failure to give a valid notice and demand renders void any levy action by the IRS and requires the IRS to refund all monies collected by levy. See Martinez v. United States, 669 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1981) (IRS was required to return all funds received by levy where IRS failed to give taxpayer a valid notice and demand under § 6303(a) prior to issuing levies). Failure to give a proper notice and demand also prevents the IRS from taking future administrative enforcement actions such as filing lien notices and issuing levies. See United States v. Coson, 286 F.2d 453 (9th Cir. 1963) (failure to send proper notice and demand to putative partner of a general partnership rendered tax lien void), United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (failure of the IRS to send a valid notice and demand to the taxpayer precludes the IRS from taking administrative collection action with respect to the unpaid taxes but does not prevent a suit to reduce the assessment to judgment), Blackston v. United States, 778 F.Supp. 244 (D. Md. 1991) (Marvin Garbis, J.).

There is a further requirement that the IRS send a notice of intent to levy under IRC § 6331(d) at least 30 days before the IRS levies “upon the salary or wages or property of any person with respect to any unpaid tax.” This requirement, largely forgotten since the enactment of section 6330, has never been repealed. Its primary significance now is that the sending of this notice triggers an increase in the accrual rate of the failure to pay penalty under IRC §§ 6651(a)(2) and (a) (3). See IRC § 6651(d)(1).

The language of §§ 6303(a) and 6331(d) is similar to the language used in §§ 6320 and 6330. Yet we know that the IRS does not send a “notice and demand” for payment under § 6303(a) within 60 days of the date of assessment to alleged alter egos, successors in interest, or transferees who have not been separately assessed that tax liability. Similarly, we know that the IRS does not send § 6331(d) notices to alleged alter egos, successors in interest, or transferees prior to issuing levies against the property of alleged alter egos, successors in interest, or transferees. How is it that the IRS is able to take administrative collection action against alleged alter egos, successors in interest, and/or transferees without complying with §§ 6303(a) and 6331(d)?

The answer to that apparent conundrum may surprise you. While it is possible to argue that the IRS may take administrative collection action against alleged alter egos, successors in interest, and/or transferees who have not been separately assessed a tax liability without complying with the requirements of §§ 6303(a) and 6331(d), it is far from clear that this argument carries the day. There are other arguments, some of which, in my view, have not been properly articulated in recent years. Perhaps Pitts was incorrectly decided, and the IRS is not entitled to take administrative collection action against alleged alter egos, successors in interest, or transferees at all. That topic will be explored in greater detail in Part 3 of this series.

 

 

 

Government Files Brief in Chamber of Commerce Case/Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split on Tax Obstruction Statute

Today’s post will bring readers up tp date on two significant developments, the first involving the heavily watched Chamber of Commerce case in the Fifth Circuit and the other a Supreme Court opinion in Marinello v US that resolved a circuit split that concerned an important criminal tax issue.

Chamber of Commerce Appeal

One of the more significant tax procedure cases of last year was Chamber of Commerce v IRS, where a district court in Texas invalidated Treasury’s temporary regulation that attempted to put a stop to corporate inversions.

The government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit, and this week the government filed its brief spelling out why the circuit court should reverse. In addition to arguing that the district court erred in finding that the plaintiff had standing, the government urges the Fifth Circuit to find that the Anti-Injunction Act bars a pre-enforcement challenge to the regulations, and argues that Section 7805 allows it to issue prospective temporary regs without notice and comment.

Treasury’s view on temporary regulations I find strained, as I discuss in the latest update to Chapter 3 Saltzman and Book IRS Practice and Procedure, but I suspect that the AIA may allow the Fifth Circuit to sidestep that issue.

Here is the summary of the government AIA argument from its brief:

But even if plaintiffs have standing, their suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, which ban the issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief against the assessment or collection of federal taxes. Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways: their contention that they have standing because their members are threatened with increased tax liabilities would necessarily mean that their suit falls squarely within the AIA’s prohibition against suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” The District Court erred in its overly restrictive construction of the AIA. The AIA’s prohibition on injunctive relief applies broadly, reaching not only actions directly involving assessment or collection, but also those that might affect assessment or collection indirectly. The AIA clearly bars attempts, such as this one, to enjoin a Treasury Regulation affecting the existence or amount of a tax liability.

The AIA has long been an important barrier walling off IRS/Treasury guidance from pre-enforcement challenges. As we have discussed on PT, with cases like Direct Marketing, which considered the reach of an analogous statute that bars challenges to state tax statutes, advocates have been probing for ways to get courts to consider the procedural and substantive validity of rules such as in this case.

The brief discusses and distinguishes Direct Marketing. No doubt the Chamber of Commerce disagrees. We will keep an eye on this case.

Supreme Court Resolves Split in Circuits on Obstruction Statute

In Marinello v US, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split involving Section 7212(a),  involving the tax specific obstruction statute. The Court held that a conviction under the statute requires that there be an ongoing investigation of the defendant, with the defendant both knew about and intended to obstruct. The opinion leaves open, however, the possibility for a conviction if the proceeding was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.

In addition to resolving the split, the opinion provides a nice window into competing strands of statutory interpretation. The dissent, penned by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Alito, relied on a more literal approach. The statute prohibits “corruptly . . . obstruct[ing] or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title.” Noting that the title at issue was Title 26, and that encompasses all aspects of the tax code, the dissent, as a few other circuits, would have not limited the statute’s application to situations when there is awareness of (or reason to be aware of) the investigation.

As support for that view, the dissent looks to the Direct Marketing discussion of tax administration, which identified the four components of tax administration as involving “information gathering, assessment, levy, and collection.”

‘[D]ue administration of this Title’ refers to the entire process of taxation, from gathering information to assessing tax liabilities to collecting and levying taxes.

The majority opinion leans on context, looking to related interpretations of the general obstruction statute, a concern that the government’s approach leaves too much discretion to prosecutors and the potential use of the tax obstruction statute to encompass more run of the mill tax misdemeanors.