A Light Week at the Court Shines the Light on Pro Se Taxpayers Designated Orders: 11/12 – 11/17/2018

Docket No. 21411-17L, Dail v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

Judge Thornton grants Respondent’s motion for summary judgment nearly in full. This CDP case with a tax protestor flavor arose from returns that Mr. Dail filed for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

In April 2015, Mr. Dail filed amended returns for each year, in addition to 2009 and 2013. These amended returns reported $0 of taxable income, notwithstanding wages reported on a W2. He also attached to the returns a Form 4852 (a substitute for a Form W2 or 1099), which also reported $0 of wages. The Forms 4582 claimed that the wages are not taxable under sections 3401 and 3121 (which define “wages” for federal income and FICA tax withholding purposes, respectively). Mr. Dail also attached various documents that purported to exempt his wages from taxation, arguing that he was a “private sector citizen (non-federal employee) employed by a private sector company (non-federal employer).”

The Service did not take kindly to these amended returns. It rejected the returns and assessed frivolous return filing penalties under section 6702 of $5,000 per return. An original return filed for 2014 also earned Mr. Dail a $5,000 penalty under section 6702, along with a Notice of Deficiency for the underreported tax and an accuracy penalty under section 6662(a).

Subsequently, Mr. Dail received a Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Notices of Intent to Levy for each year in February 2017 and timely field a CDP hearing request—noting again that he’s not liable for any taxes of any sort, and that the IRS didn’t send him a summary record of assessment. He did not seek any collection alternative, but did ask for withdrawal of the NFTL.

The Settlement Officer in the CDP hearing found that he only raised frivolous issues as to the underlying liability, and issued a Notice of Determination sustaining both the NFTL and the levies. Mr. Dail timely petitioned the Notice of Determination to the Tax Court.

Respondent eventually filed the present motion for summary judgment. Mr. Dail didn’t respond; this means that Judge Thornton could have granted the motion solely on that basis under Tax Court Rule 121(d).

But as Tax Court judges often do, Judge Thornton evaluates the merits in this case. Regarding the income tax debts, because Mr. Dail only presented frivolous arguments regarding his underlying liability, section 6330(g) provides that the Tax Court could not consider them (though Judge Thornton cites 6330(c)(2)(B)). Judge Thornton also upheld the section 6702 penalties; he could consider them in a CDP case because Mr. Dail had had no prior opportunity to dispute the liability, given that the Service may assess such penalties directly. He found that the penalties were appropriate because (1) Mr. Dail filed documents purporting to be returns, (2) his claims that his wages were not taxable was substantially incorrect on its face, and (3) his conduct was based on a position that the Service previously identified as frivolous. Finally, Judge Thornton finds no abuse of discretion in the Settlement Officer’s analysis of the collection issues in the CDP Hearing. He also warns Mr. Dail of a section 6673 penalty if he persists in these sorts of arguments.

Respondent, however, doesn’t quite get to a full resolution of the case. For tax year 2014, the Service issued a Notice of Deficiency as to this frivolous return seeking to assess the proper amount of tax on Mr. Dail’s wages. The Notice included a small accuracy penalty. Judge Thornton held that Mr. Dail was also barred from challenging 2014 because he received the Notice of Deficiency and had the opportunity then to petition the Tax Court, but did not.

Nevertheless, Judge Thornton denies summary judgment as to the 6662(a) penalty, because Respondent’s counsel promised, but did not deliver, documents supporting the managerial approval of the penalty required under section 6751.

It seems, at first blush, odd that Judge Thornton could and did deny summary judgment on this issue. He could have simply ruled in Respondent’s favor under Rule 121(d). Mr. Dail was barred from challenging the underlying 2014 liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B) because he’d had a prior opportunity to do so. He was also potentially barred under section 6330(g), because the issues he raised were frivolous.

So how did Judge Thornton reach this result? First, the Tax Court Rules are not ironclad; Tax Court judges often waive harshness under the Rules for pro se taxpayers. Judge Thornton certainly has the discretion to do so here. Further, the particular issue—managerial approval under 6751—isn’t a frivolous issue at all. So the bar under section 6330(g) probably doesn’t apply. Moreover, while Mr. Dail is barred from raising the issue under section 6330(c)(2)(B), the Service must consider, under section 6330(c)(1), whether the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. The Court has authority to review the Service’s analysis under an abuse of discretion analysis. Failure to consider the requirement under 6751 would constitute an abuse of discretion, and so the Court may order the Service to consider the issue. If Respondent’s counsel has the goods, then the Court may resolve this case without a remand to Appeals. If not, then a remand may theoretically be appropriate; more likely, however, Respondent’s counsel will conclude that the approval documents do not exist, and—to expedite their and Appeals’ workload—will concede the issue to fully resolve the case.

Docket No. 307-18L, Chang v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In Chang, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in this CDP case. Petitioner challenged years 1999 through 2010 and 2014 in the Tax Court. Respondent countered that, as to years 2003 and 2008, the Service sent a Notice of Intent to Levy on January 12, 2016 and received a CDP request on February 16. (The other years were more clearly barred from a Tax Court challenge, stemming as they did from an NFTL, for which Petitioner requested a CDP hearing four months late, rather than four days. He’d also challenged 1999 to 2002 in a prior CDP case in the Tax Court).

Petitioner’s CDP request for 2003 and 2008 “[did] not bear a postmark”. Therefore, Judge Leyden ordered Respondent (and later Petitioner) to research and present to the Court evidence on the mailing time between Petitioner’s home and the address on the CDP notice, which appear to both be in Hawai’i. Respondent filed a declaration from customer service manager of the “Downtown Station of Hawaii” (I’m not really sure where “Downtown Hawaii” is…), indicating that the letter was necessarily mailed on February 13, due to intervening weekends and holidays.

Petitioner filed an objection to Respondent’s declaration, noting that it can take up to two days for mail to be delivered between zip codes 96813 and 96816. For those curious, both zip codes are located near downtown Honolulu, Hawai’i, so interisland mailing (which might reasonably take longer than one day), is not in play.

So, Judge Leyden gave Petitioner an opportunity to submit similar information as did Respondent, ordering that Petitioner should present evidence about “when an envelope, properly addressed to the IRS requesting a CDP hearing would ordinarily have been received at the IRS and attach as an exhibit any statement by a U.S. Postal Service employee that petitioner obtains in support of his assertion that the CDP hearing request was timely mailed.”

A few questions that remain for me: how was the mailing delivered without a postmark? I originally thought that Respondent should simply argue that Petitioner cannot rely on the mailbox rule of section 7502, because under the applicable regulations at 26 C.F.R. 7502(c)(1)(iii), the envelope was not properly posted. But of course, the envelope did arrive at the Service, so it must have borne some postmark. The U.S. Postal Service is, after all, not in the business of delivering unposted envelopes. Hopefully Judge Leyden will designate a future order in this matter, so that we can discover the rest of the story.