IRS Still Ignores Allocation of Underpayment Mandated by 2011 Pullins Opinion in Computing Section 6015(f) Relief

I came back out of retirement to become the acting director of the Harvard Federal Tax Clinic for the first six months of this year, while Keith is on sabbatical.  One of the depressing things I just discovered is that the IRS is still ignoring the method for computing innocent spouse relief in underpayment cases under section 6015(f) that the Tax Court adopted (at least for some cases) in Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 432 (2011).  In a nutshell, the IRS computers take the joint tax return liability as reported and allocate it between the spouses based on each’s relative proportion of total reported taxable income.  But, in Pullins, the court said that, at least in that case, relief should be to eliminate all tax except that which would be paid by the requesting spouse had she filed a married filing separately return.

I dealt with this issue when I was the director of a tax clinic at Cardozo School of Law some years ago, and every time I saw the allocation the IRS had done of the spouse’s taxes for purposes of underpayments cases, I had to ask the IRS to recompute the relief consistently with Pullins.  The IRS always did so at my request, increasing the amount of relief.  But, I shouldn’t have had to ask.  And I wondered about all the thousands of pro se requesting spouses out there who were seeking (f) relief in underpayment cases.  They would never have known to challenge the IRS computations of their relief the way I knew to make the challenge.

read more...

Last week, I consulted with a taxpayer who had reached a resolution of a Tax Court section 6015(f) underpayment case and who asked me to look at the IRS settlement computations.  Once again, the computations ignored Pullins.  The amount by which the taxpayer was being cheated was $300.  However, after I pointed this out to her, she decided not to make a fuss about this – not wanting to possibly jeopardize the settlement that she had already achieved on the major issue of getting relief at all.

But, I want to alert everyone to what is going on, and I hope the National Taxpayer Advocate will look into this matter.  After all, it is now almost 8 years since Pullins rejected the way the IRS computers are programmed to calculate section 6015(f) relief in underpayment cases.

The goal of the innocent spouse provisions (at least where there has been no abuse) is to relieve a requesting spouse only of the tax on the nonrequesting spouse’s income, not the tax on the requesting spouse’s income.  But, implementing this goal can be tricky.

If the tax as to which innocent spouse relief is sought is a “deficiency” – i.e., attributable to an audit adjustment increasing reported tax (a situation involving an “understatement”) – then relief may be available to the taxpayer under section 6015(b), (c), or (f).  Congress provided rules for calculating relief under section 6015(c) that provide, as a general rule, that “[t]he portion of any deficiency on a joint return allocated to an individual shall be the amount which bears the same ratio to such deficiency as the net amount of items taken into account in computing the deficiency and allocable to the individual under paragraph (3) bears to the net amount of all items taken into account in computing the deficiency.”  Section 6015(d)(1).  In a simple example, if the deficiency were $30,000, and the underlying adjustments to income were $80,000 of unreported income of the husband and $20,000 of unreported income of the wife, and the wife requested section 6015(c) relief, she could be relieved, at most, of 80% of the $30,000 deficiency – or $24,000.

The IRS uses this allocation system for subsection (c) relief also when computing relief from deficiencies under subsections (b) and (f).  And I take no issue with the IRS doing so.

However, there is no provision of section 6015 that tells the IRS how to compute relief under subsection (f) in an underpayment case – i.e., where the IRS has no issue with the tax reported on the return except that, when the return was filed, not all of the tax shown thereon was paid.  The IRS has filled this gap only in Manual section 25.15.3.9.2.1(7) (7/29/14), which states, in part:

If liability is attributable to both the RS [requesting spouse] and NRS [nonrequesting spouse], equitable relief will only be considered for the portion attributable to the NRS.

Note:

. . . .  Underpayments of tax are allocated based on each spouse’s pro rata share of the joint taxable income.

Note:

For purposes of determining how much of an underpayment is attributable to each spouse, the EITC and ACTC is allocated to each spouse in proportion to the spouse’s share of the adjusted gross income.

Imagine a case where the total tax shown on the joint return was $6,400 and the return only showed two items of income:  $80,000 of wages of the husband and $20,000 of wages of the wife.  After standard deductions for a married filing jointly return and two personal exemptions, assume that the taxable income is $58,000.  Imagine that the balance unpaid on that return is currently $4,000.  How much the requesting spouse should be relieved of under (f) is determined, in part, by how much of the total $6,400 of tax the requesting spouse already paid – either through income tax withholding, estimated tax payments, and payments made after the IRS commenced collection.  Under the Manual provision, though, the IRS would also say that the $6,400 of total tax should be allocated to the spouses 80% to the husband and 20% to the wife because that is their relative shares of the taxable income reported.  So, the wife would be allocated $1,280 of the reported joint tax liability of $6,400.

Pullins presented a similar fact pattern – i.e., the wife sought relief, and the wife’s income was relatively small compared to the total reported joint taxable income. Judge Gustafson, though, rejected the method the IRS used to determine section 6015(f) relief in that underpayment case.  Instead, he noticed that, had the wife filed a return as married filing separately, she would have had less tax.  That is because, by adding her income to her husband’s to file a joint return, both spouses got taxed at a high bracket.  But, her income alone would have been taxed at a low bracket if she had filed married filing separately.  In my example in the previous paragraph, the wife could have filed a married filing separately return showing only $20,000 of gross income.  Taking a combined standard deduction and personal exemption of, say, $11,000, the wife’s taxable income would have been only $9,000.  All of that $9,000 would be subjected only to the 10% tax bracket, so the tax she would have paid would have been about $900 – $380 less than her proportionate share of the joint liability.

In Pullins (at page 432), the judge wrote:

As we stated above, for purposes of determining the extent of her liability for or overpayment of tax on her own income, we use Ms. Pullins’s computation on the basis of married-filing-separately status, rather than the IRS’s computation that made a pro rata allocation of the reported liability (based on married-filing jointly status). To reckon the amount of tax liability that Ms. Pullins should have to pay because it is fairly attributable to her, we think that on the facts of this case it is reasonable to figure Ms. Pullins’s tax liability separately. The IRS’s method assumes a joint liability and then attributes to her a pro rata share of the joint liability, but the purpose of section 6015 is to grant relief from joint liability.  Under the IRS’s method, if we found Ms. Pullins to be otherwise entitled to section 6015 relief, we would nonetheless leave her liable for a portion of the joint liability.  Our aim here, however, is to figure Ms. Pullins’s own liability apart from joint liability and then ensure that we do not excuse her from paying her own liability.  To accomplish that aim, a determination of her separate liability, rather than an allocation of the joint liability, is most reasonable here. [footnotes omitted]

In footnote 8 on that page, the judge noted that the allocation that he was making was similar to one that would be made if it was determined that there was no joint return at all because the return had been signed under duress.  The footnote reads:

As an analogy, see 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6013–4(d) (to allocate liability where a supposedly joint return was signed under duress, ‘‘The return is adjusted to reflect only the tax liability of the individual who voluntarily signed the return, and the liability is determined at the applicable rates in section 1(d) for married individuals filing separate returns’’ (emphasis added)). [emphasis in the Pullins original]

I think that Judge Gustafson declined to set down a general rule for all underpayment cases under section 6015(f) because he might want to adopt the IRS system of allocating the reported joint tax in proportion to relative taxable income when the requesting spouse was a person with much higher gross income than the nonrequesting spouse.  Also, there is the problem of the earned income tax credit.  If that credit applies for a married couple, it is only available if they file married filing jointly.  The nonrequesting spouse could not get any earned income tax credit with married filing separately status.  Section 32(d).

The case on which I was recently consulted was one like Pullins, where the requesting spouse had relatively small income compared to her husband’s and her income would have been taxed at a much lower rate had she filed a married filing separately return.  The return also involved no earned income tax credit.  Over the years, I have probably seen a half-dozen of this kind of case.  All presented this fact pattern.  My suspicion is that this is the typical innocent spouse case because, in my experience, the requesting spouse is usually the low earner in the family.

After almost 8 years since the issuance of Pullins, I think it high time that the IRS modify its Manual provision to reflect the Pullins system for calculating section 6015(f) relief in underpayment cases.  The IRS can adopt exceptions to deal with (1) the unusual situation of tax on a married filing separately return basis exceeding the allocation of the joint return tax in proportion to relative taxable income and (2) earned income tax credit returns.  I like the idea of allocating that credit between the spouses, though I would modify the allocation to be based on relative shares of the total earned income, not adjusted gross income.  After all, the tables for the earned income tax credit are computed with respect to combined earned income.

Is the Requirement to File a Refund Claim Before Bringing Suit Waivable?

Contributor Carl Smith who is filling in for me at the tax clinic at Harvard while I am on sabbatical found time to write about a case headed for a decision in the Supreme Court that might have tax implications. The tax implications are complicated by prior Supreme Court case law in the tax area regarding the requirement for a refund claim. This is something to watch if you are interested in jurisdictional issues or if you have a case in which the client has failed to file a claim (or maybe faces a variance argument.) Keith

On January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case that may indirectly impact whether the requirement to file with the IRS an administrative refund claim before bringing a tax refund suit is jurisdictional, Davis v. Fort Bend County, Texas, 893 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2018).

read more...

Section 7422(a) requires that a taxpayer bringing a suit for refund first file with the IRS an administrative claim for refund. In United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601-602, 608 (1990), the Supreme Court stated that both the filing of an administrative claim and the timely filing of such claim were jurisdictional requirements of a refund suit. Jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived by the parties or forfeited if a party fails to timely object.

Dalm was decided before the Supreme Court changed its thinking on what conditions of suits are jurisdictional. Since 2004, the case law (which we have discussed in many previous posts) is that “claims processing rules” are generally no longer jurisdictional. There are only two exceptions to this rule. First, Congress can make a claims processing rule jurisdictional by making a clear statement in the statute to that effect. Second, if there is a long line of Supreme Court cases holding the claims processing rule jurisdictional, then the Court will stick to that interpretation under stare decisis.

Dalm was the first and only Supreme Court opinion calling the requirement to file a predicate administrative refund claim jurisdictional, so it seems unlikely that the stare decisis exception would apply. And, section 7422(a) does not contain the word “jurisdiction” or appear to speak in jurisdictional terms. Rather, the jurisdictional grant for refund suits is located elsewhere – at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). The Supreme Court has held that the separation of a claims processing rule from a jurisdictional grant is evidence that Congress did not intend a claims processing rule to be jurisdictional.

In dicta a few years ago, the Seventh Circuit speculated that the requirement to file an administrative tax refund claim before bringing a tax refund suit might no longer be jurisdictional. It wrote:

The Gillespies do not respond to the government’s renewed argument that § 7422(a) is jurisdictional, though we note that the Supreme Court’s most recent discussion of § 7422(a) does not describe it in this manner, see United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4-5, 11-12 (2008). And other recent decisions by the Court construe similar prerequisites as claims-processing rules rather than jurisdictional requirements, see, e.g., United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1632-33 (2015) (concluding that administrative exhaustion requirement of Federal Tort Claims Act is not jurisdictional); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 (2010) (concluding that Copyright Act’s registration requirement is not jurisdictional); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 504 (2006) (concluding that statutory minimum of 50 workers for employer to be subject to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not jurisdictional). These developments may cast doubt on the line of cases suggesting that § 7422(a) is jurisdictional. See, e.g., United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601-02 (1990); Greene-Thapedi v. United States, 549 F.3d 530, 532-33 (7th Cir. 2008); Nick’s Cigarette City, Inc. v. United States, 531 F.3d 516, 520-21 (7th Cir. 2008).

Gillespie v. United States, 670 Fed. Appx. 393, 394-395 (7th Cir. 2016).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides for private causes of action arising out of employment discrimination and gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to resolve such disputes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). Before seeking judicial relief, however, Title VII plaintiffs are required to exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

The Circuit courts are badly split over whether the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement in Title VII is jurisdictional or merely a nonjurisdictional claim processing rule subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling. By the count of the Fifth Circuit in Davis, three Circuits take the position that the administrative filing requirement is jurisdictional, while eight (including the Fifth Circuit in Davis) find it a waivable nonjurisdictional claims processing rule.

In holding that the exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional, the Fifth Circuit in Davis relied heavily on the Arbaugh case (cited in the above quote from Gillespie). It wrote: “Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not expressed in jurisdictional terms in the statute, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and just as in Arbaugh, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that Congress intended for this requirement to be jurisdictional.” Davis, 893 F.3d at 306.

But for the complicating existence of the Dalm opinion, it is hard to imagine that if the Supreme Court holds the Title VII administrative exhaustion requirement nonjurisdictional (as most Circuits have), that § 7422(a)’s tax refund claim filing requirement could still be held jurisdictional.

 

Update: Can District Courts Hear Innocent Spouse Refund Suits?

We welcome back frequent guest blogger Carl Smith. Carl discusses a case, Hockin, in which the Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School has filed an amicus brief. If you read the brief filed by Ms. Hockin, to which we link below, you will learn the underlying facts of the case. Like the vast majority of innocent spouse cases these facts describe the sad circumstances that led her to request relief. Relief here for her, if she obtains it, will not make her whole monetarily because of the Flora rule. (Of course, relief would never make her whole in the true sense because the tax system can only assist her with the tax component of the difficult situation caused by the actions of her former husband.) 

This case should not only make us think about the jurisdictional issues raised by the innocent spouse provisions but also about how the application of the Flora rule prevents taxpayers without the wherewithal to fully pay in a short span of time to obtain the return of all of the money paid to the IRS for taxes that they do not owe. This situation describes most low income taxpayers. Keith

This is an update on two cases discussed by Keith in a recent post. The post primarily discussed the case of Chandler v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174482 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2018) (magistrate opinion), adopted by judge at 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173880 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2018). Chandler was a district court suit in which an individual sought a refund for overpaying her equitable share of taxes on a joint return, taking into account innocent spouse relief under section 6015(f). In Chandler, the district court granted a DOJ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that only the Tax Court could hear suits involving innocent spouse relief. Keith wondered whether there would be an appeal of this ruling of first impression with respect to innocent spouse refund suit jurisdiction.

In his post, Keith also mentioned the existence of a similar innocent spouse refund suit under section 6015(f) pending in the district court for the District of Oregon, Hockin v. United States, Docket No. 3:17-CV-1926. In that case, a similar DOJ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was pending, arguing that district courts cannot hear refund suits involving innocent spouse relief.

The update, in a nutshell, is that Chandler was not appealed, but Hockin has been set up as a test case, where nearly all the filings are in and linked to below.

read more...

Both under the original innocent spouse provision (section 6013(e), which existed from 1971 to 1998) and the current innocent spouse provision (section 6015, enacted in 1998), the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims had occasionally, and without objection from the DOJ, entertained suits for refund filed solely on the grounds that a taxpayer paid more than was required after the application of the innocent provisions.

Although the DOJ had apparently never done so before in any innocent spouse refund suit going back all the way to the 1970s and 1980s, in the summer of 2018, DOJ trial division lawyers in both Chandler and Hockin submitted motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that, because Congress in 1998 enacted a stand-alone innocent spouse Tax Court action at section 6015(e) in which the Tax Court can find an overpayment under section 6015(b) or (f), the Tax Court is the sole court in which innocent spouse refund suits can now be filed (i.e., via section 6015(e)), and so neither the district courts nor the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to entertain innocent spouse refund suits. The DOJ motions acknowledged only one rare exception to this position: Where there was a pending refund suit in a district court or the Court of Federal Claims (presumably on other issues) at a time when a taxpayer also filed a suit in the Tax Court under section 6015(e), the statute provides that the Tax Court innocent spouse suit should be transferred over to the court hearing the refund suit. Section 6015(e)(3).

In July, Keith and I were alerted to the existence of the motion in Hockin – but not the one in Chandler – by pro bono counsel for Ms. Hockin, J. Scott Moede, the Chief Deputy City Attorney of the Portland, Oregon Office of the City Attorney. Mr. Moede had taken on the Hockin case in his role as a regular voluteer with the Lewis & Clark Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic in Portland. That clinic suggested that Mr. Moede contact the Harvard Federal Tax Clinic because of the Harvard clinic’s interest in innocent spouse cases.

Working with summer students, in August, Keith and I put together a draft of a proposed amicus memorandum for Hockin arguing that the DOJ position was both ahistorical and contrary to the 1998 and 2000 legislative history of section 6015(e) that seemed to make clear that Congress enacted section 6015(e) to be added on top of all existing avenues for judicial review of innocent spouse issues, not to repeal or replace any prior avenues for judicial review.

Further, in the draft memorandum, we pointed out that the Trial Section’s motion in Hockin took a position directly contrary to the position that the DOJ Appellate Section had taken in three cases that the Harvard clinic had recently litigated. In those three cases, the DOJ Appellate Section urged the appellate courts not to worry about holding that a person who filed a late Tax Court suit under section 6015(e) must have her suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The DOJ Appellate Section said that such a taxpayer could always still get judicial review of the IRS’ decision to deny innocent spouse relief by paying the tax in full, filing a refund claim, and suing for a refund in the district court or the Court of Federal Claims.

In both Hockin and Chandler, the taxpayers received a notice of determination denying innocent spouse relief, but did not try to petition the Tax Court within the 90 days provided under section 6015(e). Rather, after later making either partial (Chandler) or full (Hockin) payment, the taxpayers filed refund claims and brought refund suits in district court that were timely under the rules of sections 6511(a) and 6532(a) (though, for Hockin, the lookback rules of section 6511(b) limit the amount of the refund to only a portion of what Ms. Hockin paid). Thus, except for the full payment (Flora) rule problem in Chandler, the taxpayers had done exactly what the Appellate Section said they should do to get judicial review of innocent spouse relief rulings other than through section 6015(e).

In August, we sent a draft copy of the memorandum to the DOJ attorney in Hockin and asked whether the DOJ would object to a motion by the Harvard clinic to file it. This draft memorandum apparently triggered the DOJ’s desire to explore mediation in the case. So, the case was assigned to a magistrate for mediation, and further filings on the motion (including the amicus motion) were postponed.

Then, in September and October, the magistrate and district court judge, respectively, issued rulings in Chandler granting the DOJ’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. That is how Keith, Mr. Moede, and I learned of the existence of the Chandler case presenting the identical jurisdictional issue. Although Ms. Chandler was represented by counsel, that counsel had filed no papers in response to the DOJ motion to dismiss in her case. Naturally, this led to the magistrate and judge in Chandler relying entirely on the DOJ’s arguments and citations in ruling for the DOJ.

In his recent post on Chandler, Keith raised the question whether the Chandler district judge ruling would be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The first piece of news in this update is that Ms. Chandler decided not to appeal. Frankly, give the Flora full payment problem in the case, I think an appeal on the issue of whether the district court otherwise would have had jurisdiction would have been pointless.

But, the second piece of news is that, in November, mediation failed in the Hockin case. So, Hockin is now set up as a possible appellate test case, depending on the district court’s ruling.

The DOJ has now not objected to the Harvard clinic’s filing of an amicus memorandum in Hockin. That memorandum was filed on November 26.

On December, 21, Ms. Hockin (through Mr. Moede) filed her response to the DOJ motion. In her response, Ms. Hockin argued not only that the district court had jurisdiction over section 6015 innocent spouse relief refund suits, but also that she had raised in her refund claim two additional arguments: that she had never filed a joint return for the year and that the IRS should be bound to give her innocent spouse relief for the year because it had given her such relief for the immediately-following taxable year. As noted in the Harvard memorandum, the “no joint return” argument has been considered in district court refund lawsuits even predating the enactment of the first innocent spouse provision in 1971.

The DOJ will be allowed to file a reply by January 11.

On February 5, oral argument on the motion will be heard before a magistrate who was not involved in the mediation. Ms. Hockin has agreed to have this magistrate decide the jurisdictional motion without the involvement of a district court judge, but the DOJ has not yet similarly consented. If the DOJ does the same, and the magistrate dismisses the case, this would allow a direct appeal from the magistrate to the Ninth Circuit. If the DOJ does not consent, the magistrate’s ruling will have to be reviewed by a district court judge before a party could appeal any adverse ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

You can find here for Hockin, the DOJ’s motion, the Harvard clinic’s amicus memorandum, and Ms. Hockin’s response.

Finally, you may be aware of the recent amendment of 28 U.S.C. section 1631 that allows district courts and the Court of Federal Claims to transfer to the Tax Court suits improperly filed in the former courts. That amendment would not help Ms. Hockin, since her district courts suit was filed long after the 90-day period to file a Tax Court suit under section 6015(e) expired. So, her case, if transferred, would have to be dismissed by the Tax Court for lack of jurisdiction because the suit was untimely filed in the district court for purposes of the Tax Court’s stand-alone innocent spouse case jurisdictional grant. For Ms. Hockin, her only chance now for getting a refund attributable to the innocent spouse provisions is for the courts to agree that district courts have jurisdiction to consider innocent spouse refund suits.

 

District Court Equitably Tolls 2-Year Deadline to File Refund Suit

Frequent guest blogger Carl Smith discusses an important recent decision holding that the time to file a refund suit is not a jurisdictional time frame. In the case discussed by Carl, the facts allowed the taxpayer to successfully argue for an extended time period within which to file based on equitable tolling. Keith

PT readers know that Keith and I – through the Harvard clinic – have been arguing in a lot of cases that judicial filing deadlines in the tax area are no longer jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law limiting the use of the term “jurisdictional” and expanding the use of equitable tolling. So far, we have lost on Tax Court innocent spouse and Collection Due Process filing deadlines; appellate cases on Tax Court deficiency and whistleblower awards jurisdiction deadlines are pending.

But, while I was still running a tax clinic at Cardozo School of Law, as an amicus, I helped persuade the Ninth Circuit to hold that the then-9-month filing deadline at section 6532(c) to bring a district court wrongful levy suit is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. Volpicelli v. United States, 777 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2015). Relying both on the recent Supreme Court non-tax case law and Volpicelli, a district court has just held that the 2-year deadline at section 6532(a) to bring a district court or Court of Federal Claims tax refund suit is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. Wagner v. United States, E.D. Wash. Docket No. 2:18-CV-76 (Nov. 16, 2018).

read more...

In Wagner, a couple filed a 2012 joint income tax return showing an overpayment of $1,364,363 and asked that $500,000 of the overpayment be refunded and the rest be applied as a credit to 2013 estimated taxes. I quote the remainder of the brief facts from the opinion:

In November, 2014, the IRS sent a letter disallowing some of the refund. . . .

Specifically, the IRS indicated it was allowing only $839,999 of the claim, and disallowing the remainder because “we are unable able to verify the total amount of your withholding based on information provided by the Social Security Administration.” Id. The amount of the disallowed claim was $524,364.

Plaintiffs replied by letter on December 5, 2014, indicating they were requesting a formal Appeal to the findings and also requesting an oral hearing. . . . They also provided additional information regarding the requested refund.

Nothing happened until May, 2016 when the IRS sent another letter, this time stating it was disallowing the entire $1,364,363 refund claim. . . .Specifically, the letter stated:

This letter is your notice that we’ve partially disallowed your claim for credit for the period shown above. We allowed only $.00 of the claim.  Id. 

The letter also indicated that Plaintiffs were now going to owe interest and penalties. Although it did not explicitly say so in the letter, the determination of the $.00 allowance of the claim meant the IRS was also disallowing $839,999 of the refund claim that it has previously allowed as indicated in the November, 2014 letter. Because of this, Plaintiffs were now being assessed an outstanding liability of $859,557.84. As a result, the IRS took $335,871 from the 2014 refund and applied it to the 2012 tax liability since this amount had come from Plaintiffs’ request to forward the remainder of the 2012 refund claim to the next year’s tax bill.

In early 2018, the taxpayers filed suit seeking a refund of $839,999 – i.e., only part of the original overpayment shown on the return. The DOJ moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction as untimely, arguing that the 2-year period in section 6532(a) to bring such a suit commenced when the IRS sent its first letter in November 2014.

The district court ruled in the alternative. It held that the filing deadline for the refund suit commenced in May 2016, when the second IRS letter was issued. In the alternative, because of the confusing nature of the IRS correspondence, if the filing deadline actually started in November 2014, the filing deadline was tolled because of “equitable considerations” generated by this confusing correspondence, “including the fact that Plaintiffs were informed that $839,999 of the requested refund claim was not going to be allowed less than 6 months before the statute of limitations expired . . . .”

Before applying the alternative holding of equitable tolling, the court examined whether the filing deadline was jurisdictional under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law summarized in United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (finding the filing deadlines for Federal Court Claims Act suits in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling). In Wong, the Court held that filing deadlines are normally nonjurisdictional claims processing rules. Congress could, though, make such deadlines jurisdictional through a “clear statement” in the statute, but “Congress must do something special, beyond setting an exception-free deadline, to tag a statute of limitations as jurisdictional and so prohibit a court from tolling it.” Id. at 1632.

The district court in Wagner also looked to Volpicelli – a Ninth Circuit opinion holding the then-9-month filing deadline in section 6532(c) to bring a district court wrongful levy suit nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling. We blogged on Volpicelli numerous times in 2015: here, here, here, and here. Volpicelli had been decided a few months before Wong. The DOJ had asked for reconsideration of Volpicelli by the Ninth Circuit en banc, since Volpicelli disagreed with holdings of at least one other Circuit that were made prior to the 2004 change in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on jurisdiction. When the Ninth Circuit declined to hear the Volpicelli case en banc, and the Supreme Court shortly thereafter issued its opinion in Wong, apparently the Solicitor General lost interest in appealing Volpicelli to the Supreme Court, since it is hard to imagine the SG winning Volpicelli after losing Wong (where the statutory language appeared even more mandatory). In all the subsequent cases that Keith and I have been litigating, though, the DOJ always states that it still disagrees with Volpicelli.

The district court in Wagner concluded that Congress had done nothing special in section 6532(a) to make it jurisdictional and not subject to the usual presumption that filing deadlines are subject to equitable tolling. The district court wrote:

First, Congress’ separation of the filing deadline in § 6532(a) from the waiver of sovereign immunity found in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), as well as the placement of § 6532 in the Tax Code under subtitle of the Internal Revenue Code labeled “Procedure and Administration, is a strong indication that the time bar is not jurisdictional. Second, [unlike section 6511 discussed in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997),] the time limitation is purely procedural and has no substantive impact on the amount of recovery. It speaks only to a claim’s timeliness and not to a court’s power. Third, the recovery of a wrongfully withheld refund is akin to the traditional common law torts of conversion. Fourth, the deadline set forth in § 6532(a) is not cast in jurisdictional terms and the language/text used does not have any jurisdictional significance. Finally, the text does not define a federal court’s jurisdiction over tort claims generally, does not address its authority to hear untimely suits, or in any way limit its usual equitable powers.

Observations 

Although the DOJ will be hopping mad about the Wagner ruling, the DOJ will not be able to appeal it to the Ninth Circuit until the district court determines the amount, if any, of the appropriate refund. So, stay tuned.

The holding in Wagner is entirely predictable, since an earlier district court in the Ninth Circuit had stated that, in light of Volpicelli, “it remains an open question” whether the filing deadline in section 6532(a) is subject to equitable tolling in an appropriate case”. Hessler v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2016). Accord Drake v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22563 (D. AZ. 2011) (doubting but not deciding whether the filing deadline in § 6532(a) is still jurisdictional in light of recent Supreme Court case law)

Whether the section 6532(a) filing deadline is jurisdictional or subject to estoppel are two of the issues that are currently being litigated in the Second Circuit in Pfizer v. United States, Docket No. 17-2307. Oral argument was had in Pfizer on February 13, 2018, and an opinion could come out any day – though the court has alternative ways of deciding the case that might avoid addressing these issues. The Harvard clinic submitted an amicus brief in Pfizer arguing that the section 6532(a) filing deadline is not jurisdictional under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law. Our brief parallels the reasoning of the Wagner court. Here’s a link to our amicus brief. We have discussed Pfizer and its various issues in posts here, here, here, and here.

As we noted in our Pfizer brief, some Circuits have previously held the filing deadline in section 6532(a) to be jurisdictional. But they did so at a time before the Supreme Court in 2004 narrowed the use of the word “jurisdictional” generally to exclude filing deadlines and other “claims processing” rules. Compare Kaffenberger v. United States, 314 F.3d 944, 950-951 (8th Cir. 2003) (deadline jurisdictional); Marcinkowsky v. United States, 206 F.3d 1419, 1421-1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same); RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (same); with Miller v. United States, 500 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1974) (deadline subject to estoppel). The Wagner opinion did not mention any of the pre-2004 Circuit court precedent, but decided the issue purely based on the recent Supreme Court case law that Volpicelli applied to section 6532(c) in 2015. Indeed, I think Wagner is the first opinion of any court to grapple, beyond speculation, with the impact of the recent Supreme Court case law on the nature of the section 6532(a) deadline. Certainly, no court of appeals has yet done so. Maybe the Second Circuit in Pfizer will be the first?

 

Ninth Circuit Declines to Reach Constitutionality of President’s Removal Power Over Tax Court Judges

Frequent guest blogger Carl Smith brings us up to date on litigation over the constitutionality of IRC section 7443(f), giving the President removal power over Tax Court judges. Christine

In a post from September I alerted PT readers that two of the cases in which Joe DiRuzzo had again raised the issue of the constitutionality of the President’s removal power over Tax Court judges were set for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit. The constitutional separation of powers issue was decided against the taxpayers in both Kuretski v. Commissioner, 755 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2014), and Battat v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 2 (2017) – though, on different reasoning as to which Branch of government in which the Tax Court is located, if any.

Well, the Ninth Circuit panel removed both of Joe’s cases from the oral argument calendar, and it just issued two unpublished opinions. In both of the opinions, the Ninth Circuit avoided addressing the constitutional question.

read more...

In Thompson v. Commissioner, Ninth Cir. Docket No. 17-71027 (Nov. 14, 2018), Joe had moved to recuse all Tax Court judges because, in light of the President’s removal power, the judges were being subtlely pressured to rule in favor of the IRS. When the Tax Court denied the motion (citing Battat), Joe brought an interlocutory appeal. Consistent with the results of all other interlocutory appeals that Joe has brought on this issue to date, the Ninth Circuit refused to rule on the constitutional issue. Joe tried to fit this case into an exception from the rule that, ordinarily, interlocutory appeals are prohibited. However, the Ninth Circuit found that no exception applied. Nor did it think a writ of mandamus should issue. The court wrote: “The Thompsons do not explain how their challenge to the constitutionality of the Tax Court cannot be adequately reviewed or possibly corrected on direct appeal.”

In Crim v. Commissioner, Ninth Cir. Docket No. 17-72701 (Nov. 14, 2018), the taxpayer submitted an OIC, and, after it was not accepted, went to Appeals. Appeals confirmed the OIC denial. Despite the fact that the OIC was not part of a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, the taxpayer petitioned the Tax Court for review. In the case, Joe also moved for recusal of all Tax Court judges on the constitutional issue. Citing Battat, the Tax Court first denied the constitutional motion in an unpublished order. Then, the court issued a second unpublished order holding that, in the absence of a CDP proceeding, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to review Appeals’ denial of an OIC. Crim’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was thus not an interlocutory one. However, it fared no better. The court did not reach the constitutional issue because it held that the Tax Court had properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit wrote:

Because Crim has not presented any evidence that the IRS filed a notice of a federal tax lien or a final intent to levy against him, that he requested a collection due process hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals, that he attended an Office of Appeals collection due process hearing, or that the Office of Appeals made any “determination” addressing a disputed lien or levy, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over Crim’s petition under 26 U.S.C. § 6320 and § 6330. Any argument that Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), commands a different result has been forfeited. See Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 487-88 (9th Cir. 2010). Crim also forfeited the arguments raised for the first time in his reply brief that the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provide jurisdiction here. The failure to find jurisdiction on these grounds was not plain error. . . .

Given that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over Crim’s petition, we decline to exercise our “discretionary jurisdiction” over the recusal motion. See Gruver v. Lesman Fisheries Inc., 489 F.3d 978, 981 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007).

To get the constitutional issue adjudicated, it looks like Joe or somebody else will have to appeal any Tax Court ruling on the constitutional issue after a final decision is entered in a Tax Court case over which the court clearly had jurisdiction.

DOJ Argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) Doesn’t Bar Altera’s APA Challenge to a Tax Regulation Made More Than 6 Years After Adoption

We welcome frequent guest blogger Carl Smith with breaking news about the Altera appeal pending in the 9th Circuit. Today’s news is not dispositive but does provide interesting insight on the Government’s view of a new issue raised by the 9th Circuit as the new panel reviewed the case. Keith

PT readers are no doubt aware of Altera v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. 91 (2015). In the case, the Tax Court invalidated a regulation under § 482 concerning the inclusion of stock option compensation in related-party cost-sharing arrangements. The two Tax Court dockets involved in the case were under the Tax Court’s deficiency jurisdiction in 2012. In those cases, Altera sought to invalidate a 2003 regulation both under the Chevron standard (i.e., not reasonable) and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Tax Court invalidated the regulation under both theories. The Tax Court found APA violations including the IRS’ (1) failure to respond to significant comments submitted by taxpayers and (2) in light of the administrative record showing otherwise, the IRS’ failure to support its belief that unrelated parties entering into cost sharing arrangement would allocate stock-based compensation costs.

As we blogged here, on July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the regulation. But that opinion was later withdrawn because one of the judges in the majority had died before the opinion was issued. After a new judge was assigned to rehear the case, the parties were invited to (and did) submit supplemental briefs. (Four supplemental amicus briefs were also submitted.) On the day all of these supplemental briefs were submitted, September 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel issued an order inviting further briefing from the parties by October 9 on an issue that had never before been argued in the case. The case is set for reargument before the new Ninth Circuit panel on October 16.

read more...

The recent order stated concerning this additional briefing issue:

The parties should be prepared to discuss at oral argument the question as to whether the six-year statute of limitations applicable to procedural challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), applies to this case and, if it does, what the implications are for this appeal. Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 737 (2018).

In Perez-Guzman, the Ninth Circuit had held that procedural challenges to regulatory authority (unlike Chevron substantive challenges) must be raised in a court suit within the 6-year catch-all federal statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Since the Altera deficiency cases had been brought more than six years after the pertinent regulation was adopted, the Ninth Circuit was, in effect, wondering whether all APA arguments in the case were time barred.

On October 9, however, the DOJ, rather than file a supplemental brief, filed a 5-page letter disclaiming any reliance on the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). The letter states, in part:

It is the Commissioner’s position that any pre-enforcement challenge to the regulations at issue here – including a purely procedural challenge under the APA, cf. Perez-Guzman, 835 F.3d at 1077-79 – would have been barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. See 26 U.S.C. (“I.R.C.” or “Code”) § 7421(a) (stating that, “[e]xcept as provided in” various Code sections (the most significant of which, I.R.C. § 6213(a), allows the pre-payment filing of a Tax Court petition in response to a statutory notice of deficiency), “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person”) . . . . Thus, Altera properly asserted its challenge to the regulations in two Tax Court actions contesting notices of deficiency that reflected the enforcement of the regulations against it. See Redhouse v. Commissioner, 728 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1984).

If Altera’s procedural APA challenge to the regulations were nonetheless subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (which would have started running on the date of issuance of the final regulation, see Perez-Guzman, 835 F.3d at 1077), then Altera would have had to pay the tax and file a refund claim within the six-year window – thereby forfeiting the opportunity to contest the enforcement of the regulations against it in the pre-payment forum of the Tax Court – in order to comply with that time limit. Because the Commissioner has never expressed the view that the six-year statute of limitations applies to a procedural APA challenge to a tax regulation in the context of a Tax Court deficiency proceeding, and because the IRS issued the notices of deficiency in this case outside the six-year APA window, it would have been unfair to argue below that Altera’s procedural APA claims are time-barred. And, given this Court’s holding that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) is not jurisdictional, Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 1997), the Commissioner waived any defense under that provision by not raising it in the Tax Court.

In sum, it is the Commissioner’s position that the six-year statute of limitations that is generally applicable to procedural challenges to regulations under the APA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), does not apply to this case.

Observation

Some people wonder why I litigate so much over whether or not filing deadlines are jurisdictional. The Altera case demonstrates again why this can often be a critical issue, since only nonjurisdictional filing deadlines are subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

 

The Tax Court Should Modify its Form 2 Petition to Add a Checkbox for Passport Actions

We welcome back frequent guest blogger Carlton Smith. Today Carl highlights a possible cause of confusion for taxpayers, IRS and the Court, involving the Tax Court’s new passport-related jurisdiction. Christine

Section 7345(d) requires the IRS to notify taxpayers when it has sent a certification to the Secretary of State with respect to a “seriously delinquent tax debt” for which the IRS is asking that a passport be denied, revoked, or limited.  Section 7345(e)(1) states, in part:  “After the Commissioner notifies an individual under subsection (d), the taxpayer may bring a civil action against the United States in a district court of the United States, or against the Commissioner in the Tax Court, to determine whether the certification was erroneous or whether the Commissioner has failed to reverse the certification.” 

The Tax Court is now seeing its first passport actions under section 7345(e)(1), and I can report that the Tax Court has decided to place a “P” at the end of the docket number when a taxpayer files a passport action.  What the Tax Court has so far failed to do is modify the simplified petition form appearing on its website (Form 2) to contain a box to check for a passport action.  I think that is why the Tax Court recently had to enter the following order in Brancatelli v. Commissioner, Docket No. 13836-18P.  My guess is that the taxpayer used Form 2, could not figure out which box(es) to check, and so checked boxes relating to notices of deficiency and notices of determination for Collection Due Process actions.  The Chief Judge’s September 10 order in the case reads, in full:

The petition in this case was filed on July 13, 2018. Among other things, in his petition petitioner seeks review of (1) a purported notice of deficiency dated June 18, 2018, allegedly issued for his taxable years 2005, and 2007 through 2014, and (2) a purported notice of determination concerning collection action dated June 18, 2018,  allegedly issued with respect to his taxable years 2005, and 2007 through 2014. 

On September 6, 2018, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness stating that respondent, subsequent to the filing of the petition, has notified the Secretary of State that respondent has reversed respondent’s certification of petitioner as an individual owing serous delinquent tax debt for 2005, and 2007 through 2014. 

On September 7, 2018, respondent filed an Answer to the petition. In his 

Answer respondent acknowledges that a Notice CP508C, notice of your seriously delinquent tax debt was issued to the State Department, was issued with respect to 2005, and 2007 through 2014, but respondent denies that any notice of deficiency for 2005, and 2007 through 2014, and/or notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 for 2005, and 2007 through 2014, was issued to petitioner. 

Upon due consideration, it is  

ORDERED that, on or before October 1, 2018, respondent shall file an appropriate jurisdictional motion as to so much of this case relating to the notice of deficiency for 2005, and 2007 through 2014, and the notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 for 2005, and 2007 through 2014. The Court will hold in abeyance respondent’s September 6, 2018, motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness. 

In order to avoid further wasteful use of judicial and party resources dealing with jurisdictional issues, I would hope and expect that the Tax Court would adopt a new Form 2 as soon as possible that contains a box to check for passport actions.  Until the Tax Court does so, however, I would advise practitioners representing taxpayers in passport actions not to use Form 2, but to draft custom petitions. 

 On March 28, 2016, the Tax Court adopted interim rules (which were also issued as proposed rules) dealing with passport actions at Title XXXIV of its Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules 350 to 354).  They can be found on the Tax Court’s website under “Press Releases” for that date.  Interim Rule 351(b) specifies the contents of a passport action petition and directs that such petition be captioned:  “Petition for Certification or Failure to Reverse Certification Action Under Code Section 7345(e)”.  Oddly, while the Tax Court also modified Form 2 at the same time that it proposed and adopted these passport action rules, the new Form 2 did not contain a box to check for passport actions.  Nor do the instructions to Form 2 mention passport actions.

How Do Section 6511(b)’s Payment Limitations Apply When a Late-Filed Original Return Perfects a Prior Informal Refund Claim?

We welcome back frequent guest blogger Carl Smith who writes today about a potential issue not reached by the court.  Whether the taxpayer will seek to raise the issue in a request for reconsideration or attempt to raise it on appeal remains to be seen.  Keith

I don’t usually do posts on opinions where an interesting issue is presented, but the court didn’t reach the issue, and I don’t know how the issue should come out.  But, when I mentioned the issue in this post to Les, and asked whether Saltzman & Book answered the issue, and Les told me that the book did not and that he thought the issue was “fascinating,” I decided:  Why not do a post?

The potential issue is presented in Voulgaris v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150724 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 5, 2018), a refund suit that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the administrative claim, although timely made under section 6511(a), was limited by section 6511(b) to zero because the taxpayer had not made any tax payments in the 3-year period looking back from the date the claim was made through the filing of a late original return.

The court does not discuss the informal claim doctrine, which was not raised by the taxpayer’s counsel or mentioned in the government’s motion to dismiss.  However, taken from the government’s summary of the facts, the court includes in its opinion facts demonstrating that the taxpayer had made an informal claim long before that claim was perfected by the filing of a late original return showing the overpayment.  The Supreme Court held in United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186 (1941), that where an informal claim is later perfected, the perfected claim is treated as made on the date of the informal claim for purposes of what is today section 6511(a).  But, Kales doesn’t answer the question of what is the limit under section 6511(b) of the amount of the claim when a claim is deemed timely filed under the informal claim doctrine.  Section 6511(b) says that if a claim is filed within three years after the filing of the original return (one of the alternative requirements of subsection (a)), then the claim is limited to the amount of any tax paid in the 3-year period prior to the filing of the claim (plus the period of any extension to file the original return).  Section 6511(b), though, also provides that if a taxpayer is relying on the 2-years-after-payment rule of subsection (a) to make a refund claim timely, then the section 6511(b) amount limit is to the taxes paid in the 2-year period prior to filing the claim.  In Kales, whether the lookback period was two years or three years from the filing of the claim, the amount was not limited because the amount of the tax in dispute had been paid on the very day the informal claim was filed.

If the taxpayer in Voulgaris had raised the informal claim doctrine, should the court have used the 2-year or 3-year lookback rules from the date of the informal claim for purposes of applying the tax payment amount rules of 6511(b)?  Is the late-filed return treated as filed on the date of the informal claim so that the 3-year lookback rule applies from the informal claim date?  If so, the refund amount sought was paid within that lookback period.  However, if the 2-year lookback rule applied, the refund claim would be limited to zero.

read more...

Here are the facts of Voulgaris, which involves a refund claim for overpaid 2003 income taxes. The taxpayer, a foreigner, was a grad student during 2001 at the University of Michigan.  While studying, he set up a bank account in the U.S, in which he kept a fair amount of money.  In 2003, I am not sure if he was in the U.S. (probably not, from the court’s finding that he went back to Europe after 2001), but he bought and sold stocks through a (probably U.S-based) Scottrade account.  He did not file a timely U.S. 2003 income tax return.

The IRS later sent a notice of deficiency for 2003 income taxes to the taxpayer at some address (probably in the U.S.) in which the IRS computed his tax based on gross sales proceeds of $77,000 reported on Forms 1099-Bs.  The computation did not include any basis information.

Voulgaris never received the notice of deficiency, so, of course, he did not go to Tax Court and the deficiency was later assessed.

In 2009, the IRS issued a notice of intention to levy to Voulgaris, which he also did not receive.  So, of course, he did not request a Collection Due Process hearing.

The IRS then levied on Voulgaris’ U.S. bank account, and on Feb. 24, 2010, the IRS received $28,000 from the bank.  That amount apparently fully paid the liability.

On Feb. 10, 2013 (i.e., more than two years, but less than three years after the levy payment), the IRS received a letter from Voulgaris seeking a complete refund and including “Schedule D, Schedule D-1, and a Composite Substitute 1099 showing his Scottrade stock transactions,” but not an original Form 1040 for 2003.  The Schedule D showed that, when basis information was included, Voulgaris’ 2003 stock transactions actually had resulted in a net capital loss of about $5,000.  There is no mention in the opinion of Voulgaris having any other U.S.-source income in 2003.

The IRS responded to this letter by asking Voulgaris to file a complete Form 1040 for 2003.  After much back and forth, on Aug. 19, 2015, the IRS finally received from Voulgaris a Form 1040, which it processed.  The return sought a refund.  But, the IRS denied the refund, and the taxpayer brought a timely suit.

The court correctly observes that the claim is timely under 6511(a) because made on the original return.  Given that timely claim, the lookback period under 6511(b) was three years, not two, from the time the return was filed.  Since the tax was paid on Feb. 24, 2010 – more than three years before the return was filed – the court holds that the amount of the claim must be limited to zero.  But, is this right?

Wasn’t the Feb. 10, 2013 letter an informal claim that just later got perfected?  The court does not discuss the informal claim doctrine, since Voulgaris’ lawyer did not argue that he had made an informal claim prior to the filing of the Form 1040.  If the Feb. 10, 2013 letter in fact constituted an informal claim, that claim would come with a lookback period.  Is the lookback period two years (in which case, the claim would be limited to zero) or three years (in which case the claim could encompass the entire amount paid by levy on Feb. 24, 2010)?

I have never run across this fact pattern and haven’t done research on it.  I suspect that there is no case law on this informal claim issue because only in the last 20 years have all the courts come around to the idea that a late return showing an overpayment gets the 3-year lookback period under (b) because the claim shown on that return is timely under (a) (having been made within three years after the return was filed – indeed, on the same day).  See Baral v. United States, 528 U.S. 431, 433 (2000) (in the case of a return filed more than three years after the due date, the IRS “did not dispute that Baral had timely filed the request under the relevant filing deadline – “within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later.’ § 6511(a)”); Omohundro v. United States, 300 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2002) (overruling Miller v. United States, 38 F.3d 473 (9th Cir. 1994), which had held that the 2-year lookback period applied when a late original return was filed showing an overpayment); Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 C.B. 428.

Les tells me that Saltzman & Book does not address the issue of how the section 6511(b) amount limits apply when an informal claim is filed before a late original return showing an overpayment is filed.  And he doesn’t know whether there is case law on this question, either.  Both of us are inclined to think that, on these facts, the return is deemed filed on the date of the informal claim, so, logically, the 3-year lookback period from the date of the informal claim should apply.  But, I would not bet my shirt on it.  If any reader of PT has encountered authority on this issue, I would urge you to help us all out by citing pertinent authority in the comments section to this post.