My apologies for this delayed post; I had my head so buried in the Designated Orders statistics from our panel at the ABA Tax Section’s Midyear Meeting that I neglected the substantive orders from December. Worry no longer: here are the orders from December 9 – 13. Not discussed in depth is an order from Judge Guy granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in a routine CDP case, along with an order from Judge Gustafson sorting out various discovery disputes in Lamprecht, Docket No. 14410-15, which has appeared in designated orders now for the seventh time. Bill and Caleb covered earlier orders here and here.
As I mentioned during the panel, Designated Orders often resolve difficult, substantive issues on the merits. These orders are no exception. There were two cases that dealt with the deductibility of conservation easements. (Really, there were four dockets resulting in an order disposing of petitioner’s motion for summary judgment from Judge Buch, and one case resulting in a bench opinion from Judge Gustafson.) I’m not going to get into the substance of conservation easements, as clients in a low income taxpayer clinic seldom run afoul of these rules. Interestingly, this is also the first time we’ve seen a bench opinion in a TEFRA case—at least one that was also a designated order.
I must wonder, however, whether the Court strikes the appropriate balance in resolving substantively complex cases, on the merits, in either manner. While neither Judge Buch’s order nor Judge Gustafson’s bench opinion could have been entered as a Tax Court division opinion—as far as I can tell, they do not break any new ground—they could both easily qualify as memorandum opinions. As a practitioner, I find value in the ability to research cases that appear in reporters—precedential or otherwise. Relegating these cases to the relatively unsophisticated search functions found on the Tax Court’s website often makes it quite difficult to efficiently conduct case research.
Perhaps the Court’s new electronic system in July will remedy some of these issues. Nevertheless, any solution that doesn’t integrate with the systems that practitioners utilize to conduct case research—namely, reporters and the third-party services that catalogue and analyze the cases issued in those reporters—strikes me as inferior.
I fully understand and appreciate the value that the Court and individual judges place on efficiently resolving cases; that is no minor concern. I’ve been informed that issuing a memorandum opinion, as opposed to resolving a case through an order or bench opinion, can tack on months to the case.
But individual judges and the Court as an institution ought to carefully consider (1) whether the Court suffers from systemic problems in efficiently issuing memorandum opinions (and whether anything can be done to remedy these problems) and (2) whether the efficiency concern outweighs practitioners’ and the public’s interest in effective access to the Court’s opinions.
More to come on this point in future posts. But for now, let’s turn to this week’s orders.
Docket No. 13400-18, Fairbank v. C.I.R. (Order Here)
First, a foray into the world of foreign account reporting responsibilities, which Megan Brackney ably covered in this three part series in January. Here, the focus lies not on the penalties themselves, but on another consequence of failing to comply with foreign account reporting requirements: the extension to the assessment statute of limitations under section 6501(c)(8).
Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment in this deficiency case, on the grounds that the statute of limitations on assessment had long since passed. Petitioners timely filed returns for all of the tax years at issue, but the Service issued a Notice of Deficiency for tax years 2003 to 2011 on April 12, 2018—long after the usual 3 year statute of limitations under section 6501(a).
But this case involves allegations that the Petitioners hid their income in unreported foreign bank accounts. And section 6501(c)(8) provides an exception to the general assessment statute where a taxpayer must report information to the IRS under a litany of sections relating to foreign assets, income, or transfers. If applicable, the assessment statute will not expire until 3 years after the taxpayer properly reports such information to the IRS.
The statute applies to “any tax imposed by this title with respect to any tax return, event, or period to which such information relates . . . .” This appears to be the same sort of broad authority in the 6 year statute of limitations (“the tax may be assessed . . . .”) that the Tax Court found to allow the Service to assess additional tax for the year in question, even if it didn’t relate to the underlying item that caused the statute extension. See Colestock v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 380 (1994). While the Tax Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on this question, it is likely that it would reach a similar conclusion for this statute.
Respondent claimed that Ms. Fairbank was a beneficial owner of a foreign trust, Xavana Establishment, from 2003 to 2009, and thus had a reporting requirement under section 6048—one of the operative sections to which 6501(c)(8) applies. Further, for 2009 and 2011, Respondent claimed that Ms. Fairbank was a shareholder of a foreign corporation, Xong Services, Inc.—again triggering a reporting requirement under section 6038 and a potential statute extension under 6501(c)(8). Respondent finally claimed that Ms. Fairbank didn’t satisfy these reporting requirements for Xong Services until June 18, 2015—thus the April 12, 2018 notice would have been timely. Moreover, Respondent claimed, Ms. Fairbank hadn’t satisfied the reporting requirements for Xavana Establishment at all.
It’s important to pause here to note that the reporting requirements under sections 6048 and 6038 are separate from the FBAR reports required under Title 31. While the Petitioners filed an FBAR report for Xong Services, they seem to argue that this filing alone satisfies their general reporting requirements for this interest. That’s just not true; foreign trusts and foreign corporations have independent reporting requirements under the Code, under sections 6048 and 6038, respectively. Specifically, Petitioners needed to file Form 3520 or 3520-A for their foreign trust; they needed to file Form 5471 for their interest in a foreign corporation. And it is failure to comply with these reporting requirements that triggers the assessment statute extension under section 6501(c)(8)—not the failure to file an FBAR (which, of course, would have its own consequences).
Petitioners claimed that they had, in fact, satisfied all reporting requirements for Xavana Establishment at a meeting with a Revenue Agent on July 18, 2012. But it seems that the Petitioner’s didn’t submit any documentation, such as a submitted Form 3520, to substantiate this. As noted above, they further claim the FBAR filed for Xong Services in 2014 satisfied their reporting requirements. Respondent disagreed, but did allow that the reporting requirements were satisfied later in 2015 when Petitioners filed the Form 5471.
Because Petitioner couldn’t show that they had complied with the 6038 and 6048 reporting requirements quickly enough to cause the assessment statute to expire, they likewise couldn’t show on summary judgment that the undisputed material facts entitled them to judgment as a matter of law. Indeed, many of the operative facts here remain disputed. Thus, Judge Buch denies summary judgment for the Fairbanks, and the case will proceed towards trial.
Docket No. 9469-16L, Marineau v. C.I.R. (Order Here)
This case is a blast from the past, hailing from the early days of our Designated Orders project in 2017. Both Bill Schmidt and I covered this case previously (here and here). Presently, this CDP case was submitted to Judge Buch on cross motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, Judge Buch rules for Respondent and allows the Service to proceed with collection of this 2012 income tax liability.
They say that 80% of life is simply showing up. Petitioner had many chances to show up, but failed to take advantage of them here. Petitioner didn’t file a return for 2012; the Service sent him a notice of deficiency. While Petitioner stated in Tax Court that he didn’t receive the notice, he didn’t raise this issue (or any issue) at his first CDP hearing.
Nonetheless, the Tax Court remanded the case so he could raise underlying liability, on the theory that he didn’t receive the notice of deficiency and could therefore raise the underlying liability under IRC § 6330(c)(2)(B)—but Petitioner didn’t participate in that supplemental hearing either!
Back at the Tax Court again, Petitioner argued that not only did he not receive the notice of deficiency, but that it was not sent to his last known address. This would invalidate the notice and Respondent’s assessment. The validity of the notice also isn’t an issue relating to the underlying liability; rather, this is a verification requirement under IRC § 6330(c)(1). So, if the Settlement Officer failed to verify this fact, the Tax Court can step in and fix this mistake under its abuse of discretion standard of review.
Petitioner changed his address via a Form 8822 in 2014 to his address in Pensacola. On June 8, 2015, he submitted a letter to the IRS national office in Washington, D.C., which purported to change his address to Fraser, Michigan. The letter contained his old address, new address, his name, and his signature—but did not include his middle name or taxpayer identification number. The IRS received that letter on June 15.
The Tax Court recently issued Judge Buch’s opinion in Gregory v. Commissioner, which held that neither an IRS power of attorney (Form 2848) nor an automatic extension of time to file (Form 4868) were effective to change a taxpayer’s last known address. We covered Gregory here. (Keith notes that the Harvard clinic has taken the Gregory case on appeal. The briefing is now done and the case will be argued in the 3rd Circuit the week of April 14 by one of the Harvard clinic’s students.) Similarly, Judge Buch deals in this order with what constitutes “clear and concise” notification to the Service of a taxpayer’s change of address.
Judge Buch held that Petitioner didn’t effectively change his address. Under Revenue Procedure 2010-16, a taxpayer must list their full name, old address, new address, and taxpayer identification number on a signed request to change address. Taxpayers do not have to use Form 8822 in order to change their address, but this form contains all the required information to do so under the Rev. Proc. Because Petitioner failed to include his middle name and taxpayer identification number, the letter was ineffective.
Judge Buch ultimately holds that the letter was ineffective because the IRS received the letter on June 15—three days before the NOD was issued. The Rev. Proc. provides that a taxpayer’s address only changes 45 days after the proper IRS offices receives a proper change of address request. The national office is not the proper office; even if it was, the IRS only had three days to process the request prior to sending out the NOD. The lesson here is that if you know a NOD is coming, you can’t quickly trick the IRS into sending it to the wrong
If that wasn’t enough, Petitioner argued that because the USPS rerouted the NOD to a forwarding address in Roseville, Michigan, the NOD should be invalidated. However, the NOD was valid because Respondent send it, in the first instance, to Petitioner’s last known address prior to any subsequent rerouting.
There being no issue with the NOD’s validity—and because Petitioner didn’t participate in the supplemental hearing—Judge Buch granted Respondent’s motion and allowed the Service to proceed with collections.
Docket Nos. 12357-16, 16168-17, Provitola v. C.I.R. (Orders Here & Here)
The Court seems a little frustrated with Respondent’s counsel in this case. These orders highlight a few foot-faults that counsel—whether for Respondent or Petitioner—ought to be careful not to make.
This case is also a repeat player in designated orders; previous order include Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment from Judge Leyden here and Petitioners’ motion for a protective order here, which I made passing mention of in a prior designated order post.
Regarding the present orders, the first order addresses Respondent’s motion in limine, which asked that the Court “exclude all facts, evidence, and testimony not related to the circular flow of funds between petitioners, their Schedule C entity, and petitioner Anthony I. Provitola’s law practice.” Judge Buch characterizes this as a motion to preclude evidence inconsistent with Respondent’s theory of the case—i.e., that the Schedule C entity constituted a legitimate, for profit business. That doesn’t fly for Judge Buch, and he accordingly denies the motion.
He then takes Respondent to task for suggesting that “The Court ordinarily declines to consider and rely on self-serving testimony.” I’m just going to quote Judge Buch in full, as his response speaks for itself:
The canard that Courts disregard self-serving testimony is simply false. We disregard self-serving testimony when there is some demonstrable flaw or when the witness does not appear credible. If we were to disregard testimony merely because it is self-serving, we would disregard the testimony of every petitioner who testifies in furtherance of their own case and of all the revenue agents or collections officers who testify that they do their jobs properly, because that testimony would also be self-serving.
Ouch. In general though, I appreciate Judge Buch’s statement. I recall being mildly annoyed reading court opinions that disregard a witness’s testimony because it was “self-serving.” For all the reasons Judge Buch notes, quite a lot of testimony will be self-serving. That’s not, without more, a reason to diminish the value of the testimony. It’s certainly not a reason to prohibit the testimony through a motion in limine.
The second motion was entitled Respondent’s “unopposed motion to use electronic equipment in the courtroom.” (emphasis added). Apparently, the courthouse in Jacksonville has some systemic issues in allowing courts and counsel access to electronic equipment. Of what kind, the order does not make clear, though many district courts or courts of appeals where the Tax Court sits limit electronic equipment such as cell phones, tape recorders, and other devices that litigants may wish to bring as evidence to court. IRS counsel is likely the best source of knowledge on such restrictions; here, Judge Buch notes that the Court’s already taken care of these matters on a systemic basis for the upcoming trial session.
But Respondent’s counsel again makes a foot-fault here that draws an avoidable rebuke from Judge Buch. Respondent noted in his motion that he “called petitioners to determine their views on this motion, and left a voicemail message. Petitioners did not return this call as of the date of the motion, and as a result, petitioners’ views on this motion are unknown.”
That’s not an unopposed motion! In Judge Buch’s words again, “The title of the motion (characterizing [it] as “unopposed”) is either misleading or false. . . . Consistent with Rule 50(a), we will treat the motion as opposed.”
Of course, because the Court had already resolved the issue with electronic equipment, Judge Buch denies the motion as moot.
Trial was held on 12/16 and 12/17. Judge Buch issued a bench opinion that held for Respondent, and designated the order transmitting the bench opinion on January 27. That’s Caleb’s week, so I’ll leave it to him to cover the underlying opinion.