Should the Tax Court Allow Remands in Light of the Taxpayer First Act Innocent Spouse Provisions?

The Taxpayer First Act amended section 6015 to add a new subsection (e)(7) that provides for a Tax Court de novo standard of review of a section 6015 determination of the IRS based on (1) “the administrative record established at the time of the determination” and (2) “any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence”.  Thus, the statute appears to contemplate that there be an administrative record in a section 6015 case and that the IRS had made a determination in such case before the Tax Court “review[s]” that determination.  But, the administrative record in section 6015 cases is often incomplete or nonexistent (e.g., in cases where the IRS hadn’t yet ruled after a 6015 request or because 6015 was first raised in response to a notice of deficiency). 

In the past, the Tax Court has never remanded in section 6015(e) stand-alone cases or in deficiency cases seeking innocent spouse relief, but then those cases were not to be tried primarily based on the administrative record.  In Friday v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 220 (2005), citing the de novo nature of its proceedings under section 6015, the Tax Court denied an IRS motion to remand a stand-alone section 6015(e) case to Cincinnati Centralized Innocent Spouse Office (CCISO). The IRS had argued that CCISO had previously erroneously failed to consider section 6015(f) equitable relief on the merits.  

In light of the Taxpayer First Act amendment no longer making Tax Court innocent spouse proceedings fully de novo, the Tax Court should overrule Friday, and it should also allow remands in deficiency cases, though limited to the section 6015 issue.  Any taxpayer currently facing a limit on getting additional pertinent evidence not in the administrative record before the Tax Court beyond what is indisputably newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence should move to remand his or her case to CCISO and ask the Tax Court to overrule Friday, so that the pertinent evidence can be proffered to the IRS in the remand and become part of the administrative record before the case is returned to the Tax Court (if it returns at all).

read more...

Let me first say that I have read the legislative history of section 1203 of the Taxpayer First Act (the section that added subsection (e)(7)), and it provides no useful guidance or even hints about what Congress had in mind about remands.  The Committee Report just parrots the new statute in explaining the workings of the new subsection.  See H. Rep. 116-39, Part I, at 38-40.

So, let’s begin by looking at the reasons for the Tax Court’s ruling in Friday prohibiting a remand in a section 6015(e) stand-alone case that was not one of the rare ones commenced 6 months after the Form 8857 was filed but before an IRS determination had been issued.  This was a case where the IRS did not consider relief under subsection (f) apparently because the IRS thought the request too late based upon the now-overruled regulation that provided that subsection (f) relief requests had to be made within 2 years of the commencement of “collection activity”.  In McGee v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 314 (2004), the Tax Court held that an IRS failure to include in a refund offset notice any mention of the offset’s consequences regarding section 6015 relief debarred the IRS from relying on the offset as “collection activity”.  In Friday, the IRS told the court that the case was governed by McGee, presumably meaning CCISO had thought a refund offset taking place more than 2 years before the Form 8857 was filed constituted “collection activity”, but IRS attorneys in the Tax Court now realized the offset notice had not included the proper section 6015 language.  Thus, CCISO had never considered subsection (f) relief on the merits, but should have under McGee.

Here’s what the Tax Court wrote in Friday:

In support of his request, respondent relies on Natl. Nutritional Foods Association v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 701 (2d Cir. 1975), Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973), and Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980).  Those cases, however, are examples where courts, in reviewing administrative action, remanded for further factual determinations that were deemed necessary to complete an inadequate administrative record or to make an adequate one.

In certain specific cases where statutory provisions reserve jurisdiction to the Commissioner, a case can also be remanded to the Commissioner’s Appeals Office. Under sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), this Court may consider certain collection actions taken or proposed by the Commissioner’s Appeals Office. Under paragraph (2) of section 6330(d), the Commissioner’s Appeals Office retains jurisdiction with respect to the determination made under section 6330. As part of the process, a case may be remanded to the Appeals Office for further consideration. See, e.g., Parker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-226.

The situation is different, however, in a section 6015 proceeding, which is sometimes referred to as a “stand alone” case. Although entitled “Petition for Review by Tax Court”, section 6015(e) gives jurisdiction to the Court “to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under this section”. The right to petition is “In addition to any other remedy provided by law” and is conditioned upon meeting the time constraints prescribed in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). Even if the Commissioner fails to do anything for 6 months following the filing of an election for relief (where there is nothing to “review”), the individual may bring an action in this Court. See sec. 6015(b), (e)(1)(A)(i)(II). A petition for a decision as to whether relief is appropriate under section 6015 is generally not a “review” of the Commissioner’s determination in a hearing but is instead an action begun in this Court. There is in section 6015 no analog to section 6330 granting the Court jurisdiction after a hearing at the Commissioner’s Appeals Office.

124 T.C. at 221-222 (footnotes omitted).

After the Taxpayer First Act, the statutory situation is clearly different from that on which the Tax Court relied in Friday.  Section 6015(e)(7) now discusses a “review” by the Tax Court of a “determination made under this section” and specifically mentions an “administrative record” that is part of the basis for the judicial record.  At least for section 6015 cases where there was a determination made and an administrative record created, the Tax Court proceeding is now much more like that of the Tax Court’s Collection Due Process (CDP) jurisdiction.  Although section 6015 does not discuss who in the IRS is to make the determination that is reviewed (unlike section 6330, which makes clear that the IRS Appeals Office both makes the determination and has retained jurisdiction), the Tax Court can fill in that blank by remanding to the case back to the IRS function (either CCISO or the Appeals Office) that made the final determination.

Relying on what the Tax Court has done in CDP cases, the Tax Court should remand such 6015 cases for pretty much any good reason proposed by either party.  See, e.g., Churchill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-182 at *12-*16 (discussing various previous reasons for remanding CDP cases to Appeals and adding a new one – where there were changed financial circumstances such that remand would be “helpful, necessary, or productive”) (Holmes, J.).  And, as in CDP, the IRS should be asked to create a “determination” or “supplemental determination” letter, and the Tax Court should only review the latest IRS determination letter.  Kelby v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 79, 86 (2008) (“When a [CDP] case is remanded to Appeals and supplemental determinations are issued, the position of the Commissioner that we review is the position taken in the last supplemental determination.”).

In a previous post on the whistleblower award review case of Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8 (2018) (Holmes, J.), Les noted that the Tax Court held that there are numerous judge-created exceptions to the administrative record rule that the Tax Court will follow in whistleblower cases – making the Kasper opinion arguably very important for all Tax Court jurisdictions where the Tax Court review is based on the administrative record.  Those record-review exceptions are also being followed in CDP cases appealable to those the Circuits holding that the Tax Court proceeding is limited to the administrative record. See, e.g., Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F. 3d 455, 459-462 (8th Cir. 2006) (allowing Tax Court “testimony from the appeals officer that further elucidated his rationale” to supplement the administrative record).  Les has more recently raised the question whether those judicial exceptions to the administrative record rule survive section 6015(e)(7), which, on its face, specifies only two items beyond the administrative record that are to be part of the Tax Court record on review – i.e., newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.  Arguably, expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing).  This is a serious question to which I have no answer, though I certainly hope that the judicial exceptions to the administrative record rule survived the statute’s enactment.  As Les put it in an e-mail to me recently, “Is the concern that the statutory language (previously unavailable or newly discovered) preempts the exceptions Judge Holmes discussed in Kasper? Or is there a desire for systemic pressure on a better administrative process?”

But, this Kasper question of Les’ becomes moot if the Tax Court is willing to remand section 6015 cases to supplement the record not just to address concerns underlying the judicial exceptions to the administrative record rule, but also to add any other pertinent materials to the record that may aid the proper determination.

I would also note that earlier this year, the Tax Court held that it could remand a whistleblower award case to the IRS Whistleblower Office.  Whistleblower 769-16W v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. No. 10 (April 11, 2019).  That opinion compares and contrasts the Tax Court’s CDP and innocent spouse provisions (pre-Taxpayer First Act) and says the Tax Court does not consider it dispositive that section 7623(b)(4) contains no retained jurisdiction provision like section 6330(d)(2) for CDP.  The court points out that section 7623(b)(4) says nothing either way about remands.  The court held that remands were permitted because that is normal when review of agency action is on an abuse of discretion standard and under the administrative record rule.  Those were the standard and scope of review adopted in Kasper.  Section 6015 is somewhere between CDP and section 7623(b)(4), with a de novo standard of review, but a limit mostly to reviewing the administrative record.

I would hope that the Tax Court would liberally remand section 6015 cases to the IRS for the IRS to consider any material not previously included in the administrative record that might significantly alter the outcome of the case.  This would include both newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, but not be limited to that.  Let me give you an example of material falling outside section 6015(e)(7) of the type I am worried about:  I have seen Tax Court cases that have been brought to me as a clinician after the taxpayer has filed a pro se Tax Court petition.  Pro se petitioners often do a bad job in creating the administrative record.  I have known cases where the taxpayer has been the subject of abuse and there are police records to prove it – in addition sometimes to orders of protection – yet the taxpayer never sent the police records or orders of protection to the CCISO examiner.  Such items are not previously unavailable or newly discovered, but they would likely have strongly affected the IRS’ determination had it seen such documents before issuing the notice of determination denying relief.  It is hard for me to imagine that Congress would have wanted this evidence of abuse to be excluded from the Tax Court record merely because the unrepresented taxpayer did not think to find and submit this evidence to the IRS earlier.  If the Tax Court were to be presented with such documentation, I would think the best course would be to remand the case to the IRS.  There is a good chance such evidence would moot the case, as the IRS would probably concede in most cases.

Next, the statute as written discusses Tax Court review of IRS determinations, but leaves unstated what the scope and standard of Tax Court review is to be where the IRS hasn’t made a determination under section 6015 yet.  This can happen when a taxpayer files a Form 8857 and brings suit after 6 months in the absence of an IRS determination or when the taxpayer responds to a deficiency notice by, for the first time, raising an innocent spouse request in the Tax Court petition.  Legislative history of section 6015(e)(7) does not address these “no determination” situations.  But, for the reasons that Congress thought it would be better for the Tax Court to review IRS determinations (and using the administrative record), I would urge the court to remand all such cases to CCISO for an initial determination.  That way, regardless of the procedure by which the case came to the Tax Court, the case would be decided on a similar standard of review and record of review to the cases Congress specifically addressed.  Current Tax Court case law holds that section 6015 review is done on a de novo record and standard, regardless of the procedure by which the case came to the court.  Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 115 (2008), and 132 T.C. 203 (2009).  In Porter I, the Tax Court expressed concern that the IRS’ proposal to limit the review of section 6015(f) determinations in cases under section 6015(e) to the administrative record would provide inconsistent procedures in similar cases, since review in deficiency cases or where a case was brought under section 6015(e) before the IRS ruled would be on a de novo record.  130 T.C. at 124-125.  Frankly, if the Tax Court doesn’t allow remands in these “no determination” cases, it appears that the Tax Court is currently bound by its precedent to allow a de novo trial record.

My final observation is one I have been repeating since the adoption of the Taxpayer First Act:  The best solution here is to amend section 6015(e)(7) to provide for a de novo record for Tax Court determinations under section 6015 – thus reestablishing Porter I as the controlling authority for all Tax Court section 6015 cases.  Such an amendment would make the need for remands of such cases moot.

First Tax Court Opinions Mentioning Section 6015(e)(7)

On October 10, 2019, Christine wrote about the provision added to the innocent spouse section by the Taxpayer First Act and the discussion of that section during the Fall ABA Tax Section meeting.  Christine’s post highlights some of the issues concerning this section that we have discussed before, here with links to two posts by Carl that came out when the language in the statute first appeared.  The new provision concerns and confuses those of us practicing in this area and Christine provides a link to the first response on IRC 6015(e)(7) filed by the IRS in the Tax Court.  If you haven’t read Christine’s post or the earlier posts on this issue, you might want to do that as background to the new information presented today. 

On October 15, 2019, the Tax Court issued two innocent spouse opinions — one relieving the taxpayer (Kruja, under (c)), the other not (Sleeth, under (f)).  These are the first two opinions that even mention section 6015(e)(7), adopted by the Taxpayer First Act.  Carl Smith noticed the opinions and sent a message to the rest of us on the blog team.  Most of what follows is taken from Carl’s email as he discusses what two Tax Court judges said about the new provision in each case.  There have been two other opinions concerning 6015 relief issued after the Taxpayer First Act added subsection (e)(7) on July 1, but these opinions did not mention subsection (e)(7): Ogden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-88 (issued 7/15/19), and Welwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-113 (issued 9/4/19). Thus, today’s opinions are the first to even acknowledge the new subsection’s application to currently-pending Tax Court cases.

read more...

In Kruja v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-136 the court said: 

Because the trial evidence was merely cumulative of what was already included in the administrative record, section 6015(e)(7) does not affect the outcome of this case. As a result, we have not addressed the effect of section 6015(e)(7).

In Sleeth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-138 the court said:

We decide this case pursuant to section 6015(e)(7) as the administrative record has been stipulated into evidence and the testimony taken at trial was not available in the administrative record.

In Kruja the taxpayer was unrepresented.  The taxpayer appears to have resided in Arizona at the time of filing her petition.  In Sleeth the taxpayer was represented by counsel.  The taxpayer lived in Alabama at the time of filing her petition.  In both cases the husband intervened.  Sleeth is a rare case in which the petitioning spouse loses after an intervention.

Sleeth’s statement that the testimony “was not available in the administrative record” could mean that everything on which testimony was taken in Tax Court was newly discovered or previously unavailable at the time the determination was made.  However, I seriously doubt that is the case if one carefully read through the testimony. I hope Judge Goeke is making a ruling that anything testified to at trial (regardless of whether it is newly discovered or previously unavailable at the time the determination was made) is admissible as part of what the Tax Court reviews.  That would be a readoption of Porter I’s holding of a de novo scope of Tax Court record. See Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 115 (2008) (en banc).  But, I seriously doubt that is what Judge Goeke intends to say.

Thanks for Carl for finding these opinions and providing his insight.  As you can see from these opinions the new provision applies to innocent spouse cases already tried as well as those pending.  Since the first two opinions do not require a retrial, reopening the record or additional briefs, perhaps that pattern will follow in decisions to come.  Anyone with a pending innocent spouse case needs to pay careful attention to this issue and develop the record accordingly.

Overpayment Interest – Is the Tide Turning?, Part Two

Guest blogger Bob Probasco returns with the second of a two-part post on developments in overpayment interest litigation. Christine

In the last post, I discussed the latest developments in the Paresky and Pfizer cases.  The latter in particular was an important milestone that may change how courts approach the issue of district court jurisdiction for taxpayer suits seeking interest payable to them by the government on tax refunds.  This post turns to Bank of America, with some additional general observations.

These cases involve the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), which provides district court jurisdiction over tax refund suits.  Does it also offer jurisdiction for suits for overpayment interest, even though technically those are not refund suits?  The government says no, but taxpayers may argue it does, in order to escape the $10,000 dollar limitation for district court jurisdiction under the “little” Tucker Act, § 1346(a)(2).  If § 1346(a)(1) provides jurisdiction for these overpayment interest suits, which statute of limitations applies – the general six-year statute of limitations under § 2401 or the two-year statute of limitations for refund suits under section 6532(a)(1)?

As discussed in the last post, the report and recommendation by the magistrate judge in Paresky concluded that the Southern District of Florida had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) but the suit should be dismissed because the refund claim was not filed timely.  We’re waiting to see what the district court judge thinks.  In Pfizer, we had the first Circuit Court decision to directly decide that § 1346(a)(1) does not provide jurisdiction for these kinds of suits, setting up a circuit split.  And in Estate of Culver, the District of Colorado adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Pfizer.  It will be a while before we see what effect, if any, Pfizer has in the Bank of America case, where there has also been a new development.

read more...

What is happening with Bank of America?

Bank of America filed this case in the Western District of North Carolina (WDNC), apparently to avoid an unfavorable precedent in the CFC (see here for details).  The bank’s interest netting case sought both recovery of underpayment interest and additional overpayment interest.  The government filed a motion to transfer the claims requesting overpayment interest to the CFC; in the alternative, to dismiss because § 1346(a)(1) does not cover suits for overpayment interest.  It also suggested that cases filed under § 1346(a)(1) would be subject to the Code refund claim requirement and statute of limitations, sections 7422 and 6532 respectively.  The WDNC denied the government’s motion on June 30, 2019, relying heavily on the Scripps decision.

An interlocutory appeal by the government to the Fourth Circuit seemed more probable than the alternative of waiting until a decision on the merits.  A transfer to the CFC would likely result in certain victory by the government for most of the amount at issue, so it certainly would make sense to challenge the jurisdictional ruling now.   Then I belatedly checked the docket for Bank of America and realized there was a third possibility that I hadn’t even counted upon (gratuitous reference for fellow baby boomers).  The government filed a notice of appeal on August 28, 2019 – not to the Fourth Circuit, but to the Federal Circuit. 

Appellate specialists are probably nodding their heads now and murmuring “of course.”  And they may have been rolling their eyes at my earlier speculation about an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit.  But, alas, I am not an appellage specialist and had never before encountered 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4).  I now know that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction for appeals of a district court interlocutory order granting or denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the CFC.  Before I ran across this provision, I assumed that the CFC and Federal Circuit would never have occasion to rule on a jurisdictional provision that applied only to district courts (more about that below).  But that assumption is apparently wrong.  The WDNC’s denial of the motion to transfer the case to the CFC was based on its determination that district courts do have jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) so that is presumably what the Federal Circuit will have to decide.

The government could also have appealed to the Federal Circuit in the Pfizer case, after the denial by the SDNY back in 2016 of the first motion to dismiss, but did not do so.  Perhaps it wanted to get a ruling on the separate statute of limitations issue.  But it may have just been a case of different strategies by different trial teams.  Pfizer was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the SNDY; while Bank of America was handled by DOJ Tax Division, as was Paresky.

Is there a Supreme Court visit in the future?

We now have a circuit split between the Second (Pfizer) and the Sixth (Scripps).  But the government won in Pfizer, so the taxpayer would have to seek certiorari.  Pfizer may decide to proceed without the favorable Second Circuit precedent; it can still win in the CFC.  Bank of America seems more likely than Pfizer to go to the Supreme Court, since both parties have strong motivations.  The government wants to overrule Scripps and Bank of America would lose most of the value of its interest netting claim if forced to litigate in the CFC.  We’ll have to wait to see how Paresky and Estate of Culver proceed.

A comment on underlying policy

We all recognize the Tax Court’s relative expertise, compared to courts of general jurisdiction, on tax issues.  But there is also a difference in expertise between the CFC and district courts.  The district court jurisdictional structure demonstrates two different policy decisions, aiming in different directions.  The dollar limitation in § 1346(a)(2) – the “little” Tucker Act – was based on a judgement by Congress that the Court of Claims (now the CFC) would have more expertise with claims against the government, because that is a major part of its caseload compared to district courts.  Small claims could be pursued in district courts so that taxpayers wouldn’t have to litigate in far off Washington, D.C., but larger ones should be filed in the Court of Claims.

When the predecessor of § 1346(a)(1) was enacted, it also was subject to a dollar limitation but that limitation was later removed.  That was based on a judgement by Congress that tax refund suits were different from other claims against the government and taxpayers should always be able to litigate those locally instead of with the CFC.

Which of those policy judgements should apply to the specific questions of interest on overpayments and underpayments of tax?

Many years ago, Mary McNulty and I were tracking all significant interest cases (both overpayment interest and underpayment interest).  I recently looked back at the list as of five years ago.  It showed 5 cases filed in district courts and 63 filed in the CFC.  When you factor in the number of district court judges compared to the number of CFC judges, that ratio is orders of magnitude more experience by the CFC judges (as well as the Federal Circuit) with the specific, complex issues of interest.  Most taxpayers chose that forum, although as precedents built up and unresolved issues were narrowed, there may be more motivation for taxpayers to avoid unfavorable precedents in the CFC and Federal Circuit, as in Bank of America.

And a final comment on CFC jurisdiction

I’ve been focusing in all of these blog posts on district court jurisdiction.  But when I discussed Pfizer recently with Jack Townsend, he pointed out something in some of these opinions that I skipped over.  The courts occasionally referred to § 1346(a)(1) as granting jurisdiction to both the district courts and the CFC.  Early in my career, I read the provision that way but over the years I came around to the idea that the reference to the CFC is just a reminder rather than an actual grant of jurisdiction.  I don’t recall offhand ever seeing the CFC refer to that provision as the basis for its jurisdiction over a tax refund suit.  I mentioned that briefly in this blog post but it’s worth pointing out explicitly.

The structure of the statute strongly supports that interpretation.  Section 1346(a)(1) is part of Chapter 85 of Title 28, which is titled “District Courts; Jurisdiction.”  Chapter 91 covers the CFC’s jurisdiction.  The specific language “shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of” appears in § 1346(a) and thus applies not only to § 1346(a)(1) but also to § 1346(a)(2).  The latter certainly doesn’t grant jurisdiction to the CFC for Tucker Act claims, since the CFC already has jurisdiction under § 1491.  And § 1346(a)(2) refers to “any other civil action or claim against the United States,” whereas § 1491 just says “any claim against the United States.”  That convinces me that tax refund suits, covered by § 1346(a)(1), are a “claim against the United States” encompassed within § 1491.

If that doesn’t convince you, Jack’s blog post has a footnote by Judge Allegra on the topic that should.

Overpayment Interest – Is the Tide Turning?, Part One

Today Bob Probasco returns with further updates on overpayment interest litigation, in a two-part post. We are grateful to Bob for following the issue closely and sharing his observations with us. Christine

In August, I wrote about the Bank of America case (here and here), and provided updates on the status of the Pfizer and Paresky cases, all of which addressed the question of district court jurisdiction for taxpayer suits seeking interest payable to them by the government on tax refunds.  Recently we’ve had developments in all three cases, plus one new case.  This post will cover Paresky and Pfizer.  Part Two will move on to Bank of America, speculation concerning where this issue may head next, and some general observations about jurisdiction and policy considerations.

Setting the stage

There are two district court jurisdictional statutes at issue in these cases. This first is 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). It has no dollar limitation. That’s the statute we rely on when filing tax refund suits in district court, so I usually refer to it as “tax refund jurisdiction.” However, some taxpayers argue that this provision also covers suits for overpayment interest, although technically those are not refund suits.  The government strongly opposes that interpretation and we’ve seen a lot of litigation over the issue recently.

The second is § 1346(a)(2), which provides jurisdiction for any other claim against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department . . . .” This is commonly referred to as “Tucker Act jurisdiction” and for district courts is limited to claims of $10,000 or less. The comparable jurisdictional statute for the Court of Federal Claims, § 1491(a)(1), has no such dollar limitation.  Practitioners often refer to § 1346(a)(2) as the “little” Tucker Act.

read more...

There are also two different statutes of limitation potentially applicable. The general federal statute of limitations, § 2401 (for district courts or § 2501 for the Court of Federal Claims), requires that complaints be filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. In the Code, section 6532(a)(1) requires the taxpayer to file a refund suit no later than two years after the claim is disallowed.

A preliminary decision in Paresky

In the interest of space, I’ll just refer you back to the earlier blog post for the factual background on Paresky.  The taxpayers originally filed in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).  That court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the suit because the applicable six-year statute of limitations in § 2501 began running in 2010 and had expired.  The Pareskys had previously requested that the court transfer the suit to the Southern District of Florida (SDF), in response to the government’s motion to dismiss, and the CFC agreed.  That would allow the Pareskys to try to persuade the SDF that § 1346(a)(1) covers claims for overpayment interest and that the two-year statute of limitations in section 6532(a)(1) applies.

After the transfer, the government quickly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that § 1346(a)(1) did not apply and that the Pareskys’ claim exceeded the $10,000 limit for jurisdiction under the “little” Tucker Act.  On August 30, 2019, the magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation.  The report agreed with the Pareskys that § 1346(a)(1) covers claims for overpayment interest but also agreed with the government that taxpayers have to file an administrative refund claim within the time limitations set forth in the Code.  They had done so timely for the 2007 tax year but not for the earlier years.  The Pareskys argued for equitable estoppel based on the directions they had received from IRS personnel, but the judge was not convinced.  She concluded that equitable estoppel for the timely refund claim requirement is not available, based on the decision in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997).  Technically, Brockamp involved an equitable tolling claim but the judge quoted a statement in the decision that suggested application to any equitable doctrines.

This is still a preliminary decision, not yet adopted by the district court judge in the case.  Both parties filed objections (on different grounds) to the report and recommendation on September 10, 2019; both parties filed a response to the other side’s objections on September 19, 2019; and the government then filed a reply on October 7th.  We’re still waiting to hear from the district court judge.  That decision may be complicated by the development in our next case.

A new decision in Pfizer

The IRS mailed refund checks to Pfizer within the 45-day safe harbor of section 6611(e).  The checks were never received, and the IRS eventually direct deposited a replacement approximately a year later, without overpayment interest.  The IRS takes the position that when the original refund check is issued timely but never received, the replacement refund still falls within section 6611(e).  (Some exceptions to this position are set forth in I.R.M 20.2.4.7.3.) Pfizer filed suit in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), asserting jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) to take advantage of the favorable Doolin v. United States, 918 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1990) precedent on the issue of interest on replacement refund checks. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that district courts only have jurisdiction for standalone suits for overpayment interest under the “little” Tucker Act but the amount at issue exceeded the $10,000 limit. The court agreed with Pfizer and denied that motion to dismiss.  The court granted a second motion to dismiss, because the refund statute of limitations under section 6532(a)(1) had expired before suit was filed.  Pfizer argued that the general six-year statute of limitations in § 2401 applied.  But the court agreed with the government regarding the statute of limitations and dismissed the case.

In the first motion to dismiss, Pfizer requested that the case be transferred to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) if the motion to dismiss were granted.  That was denied when the SDNY ruled that it had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1).  In the second motion to dismiss, Pfizer did not make the same request for transfer.  The government also did not recommend transfer.  But on appeal, Pfizer asked that the Second Circuit, if it affirmed the decision by the SDNY, transfer the case.  That would allow the case to proceed, as suit was filed within the six-year general statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims, although the Second Circuit precedent Pfizer wanted to rely on would not be binding in the CFC.  

The government argued that if the Second Circuit concluded that § 1346(a)(1) applies to suits for overpayment interest but affirmed the SDNY because of the statute of limitations issue, it should not transfer the case because it was not timely when originally filed in the SDNY.  This struck me as over-reaching.  The CFC does not apply the Code statute of limitations to these cases and under the CFC’s jurisdictional statute (more discussion below), it would have been timely filed.   The argument that transfer would not be in the interests of justice because Pfizer had successfully resisted transfer under the first motion of dismiss might carry more weight.  In any event, the government said that it would not oppose transfer if the Second Circuit concluded that § 1346(a)(1) does not apply to suits for overpayment interest.  That is the result the government was hoping for.

On September 16, 2019, the Second Circuit ruled – and the government got exactly what it was hoping for.  The court disagreed completely with the analysis by the district court and in E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005).  The text in § 1346(a)(1) that those decisions relied on – “a sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected” – did not apply to suits for overpayment interest.  Read in harmony with the rest of the statute, that would “plainly refer to amounts the taxpayer has previously paid to the government and which the taxpayer now seeks to recover.”  Further, “any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected” is written in present-perfect tense, indicating that “excessive” or “wrongfully collected” occurred in the past, that is, an assessment previously paid by the taxpayer.  Finally, dicta in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), stating that “any sum” would encompass interest, was clearly referring to underpayment interest based on the context.  The Second Circuit therefore transferred the case to the CFC.

Judge Lohier filed a concurrence to point out that if the district court had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1), it would have been subject to the Code statute of limitations and Pfizer would have lost anyway.  He rejected Pfizer’s attempt to disassociate § 1346(a)(1) and section 7422 of the Code.  Keith and Carl had filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the filing deadline in section 6532(a) applies, it is not jurisdictional and is subject to estoppel or equitable tolling arguments.  The judge rejected equitable tolling in a footnote due to the lack of an “extraordinary circumstance” but did not mention estoppel.  But it’s a footnote in a concurrence, so this is still an open question.

I found the statutory interpretation in this decision much more persuasive than that in Scripps, although the statute may be sufficiently ambiguous that other courts could reasonably disagree.  In any event, this is a significant milestone.  Before Pfizer, Scripps was the only other Circuit Court decision to have directly ruled on this issue.  (Sunoco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 663 F.3d 181, 190 (3d Cir. 2011) suggested the same interpretation, but that was dicta.)

What effect will this have on other cases?  On October 7th, in Estate of Culver v. United States, the district court for the District of Colorado also adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit and transferred that case to the CFC.  Even district court decisions disagreeing with Scripps have been rare, so this may also be a sign that the tide is turning.  As with Bank of America, an immediate appeal of that order would go to the Federal Circuit.

As one might expect, the government quickly brought the Pfizer decision (on September 18th) and the Culver decision (October 7th) to the attention of the SDF in the Paresky case.  If the district court judge is influenced by Pfizer and rejects the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Pareskys may have to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and hope that court agrees with Scripps

It will be a while before we see what effect, if any, Pfizer has in the Bank of America case, where there has also been a new development.  I’ll turn to that in Part Two.

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Report on Passport Revocation

It’s the season for annual reports from TIGTA.  In 1998, Congress ordered TIGTA to create annual reports on several aspects of IRS operations.  In addition to those mandated reports, many of which would benefit from a longer timeline at this point, TIGTA also performs regular audits to check on IRS performance.  We will be writing on some of the annual reports as we have done in the past.  On September 19, 2019, it issued a report on passport revocation. While this may not have many surprises, it does provide a fair amount of detail on whose tax debts the IRS has targeted for passport revocation, how many have been revoked, and what has happened after the sending of the revocation.

read more...

As of December 20, 2018, the IRS had certified 306,988 taxpayers for passport revocation.  Of those individuals, by that same date the IRS had decertified 68,764 of the cases, or not quite 25%.  By May 17, 2019, the IRS had decertified 99,867 taxpayers.  Before getting too excited about all of the money the IRS must have collected in order to decertify this many taxpayers, you must look at the list TIGTA created of the reasons for decertification.  Here is the breakdown of the bases for decertification:

Decertification Reason Number of Taxpayers Percentage of Decertifications
     
Pending Installment Agreement 18,516 19%
Installment Agreement 8,596 9%
Full Paid 6,815 7%
Pending Offer in Compromise 5,887 6%
Pending Full Pay Adjustment 224 <1%
Accepted Offer in Compromise 24 <1%
     
Total of Compliant Taxpayers 40,062 40%
     
Disaster Zone 27,137 27%
CSED Expiration 11,507 12%
Currently Not Collectible Hardship 8,716 9%
Bankruptcy 3,597 4%
Deceased taxpayer 2,696 3%
CDP Hearing 2,262 2%
Identity Theft 1,663 2%
Threshold18 1,045 1%
Manual Block/Other 472 <1%
Innocent Spouse 438 <1%
Erroneous Decertification 244 <1%
Combat Zone 28 <1%
     
Total of Noncompliant Taxpayers 59,805 60%
     
Total of All Decertifications 99,867 100%

Source: Passport Program Office.

About 40% of the decertifications resulted from actions TIGTA described as compliance, while the remaining 60% resulted from the statutory or administrative basis for recertification other than compliance.  Even within the compliance category, pending or actual installment agreements comprise, by far, the largest number of taxpayers coming into compliance.  So, the revocation of the passports of these taxpayers did not, as of yet, result in many fully paid accounts – only 6,815 of the almost 100,000 cases decertified (or looking at it another way only 6,815 of the over 300,000 taxpayers sent for revocation.  This does not seem like much bang for the passport revocation buck, but the TIGTA report does not approach its investigation in this manner.

We are not provided with how much it has cost the IRS to implement this collection tool nor are we provided with the dollars collected at this point.  Without that type of analysis, it is not possible to draw conclusions on the success of the revocation legislation.  TIGTA does say that the revocation program has brought many taxpayers back into payment compliance and has resulted in hundreds of millions in revenue.  That sounds positive from an enforcement point of view.

The biggest reason for decertifying the revocation surprised me.  Almost 27% of the decertifications resulted from applying the disaster zone rules.  I do not know enough about how many disasters existed.  I would not have expected this many decertifications for this reason, but they may just reflect my ignorance of the coverage of the disaster zones.  The second largest reason, CSED expiration, did not surprise me.  The chart gives a great picture of what happens once the IRS revokes someone’s passport.  The most likely thing to happen, which the chart shows by negative implication, is the taxpayer does not address the revocation and, I assume, does not care or feels powerless to do anything.

Of course, the report finds that the IRS certified some taxpayers for revocation that it should not have.  It identifies most of the problems in this area as a result of not correctly calculating the impact of the statute of limitations on collection.

The other interesting part of the report is the discussion of who the IRS identified for revocation in the first phase of the program and who it has identified next.  The first phase targeted taxpayers with “simple” tax debt in the IRS parlance.  The IRS considers simple debt as debt resulting from “filing single, head of household, married filing separately, or married filing jointly status for which the filing status of the primary and secondary filers is consistent from tax year to tax year.”

Now the IRS has started looking at taxpayers with complex debt.  It considers complex debt as aggregate debt from a variety of filing statuses “on different tax modules with an outstanding tax liability.”  As of March 22, 2019, the IRS had identified 69,460 taxpayers with complex debt of more than $52,000.  The report says that the IRS expects to send notices for these taxpayers starting in September 2019.

The report provides an interesting window into the passport program.  Much more data will inevitably be available in the future.  My limited view of the program suggests that it highly motivates some individuals to come forward and work with the IRS in situations in which they had not previously done.  Because the program limits constitutional rights, I hope that Congress takes a hard look at its success to ensure that increased collection justifies the limitation of travel rights of some.

Second Circuit Reverses Tax Court in Borenstein

This post got lost and so comes onto the site about six months after I wrote it, but it still might be of interest to some.  Thanks to Jack Townsend for asking about it.  I wrote it just before I took off on my cross country bicycling trip and failed to keep a good track on it as it went to my research assistant.  Keith

The Tax Court held in Borenstein v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 263 (2017) that a taxpayer who filed her return late and after the IRS had issued a notice of deficiency could not obtain a refund given the specific timing of her late return and the notice of deficiency.  We discussed the case here.  The interpretation of the IRS and the Tax Court in the case created an odd “donut-hole” in the statute during which the taxpayer could not file a late return and obtain a refund if during the applicable time the IRS had sent a notice of deficiency.

The Tax Court reached the decision in the case by interpreting the plain language of the statute and applying an interpretive maxim.  The Second Circuit did not find the language as plain or the maxim as applicable and reversed the decision of the Tax Court allowing Ms. Borenstein to receive a refund of almost $40,000 plus interest.  The tax clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard partnered with the tax clinic at Georgia State to file an amicus brief in support of Ms. Borenstein because we thought his issue likely to impact low income taxpayers.

read more...

Ms. Borenstein filed a request to extend the time to file her 2012 individual income tax return from April 15, 2013 to October 15, 2013.  Even though she timely and properly filed the request for an extension of time to file her return, she failed to file the return by the extended due date.  She had a lot of stock sales.  The IRS assigned a zero basis to the stock and eventually sent her a notice of deficiency stating that she owed over $1 million in taxes largely resulting from the sale of stock.  The IRS sent the notice of deficiency on June 19, 2015.  Ms. Borenstein filed her return, showing an almost $40,000 refund because her stock did not have a zero basis, on August 29, 2015.

Because of the timing of the notice of deficiency and of the late filed return, the IRS took the position that IRC 6213(b)(3) prohibited her from obtaining a refund.  The facts in the case were not in dispute.  The only issue was the interpretation of the statute and whether it created an unusual donut-hole time period during which a taxpayer could not file their return and obtain a refund, as the IRS argued, or whether the taxpayer had a continuous time period within which to file the return and still obtain a refund. 

Because this is the first and only case seeking an interpretation of the statute on this issue and because the administrative importance is low as signaled by the lack of litigation over the 20-year span since the statutory provision at issue came into existence, it seems extremely unlikely that the IRS will seek certiorari in this case.  Whether it will make the same argument if the issue arises in another circuit remains to be seen.  I hope that the opinion will cause it to rethink its position.

Congress took a look at IRC 6213 and the refund provision in it after the Supreme Court decided the case of Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996).  Lundy involved the look back period for refund claims and produced a surprising result causing the changes to the statute.  The Second Circuit described the Congressional intent in changing the statute as follows:

A taxpayer who files a tax return, and within three years after that filing is mailed a notice of deficiency from the Commissioner, is entitled to a look‐back period of at least three years. However, prior to Congress’s amendment of the governing statute, a taxpayer who had not filed a return before the mailing of a notice of deficiency‐‐like Borenstein‐‐was entitled only to a default two‐year look‐back period. Accordingly, Congress, seeking to extend the look‐back period available to such non‐filing taxpayers, provided that if a notice of deficiency is mailed “during the third year after the due date (with extensions) for filing the return,” and if no return was filed before the notice of deficiency was mailed, the applicable look‐back period is three years. This is called the “flush
language” of 26 U.S.C. § 6512(b)(3).

Ms. Borenstein filed her return during the third year after the original due date of the return and after the notice of deficiency.  If Congress had not changed the statute, the Lundy case would have prevented her from obtaining a refund because she filed the return more than two years after the original due date and after the issuance of the statutory notice.  She argued that the change in the statute opened the door for her to obtain the refund, but the IRS said if you carefully looked at the statute it did not work that way for someone who had requested an extension of time to file the return and then filed late.  Looking at the language of the statute quoted above, the IRS argued and the Tax Court accepted that:

“(with extensions)” has the effect of delaying by six
months the beginning of the “third year after the due date, ….”

Under this interpretation, the Tax Court could only look back two years. She had no payments within the two-year period as her payments were deemed made on the original due date of the return.

Borenstein looked at the statute and found different meaning:

Borenstein argues that “(with extensions)” has the effect of extending by six months the “third year after the due date,” and therefore that the notice of deficiency, mailed 26 months after the due date, was mailed during the third year. That would mean that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to look back three years, which would reach the due date and allow Borenstein to recover her overpayment.

The Second Circuit sided with Borenstein but examined the Tax Court decision and explained why it disagreed with that decision.  It described the Tax Court’s basis for the decision as follows:

[T]he Tax Court determined that the meaning of the flush language of 26 U.S.C. § 6512(b)(3) is unambiguous, relying heavily on the canon of statutory construction known as the “rule of the last antecedent” to find that “(with extensions)” modifies only “due date.” However, that canon “is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003). Here, it does not yield a clear answer.

What the Tax Court found clear, the Second Circuit did not:

While the Tax Court determined that “(with extensions)” modifies the noun “due date,” it is at least as plausible that “(with extensions)” modifies the phrase “third year after the due date,” thereby extending the third year. Accordingly, because the flush language of 26 U.S.C. § 6512(b)(3) supports more than one interpretation, we “consult legislative history and other tools of statutory construction to discern Congress’s meaning.” 

Once it determined it could look at legislative history, the Second Circuit determined that in amending IRC 6213(b)(3) after Lundy, Congress was trying to create a path for taxpayers to have a three-year lookback period in Tax Court in order to obtain their refund.  Congress did not like the fact that a taxpayer had been cut off from obtaining a refund just because the IRS had sent a notice of deficiency prior to the end of three years from the original due date.  Cutting off taxpayers who received a notice of deficiency created disparate treatment among taxpayers who were similarly situated.  Given the Congressional goal in amending the statute, it makes the most sense to read the statute in the way proposed by Ms. Borenstein.  Of course, the Second Circuit needed to throw in a maxim that supported its conclusion and in doing so gave some good language to taxpayers for future cases:

Our conclusion is supported by “the longstanding canon of construction that where ‘the words [of a tax statute] are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer,’” a principle of which “we are particularly mindful.” Exxon Mobil Corp. & Affiliated Cos. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 689 F.3d 191, 199‐200 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 188 (1923)). As Borenstein notes, the Tax Court’s interpretation creates a six‐month “black hole” into which her refund disappears, a result that unreasonably harms the taxpayer and is not required by the statutory language.
 
Moreover, the interpretation we adopt is consistent with the language of 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A), which provides for a look‐back period “equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return.” 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). In view of our obligation to resolve doubtful language in tax statutes against the government and in favor of the taxpayer, we conclude that “(with extensions)” has the same effect as does the similar language that existed in § 6511(b)(2)(A) at the time of § 6512(b)(3)’s amendment‐‐that is, the language expand.

The Second Circuit opinion makes sense to me.  I think it achieves the intent of Congress in “fixing” the statute after Lundy.  It also avoids what seems like an absurd result the IRS interpretation achieves by avoiding the six month black hole or donut hole.  Taxpayers should file their returns on time.  If they do not file on time, they can suffer significant consequences including the total loss of their refund if they wait too long.  Taxpayers, however, should receive three years within which to file their late returns and still receive a refund whether or not the IRS issues a notice of deficiency. 

Taxpayer First Act Update: Innocent Spouse Tangles Begin

Last week many of the PT bloggers spoke at the ABA Tax Section Fall Meeting. One of sessions discussed recent developments relating to innocent spouse relief. This post provides a brief update on how the IRS and the Tax Court are grappling with the Taxpayer First Act’s changes to the innocent spouse provisions.

read more...

We have blogged before about the Taxpayer First Act’s changes to the innocent spouse provisions. After the TFA was enacted on July 1, 2019, Steve Milgrom and Carl Smith flagged many questions raised by the legislation. Carl Smith discussed his concerns about the proposed innocent spouse legislation in the Taxpayer First Act here and here back in April before it became law. 

The changes discussed at the ABA meeting affect how the Tax Court reviews IRS decisions on innocent spouse relief. Steve Milgrom explained:

On July 1, 2019 President Trump signed the Taxpayer First Act  (TFA) into law. One provision of the TFA, section 1203, makes procedural amendments to the innocent spouse rules …. The new provision defines the scope and standard of review that govern the Tax Court’s review of an IRS determination. Basically, “scope of review” deals with what the court will consider in making its decision, what evidence it will look at. A court’s “standard of review” defines how much deference to give to the decision (determination) made by, in tax cases, the Commissioner.

The Taxpayer First Act added a new paragraph to section 6015(e):

(7) STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW. — Any review of a determination made under this section shall be reviewed de novo by the Tax Court and shall be based upon —
(A) the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and
(B) any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.

This new standard applies “to petitions or requests filed or pending on or after the date of the enactment” of the Act, which was July 1, 2019. At the ABA meeting, IRS speaker Julie Payne reported that between 300 and 350 standalone innocent spouse cases are generally pending in U.S. Tax Court at any given moment. All of those cases are now subject to the new standard. The question of how the new language applies is an immediate one for the Court and the Service. The Tax Court must decide not only how it will conduct trials, but how to address cases that have already been tried but are pending the court’s decision.

I will not repeat the points made and questions identified by Carl and Steve but I encourage readers to review the PT post of July 9 and the comments on that post for an understanding of the many ways in which the new statutory language is problematic.

Several Tax Court judges have responded to the Taxpayer First Act by issuing orders to the parties, asking the parties to address the effect of the Act on their case. William Schmidt links to one of these orders by Judge Copeland in a recent Designated Order post. Similar orders were issued by Special Trial Judge Leyden and by Judge Thornton, and there are likely others by now.

Judge Leyden issued the first of these orders on July 24 in Grady v. Commissioner, Docket No. 016411-17S, and the first IRS response was filed in that case on September 23. (Ms. Grady is self-represented.) Additional filings were due in other cases on October 4 and October 10. I do not have copies of those submissions but would welcome them if any enterprising readers would like to order them from the Tax Court. Thanks to Sheri Dillon and Francesca Robbins of Morgan Lewis for obtaining the Grady filing at short notice last week, in time for discussion at the Tax Section Meeting. The other cases are:

  • Rubin v. Comm’r, Docket No. 26604-14 (J. Thornton) – response due 10/4.
  • Bargeron v. Comm’r, Docket No. 019828-17 (J. Thornton) – response due 10/4.
  • Robinson v. Comm’r, Docket No. 12498-16, (J. Copeland) – response due 10/4.
  • Morales v. Comm’r, Docket No. 25380-18S (J. Leyden) – response due 10/10.

The IRS speakers at the Tax Section meeting did not discuss the Taxpayer First Act submissions, as the matter is the subject of ongoing litigation, and the Service has not formalized its position. However, Respondent’s submission in Grady is instructive of the Service’s current litigating position. I recommend reading the full response, but are the highlights.

Respondent’s Position in Grady

On the standard of review, Respondent agrees that the Taxpayer First Act is clear: the standard of review is de novo in all cases brought under 6015(e). The Tax Court does not review the IRS’s determination for abuse of discretion but instead reaches its own determination of the appropriate relief. This applies to all avenues for relief under 6015, including traditional innocent spouse relief under 6015(b), separation of liability under 6015(c), and equitable relief under 6015(f).

The scope of review is the tricky part. Even though the Tax Court is to come to its own conclusions, the new statutory language appears to limit the evidence that the Tax Court can consider in making its determination. New 6015(e)(7) says the Tax Court’s de novo review “shall be based upon (A) the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and (B) any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.” Respondent’s filing takes each in turn.

The administrative record

Congress did not define what it means by the administrative record here. In Grady, Respondent submits that the term should have essentially the same meaning as it does in Collection Due Process cases. The Treasury regulations at section 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q&A-F4 define administrative record as

The case file, including the taxpayer’s request for hearing, any other written communications and information from the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s authorized representative submitted in connection with the CDP hearing, notes made by an Appeals officer or employee of any oral communications with the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s authorized representative, memoranda created by the Appeals officer or employee in connection with the CDP hearing, and any other documents or materials relied upon by the Appeals officer or employee in making the determination under section 6330(c)(3) …

In applying this definition to the innocent spouse context, Respondent notes

Obvious changes might include substituting “IRS or IRS employee” for “Appeals Officer or employee” and removing references to section 6330, as appropriate. Relevant documents could include: tax returns; notice of deficiency; documents where petitioner acknowledges deficiency (e.g., form 4549, statement of income tax changes); account transcripts; Form 8857 and any attachments; any documents submitted by petitioner; any documents submitted by [the] non-requesting spouse; CCISO’s or Appeal’s final determination; allocation/attribution worksheets; any statement of disagreement by petitioner and/or non-requesting spouse; CCISO’s or Appeal’s workpapers; Integrated Collection System (ICS) history, or financial information.

Newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence

Respondent turns to the dictionary to interpret the terms “additional” “newly discovered” and “previously unavailable.”

Combining these various dictionary definitions suggests the scope of review should encompass supplementary evidence of which a party was recently made aware, but could not get or use before. Applied specifically to innocent spouse claims, the plain meaning suggests that the scope of review is limited to evidence not already provided or existing in the administrative record, of which the party introducing the evidence became aware since the administrative determination, and which the party introducing the evidence could not have obtained and provided before the administrative determination.

In a footnote, Respondent further suggests

As to words of the statute that denote timing, i.e. “newly” and “previously,” (e)(7)(B), these are perhaps best understood with reference to the administrative determination. Accordingly, “newly” would cover the period of time after the administrative determination, whereas “previously” would encompass the time period before the determination.

Next steps

What does all this mean for Ms. Grady, in Respondent’s view?

As to the specific case in issue here, as a result of the amendment, it may be necessary for the parties to either agree what constitutes the administrative file and whether other evidence presented at trial was newly discovered or previously unavailable, or if the parties cannot agree, to hold a supplementary hearing to determine whether the Court is in full possession of the administrative record, and whether any evidence presented to the Court was not newly discovered or previously unavailable under section 6015(e)(7)(B).

This will not be welcome news to Ms. Grady.

Initial Thoughts

As others have commented, limiting the Court’s scope of review while setting a de novo standard of review makes very little sense, particularly in equitable relief cases and cases in which abuse is a factor. Unfortunately, taxpayers seeking relief will be caught up in delays and litigation over these provisions.

At the Tax Section meeting, attendees suggested that the parties simply waive any evidentiary objections under the Taxpayer First Act, at least as to cases that have already been tried. The Robinson trial took place over a year and a half ago, in February 2018. The Grady case was tried a year ago. In the interests of the efficient resolution of cases, and in fairness to the self-represented petitioners for whom further proceedings could pose a hardship, the parties could agree to have the Court decide the case based on the evidence submitted.

The administrative record was another topic of discussion. In many cases, the administrative record is simply poor, and it is not possible for the court to reach a de novo determination without fleshing out what happened in the administrative proceedings. Innocent spouse cases are fact-intensive and involve taxpayers telling nearly their entire life story to the examiner. Unfortunately, phone calls between the spouses and IRS and Appeals employees are not recorded and there is no reliable transcript of what was said. IRS employees’ case notes vary in quality, and taxpayers are not allowed to record these calls themselves.

Les recently noted that “last year’s Tax Court’s discussion of exceptions to the record rule in Kasper (the whistleblower case) will be even more important” in the context of the Taxpayer First Act. In a post on Kasper last year, he discusses the issue in the context of general administrative law principles. Les noted:

What makes Kasper one of the most significant tax procedure cases of the new year is that in reaching those conclusions it walks us through and synthesizes scope and standard of review and Chenery principles in other areas, such as spousal relief under Section 6015 and CDP cases under Section 6220 and 6330.

In what I believe is potentially even more significant is its discussion of exceptions within the record rule that allow parties to supplement the record at trial. To that end the opinion lists DC Circuit (which it notes in an early footnote would likely be the venue for an appeal even though the whistleblower lived in AZ ) summary of those exceptions:

• when agency action is not adequately explained in the record;
• when the agency failed to consider relevant factors;
• when the agency considered evidence which it failed to include in the record;
• when a case is so complex that a court needs more evidence to enable it to understand the issues clearly;
• where there is evidence that arose after the agency action showing whether the decision was correct or not; and
• where the agency’s failure to take action is under review

Established exceptions to the record rule in other contexts may provide some relief in cases where the administrative record falls short of what is reasonably necessary for a de novo determination. For example, where it is clear from the record that a specific contention was made during the administrative process, but the IRS case notes do not adequately describe the testimony given, the Tax Court may be able to take testimony on that specific point.

This post has barely scratched the surface of the Taxpayer First Act issues the Tax Court will grapple with in pending innocent spouse cases. We will continue to blog about developments in this area as they unfold.

D.C. Circuit Denies DOJ En Banc Rehearing Petition in Myers Whistleblower Case

Just a short update:  In Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019), on which I blogged here, the majority of a 3-judge panel held that the 30-day deadline in section 7623(b)(4) to file a whistleblower award petition in the Tax Court is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling.  In a petition for en banc rehearing in Myers, on which I blogged here, the DOJ argued that not only was the panel wrong, but it had set up a clear conflict with the Ninth Circuit in Duggan v. Commissioner, 879 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir., 2018).  In Duggan, the Ninth Circuit held that the very-similarly-worded 30-day deadline in section 6330(d)(1) to file a Collection Due Process petition in the Tax Court is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.  On October 4, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued an order denying the DOJ’s petition for en banc rehearing.  In the order, the court noted that none of the 11 D.C. Circuit judges (plus Senior Judge Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion) requested a vote on the petition for en banc rehearing.  Thus, that means that even dissenting Judge Henderson did not ask for a vote on the petition. 

Now, the Solicitor General will have to decide how upset the government is and whether to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.  Will the apparent indifference of all of the judges of the D.C. Circuit to reviewing the matter en banc suggest to the Solicitor General that maybe a majority of the Supreme Court will also think the Myers opinion is correct?