The Coronavirus Shows Why We Need Equitable Tolling Legislation Now for Judicial Tax Filing Deadlines

Note that after this post below was written, at 9 pm March 18, the Tax Court issued a press release stating that its building is closed and that:

Mail will be held for delivery until the Court reopens. Taxpayers may comply with statutory deadlines for filing petitions or notices of appeal by timely mailing a petition or notice of appeal to the Court. Timeliness of mailing of the petition or notice of appeal is determined by the United States Postal Service’s postmark or the delivery certificate of a designated private delivery service. The eAccess and eFiling systems remain operational. Petitions and other documents may not be hand delivered to the Court.

Under Guralnik, this now extends — to the date the Clerk’s Office reopens — the time for filing in person or mailing a Tax Court petition.

Things are moving fast (finally) in D.C.  On March 13, the President sent a letter to three Cabinet Secretaries and the Administrator of FEMA invoking his power under the Stafford Act to declare a national emergency because of the coronavirus.  Part of the letter stated:  “I am also instructing Secretary Mnuchin to provide relief from tax deadlines to Americans who have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 emergency, as appropriate, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7508A(a).”

On March 18, the IRS issued Notice 2020-17, providing for a 3-month extension (from April 15, 2020 to July 15, 2020) to “Affected Taxpayers” to pay 2019 income taxes (i.e., not any other taxes) – limited to $1 million for individuals and $10 million for C  corporations or consolidated groups.  Affected Taxpayers are defined as “any person with a Federal income tax payment due April 15, 2020” – apparently regardless of where in the world the taxpayers are located.

A paragraph in the Notice also reads:

Affected Taxpayers subject to penalties or additions to tax despite the relief granted by this section III may seek reasonable cause relief under section 6651 for a failure to pay tax or seek a waiver to a penalty under section 6654 for a failure by an individual or certain trusts and estates to pay estimated income tax, as applicable. Similar relief with respect to estimated tax payments is not available for corporate taxpayers or tax-exempt organizations under section 6655.

I take this to mean that if, say, an individual taxpayer paid $1.5 million in income taxes on July 15, the IRS will impose a late-payment penalty on $500,000 of the payment, but the IRS encourages the taxpayers to seek abatement of that penalty by explaining why the coronavirus prevented payment of that $500,000, as well.  I assume that the IRS will be liberal in granting abatements, but a taxpayer will have to ask.

The IRS has, to date, has said nothing about extending any filing deadlines, though I expect it will act on that in the near future.  

Section 7508A allows the IRS to grant payment and filing extensions of up to one year (including for making refund claims, filing refund suits, and filing Tax Court petitions and notices of appeal; Reg. § 301.7508A-1(c)(1)(iv)-(vi)) for people affected by a Presidentially-declared disaster.  However, unless the IRS extends filing deadlines to people and entities worldwide (don’t forget our overseas U.S. taxpayers and foreigners who are taxpayers in the U.S.) and with respect to all taxes, this provision would not be sufficient to help all the persons who reasonably would need extensions to file tax cases in court.  Further, even a one-year extension for all taxes may not be enough, given that it is estimated that a vaccine for the coronavirus might not be available for 18 months.

I hope at least one person reading this post is a Congressional staffer, who can get what I propose into the next round of legislation to address the coronavirus pandemic.  Taxpayers dealing with the coronavirus will understandably miss tax judicial filing deadlines, such as the 30-day period to file a Collection Due Process petition in the Tax Court under § 6330(d)(1) or the 90-day (or 150-day) periods to file deficiency or innocent spouse petitions in the Tax Court under §§ 6213(a) and 6015(e)(1)(A).  Those taxpayers should be forgiven for missing those deadlines in appropriate cases, even if they are not covered by any announced extension to file under § 7508A.  However, currently, the power of the courts to forgive late judicial filings in the tax area is, according to most courts, nonexistent.  I ask Congress to change the law to clarify that tax judicial filing deadlines are not jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling.

read more...

Most courts have held that statutory tax judicial filing deadlines are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.  That’s the case despite the few appellate rulings that Keith and I have yet won holding that certain tax judicial filing deadlines are not jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling.  Although we hope for more, we have, to date, only two Circuit Court victories that only apply to tax filing deadlines used by very few people:  The district court wrongful levy filing deadline of § 6532(c); Volpicelli v. United States,  777 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2015); and the Tax Court whistleblower award filing deadline of § 7623(b)(4)Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019).  Fewer than 200 such petitions/complaints are currently filed each year (combined) in those kinds of cases, and even all the other Circuits to have ruled on the issue of the wrongful levy deadline have ruled the other way. 

Whatever reason that impelled the Supreme Court to hold in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997), that the refund claim filing and payment deadlines of §6511(a) and (b) are not subject to equitable tolling (including administrative problems that might arise because almost a hundred million 1994 returns included claims for refund), the problem of tax judicial filing deadlines is confined to a comparatively very small number of cases.  Currently, fewer than 30,000 tax complaints/petitions are filed annually, and the vast majority of these are filed on time.  It would not be a huge burden on the tax system if equitable tolling could be allowed for the few late-filed complaints/petitions where a plaintiff/taxpayer can give a good excuse for late filing – such as dealing with coronavirus.

If the Article I Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims can employ equitable tolling and district courts can employ equitable tolling in connection with Federal Tort Claims Act suits, I see no reason why tax suits should be excluded from equitable tolling.  So, legislation to change the tax law is urgently needed.

For filings in tax cases in the district courts and the Tax Court, if the clerk’s offices of those courts close during this pandemic, that will give automatic extensions to file initial pleadings until those offices reopen.  See, e.g., Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (2016) (borrowing a rule from the FRCP).  But, it is not clear that clerks offices will have to close during this pandemic.  Indeed, while the Tax Court has canceled certain upcoming trial calendars, it has not (at least yet) closed its clerk’s office to hand-delivered petitions.  Indeed, the Tax Court has announced that its Clerk’s office is still open for filing petitions, though only for four hours a day.  So, Guralnik can’t apply.

Reg. § 301.9100-1 et seq. allows the IRS to extend statutory and regulatory deadlines for making elections.  But, the IRS can’t extend judicial filing deadlines. 

Equitable tolling is generally appropriate only where the defendant [1] has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the cause of action, or [2] where the plaintiff has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or [3] has raised the precise statutory claim in issue but has mistakenly done so in the wrong forum.

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 356 Fed. Appx. 521, 522 (2d Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).  Accord Mannella v. Commissioner, 631 F.3d 115, 125 (3d Cir. 2011).  While coronoavirus interference with taxpayer lives (be it illness, quarantine, tending to others who are sick, or simply not being able to access necessary paperwork because of lock-downs) would likely fall into the “extraordinary circumstances” usual reason, equitable tolling is not limited to only those usual reasons.  As the Supreme Court has said:

The “flexibility” inherent in “equitable procedure” enables courts “to meet new situations [that] demand equitable intervention, and to accord all the relief necessary to correct . . . particular injustices.”  [Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 248 (1944)] (permitting postdeadline filing of bill of review).  Taken together, these cases recognize that courts of equity can and do draw upon decisions made in other similar cases for guidance.  Such courts exercise judgment in light of prior precedent, but with awareness of the fact that specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 650 (2010).

The former and current National Taxpayer Advocates have agreed with my push to get equitable tolling into judicial tax filing deadlines.  NTA 2017 Annual Report to Congress, Vol. 1, at pp. 283-292 (Legislative Recommendation Number 3); NTA 2018 Annual Report to Congress, 2019 Purple Book at pp. 88-90; NTA 2019 Annual Report to Congress, 2020 Purple Book at pp. 85-87.

And, I long ago drafted legislation to accomplish this.  Here’s my draft.  No doubt Congressional staffers should give it a review, as I am no expert drafter of legislation.  I would:

Amend section 7442 to add new section (b) as follows:

(b) Timely Filing Nonjurisdictional.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,

  • all periods of limitations for filing suit in the Tax Court are subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling; and
  • an order of the Tax Court dismissing a suit for untimely filing shall not be considered a ruling on the merits and shall not preclude the litigation of any later claim or issue brought in the Tax Court or any other court.

Amend section 7459(d)’s last sentence to add before the period:  “or untimely filing”.

Amend section 6532 to add a new subsection (d) reading:

(d) Timely Filing Nonjurisdictional.—The time periods set out in subsections (a) and (c) are subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

Jurisdiction of Wrongful Levy Claims

The case of i3Assembly, LLC v. United States, No. 3:18-cv-00599 (N.D.N.Y 2020) presents a sad outcome for a company taking over a government contract from a delinquent taxpayers and raises issues of jurisdiction discussed here on many occasions.  Because of a snafu, the IRS took money that should have been paid to i3Assembly and used it to satisfy the outstanding tax liability of the company that had the government contract before i3Assembly took it over. 

Although the company raises issues of equitable tolling in litigating the case, it is not clear that either the company or the Department of Justice Tax Division attorney have been closely following the many threads of discussion on jurisdiction present in this blog.  That’s unfortunate for the company, which may have had some arguments that it did not yet present, and disappointing from the government’s perspective if it neglected to cite to on point case law in other circuits adverse to the position it took in this case.

read more...

 In 2015 i3Assembly acquired certain assets from VMR Electronics and it assumed certain liabilities; however, it expressly did not assume VMR’s outstanding liability to the IRS.  i3Assembly had a different EIN, used its own labor to fulfill the contracts and then sent invoices for the work it performed.  Instead of paying i3Assembly, the government sent the money to the IRS in response to a levy.  This levy was a Federal Payment Levy Program levy served on July 18, 2016.  The IRS sent a post-levy CDP notice to VMR, which probably was surprised and delighted to find out its obligation was being paid by i3Assembly.

After the first levy, a second levy occurred on July 22, 2016 and a third on November 16, 2016.  All of the notices were going to VMR.  i3Assembly was probably trying to figure out what was happening and attributed some of the delay in payment to dealing with the Defense Department and the government in general but it was trying to find out what was happening to its invoices.  The VP of i3Assembly had several telephone conversations with IRS officials regarding the wrongful levy of its funds starting in October 2016 and going through July 18, 2017, but i3Assembly never received a notice of levy.

On October 31, 2017, i3Assembly submitted an administrative wrongful levy claim to the IRS.  The IRS disallowed the wrongful levy claim for the first and second seizure stating that the claims were not filed within nine months of the levy.  It subsequently disallowed the claim for the third levy stating that i3Assembly failed to establish that the payment did not belong to VMR or that i3Assembly had an interest in the payment superior to the IRS.

On May 21, 2018 i3Assembly filed suit.  The IRS moved to dismiss and alternatively moved for summary judgment.  The court discussed the Federal Payment Levy (FPL) and the fact that it acts as a continuous levy.  The IRS argued that i3Assembly had to raise its concerns with nine months of the time the IRS put out the FPL, even though it had no idea the FPL existed or that it would take money intended for i3Assembly. 

i3Assembly admitted that it did not file its claim for wrongful levy within nine months of the first and second levies under the FPL but argued that equitable tolling should suspend the time frame for filing the wrongful levy claim.  It argues that its claim was timely for the third levy based on the date the funds were actually seized and i3Assembly put on notice of the seizure.  According to i3Assembly that occurred on July 22, 2017.  The IRS argued that the date of the notice is irrelevant because it had no duty to notify i3Assembly, and the time limit starts to run on the date the person possessing the property received the notice of levy back in July 2016.

i3Assembly pointed out the IRS argument creates an absurd result, because the period for filing a claim could pass before any property was seized or the party whose property was taken would have any idea of the taking.  The IRS responded that the statute and case law do not require notice to the person claiming their property was wrongfully taken and that the Second Circuit in Williams v. United States, 947 F.2d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 1991) had already determined that notice to the third party was unnecessary when calculating the time period.  The levy at issue in Williams, however, was not a continuous levy like the FPL.  When the FPL was served, there was no property to which it attached.  So, i3Assembly would not under any circumstances have received notice at that time.

The court states that:

On this record, the Court cannot determine what, if any, notice was provided to Plaintiff regarding the continuing levy under FPLP before the statute of limitations [on filing the wrongful levy claim] had run.  Absent any evidence regarding what information was provided to Plaintiff, and further briefing from the Defendant regarding due process, the Court at this time denies the motion to dismiss Count One with prejudice to renewal.

The court then discussed equitable tolling.  It found that i3Assembly had not alleged facts that would support equitable tolling for the first and second levies. With respect to the third levy, the court seems to find it possible that i3Assembly did have facts in the record that could support equitable tolling, but then it shifted to the need for i3Assembly to show that the statute at issue is one to which equitable tolling could apply.  In other words, the court needs to know if the time period for filing a wrongful levy claim is a jurisdictional time period.  In looking at this issue, it cites to cases from the 1990s and ignores all of the law on this issue that has occurred in the past 15 years.

I have not looked at the briefs but even if i3Assembly attorneys did not find the relevant case law, I would have expected the DOJ attorney to cite to the more recent case law.  In particular the 9th Circuit has ruled in Volpicelli v. United States, 777 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2015) that the time period in the wrongful levy statute is not a jurisdictional time frame.  I would have expected this decision to receive some mention as I would have expected the more recent and relevant law on jurisdiction to receive some mention.  Perhaps, i3Assembly’s attorneys will find the newer case law and find the Volpicelli opinion and file an appeal.  Carl has written a post on the last Second Circuit case, Mottahedeh v. United States, to seek equitable tolling in the context of wrongful levy. In that case, the court declined to grant equitable tolling but did so without citing to the recent Supreme Court case law as well.

For the Second Time in About Five Years, the SG Decides Not to Take a Tax Equitable Tolling Case to SCOTUS

Just another short update on Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019), on which I blogged here.  In that opinion, the D.C. Circuit held that the 30-day deadline in section 7623(b)(4) in which to file a whistleblower award petition in the Tax Court is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law.  The DOJ had initially sought en banc rehearing of the Myers opinion, contending that the opinion could not be reconciled with the opinion in Duggan v. Commissioner, 879 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018), on which I blogged hereDuggan held that the 30-day deadline in section 6330(d)(1) in which to file a Collection Due Process petition in the Tax Court is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.  Since the 2006 language of section 7623(b)(4) was rather obviously cribbed from the 2000-version language in section 6330(d)(1), I agree with the DOJ that the two opinions cannot be reconciled.

After the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing, the Solicitor General had to consider seeking certiorari in Myers.  Clearly, there was some struggle in the DOJ to figure out what to do, since the SG twice requested extensions of the time to file a cert. petition.  But, the last extension expired on March 2, and no further extension was sought or petition was filed by that date.  Thus, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Myers now controls all Tax Court whistleblower award cases under Golsen, since, under section 7482(b)(1), unlike most Tax Court cases, whistleblower award cases are only appealable to the D.C. Circuit.

read more...

This is the second time in about five years that the DOJ, after losing a tax equitable tolling case and being unsuccessful in seeking en banc rehearing because of a conflict among the Circuits, has, in the end, decided not to seek cert.  The prior case was Volpicelli v. United States, 777 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2015), on which I blogged hereVolpicelli held that the then-9-month (now 2-year) deadline in section 6532(c) in which to file a district court wrongful levy complaint is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law.  Volpicelli is in conflict with several section 6532(c) opinions of other Circuits, including Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Wolckenhauer, 215 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2000), but all of the conflicting cases were decided before the new Supreme Court case law on jurisdiction began in 2004.

I am a little bummed out by the SG’s chickening out on seeking cert. in Myers, since in both Volpicelli and Myers, I wrote or co-wrote amicus briefs in the cases on behalf of tax clinics with which I had been then affiliated (Cardozo and Harvard, respectively).  And, more than the usual amicus, I was otherwise instrumental in pushing these cases forward as test cases.  I guess it is just my luck that any potential Supreme Court case I help generate gets passed on by the SG after much furor and ado below.  Given that I am retired and now just volunteering with the Harvard clinic, Myers was likely my last chance at getting to SCOTUS on an issue I cared strongly about.  But, maybe I should be like Yoda and sigh, “After all, there is another”.  In Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, Eight Circuit Docket No. 19-2003, the Eight Circuit has been asked to hold the section 6330(d)(1) filing deadline not jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.  Keith and I (on behalf of the Harvard clinic) are amicus there, as well.  Oral argument is expected shortly in Boechler, as the briefing is complete.

In a December post, I pointed out that the Tax Court had been holding back from deciding a number of whistleblower award cases pending the SG’s action regarding cert. in Myers.  See Tax Court orders in Aghadjanian v. Commissioner, Docket No. 9339-18W (dated 9/4/19 and 12/9/19); McCrory v. Commissioner, Docket No. 3443-18W (dated 9/4/19 and 12/6/19); Bond v. Commissioner, Docket No. 5690-19W (dated 10/8/19); Bond v. Commissioner, Docket No. 6267-19W (dated 10/30/19); Bond v. Commissioner, Docket No. 6982-19W (dated 11/5/19).  That has continued in other dockets.  See Tax Court orders in Berleth v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21414-18W (dated 1/22/20 and 2/2/20); Friedel v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11239-19W (dated 2/14/20); Damiani v. Commissioner, Docket No. 14914-19W (dated 2/18/20).

And, in the remand of Myers from the D.C. Circuit, we can all look forward to the Tax Court for the first time being confronted with deciding what constitutes substantive grounds for equitable tolling of a Tax Court filing deadline.  To decide this question, the Tax Court will have to borrow case law from other courts, including the Supreme Court, since the Tax Court has never before believed it had the power to grant equitable tolling.

How the Death of a President Impacts Tax Court Jurisdiction

The ever alert commenter-in-chief and occasional guest blogger, Bob Kamman, brought to my attention a Tax Court order issued on February 21, 2019, as a result of the death of President George H. W. Bush in 2018.  It seems that the petitioner in the case, Ms. Makowski, went to the post office on December 5, 2018, the 90th day to mail her petition to the Tax Court.  When she arrived at the post office, it was closed because President Trump had ordered December 5, 2018 to be a day of national mourning for President Bush.  So, Ms. Makowski had to come back to the post office the next day to mail her petition.  When her petition arrived at the Tax Court, the IRS noticed that it was mailed one day late and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

read more...

Ms. Makowski responded to the motion by sending the court a letter explaining the problem she had in trying to mail the letter on the 90th day.  The court then issued the following order:

On February 21, 2019, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition herein was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent attached to the motion copies of a notice of deficiency and corresponding certified mail list, as evidence of the fact that such notice for the taxable years 2015 and 2016 was sent to petitioner by certified mail on September 6, 2018. On March 26, 2019, the Court received from petitioner a document, initially filed as a letter, that is in the nature of an objection to the motion to dismiss. Therein, petitioner explained, and attached documentation supporting, that she had been unable to mail the petition on the December 5, 2018, due date because of the closure of post offices concomitant with the declaration by President Donald Trump of a National Day of Mourning in honor of former President George H.W. Bush. 

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s submission filed March 26, 2018, [sic] as a letter shall be recharacterized as an objection to the pending motion to dismiss. 

It is further ORDERED that, on or before April 18, 2019, respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s just-referenced objection, addressing the impact of the National Day of Mourning declaration for purposes of filing deadlines. 

The IRS withdrew its motion because of the Tax Court’s decision in Guralnik.  The case moved forward to decision where the IRS conceded that she had no deficiency for the two years at issue.  Happy ending.

The case demonstrates another way that the shutdown of the overall federal government (think budget impasse as discussed here) or the Tax Court (think snow as discussed here) can impact a taxpayer’s ability to obtain Tax Court jurisdiction or at least to have a petition deemed timely filed, so that the petitioner need not get into the arguments about whether timely filing creates a jurisdictional issue.

It’s a fairly simple lesson at this point, but the issue of government shutdown resulting from the death of a President reminded me of a problem caused by the death of President Nixon in April of 1994.  This remembrance has absolutely nothing to do with tax procedure so stop reading if you are looking for any meaning here.

At the time of President Nixon’s death, I was the District Counsel for the IRS in Richmond, Virginia which meant I was in charge of the group of attorneys representing the IRS in Virginia.  One of the attorneys in the office was going to a training program in Boulder, Colorado.  As I remember, the program ran from Tuesday morning through Thursday afternoon with Monday and Friday as travel days.  The attorney liked to ski and decided to go to Colorado early in order to get in some skiing over the weekend.  The flight cost to the government was the same, and he picked up his expenses for the time before the training program began. 

After he left Richmond and before the training program began, the government announced that Wednesday of the week of the training program would be a day of national mourning for President Nixon.  That caused the office to cancel the training program since it could not be held on Wednesday and that created a big hole in the programming.  By the time of the decision, the attorney was already on the slopes.  This was an era before cell phones and other forms of instant communication, so I called the ski resort and asked it to leave a message on its message board for the attorney to call me.  That failed.  I called the hotel in Boulder where he was going to stay and did connect with him once he arrived there.  He returned to Richmond after receiving the message at the hotel, and we began the process of putting in a travel voucher for a trip to a training program that was cancelled.

Many memos and phone calls later, the government did cover the cost of his airfare and one night’s lodging, but the exercise forever burned in my memory the fact that the government shuts down when a President dies, even though the consequences of the shutdown can be unexpected.  As bad as it seemed when I was writing and calling on behalf of the employee to obtain his reimbursement, I remember that my counterpart in Chicago had an employee who had a fear of flying and took the train from Chicago to Colorado to attend the training.  So, I was not the only one with this headache. 

Shutting down the government creates many ripples.  If you have a Tax Court matter with a due date on the shutdown, keep Guralnik in mind.  This is yet another situation where it can come in handy.

Mailing the Collection Due Process Request

The IRS recently released a program manager technical assistant (PMTA) memo entitled Treatment of Incorrectly-addressed CDP Hearing Requests.  This memo reverses the advice of a similar memo written in 2013.  The issue concerns the fate of taxpayers seeking to obtain a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing who timely mail their CDP hearing request to what the IRS considers to be the wrong office.  In the 2013 advice the IRS took the position that if the “wrong” IRS office got the request to the “right” IRS office before the end of the CDP request period (which differs slightly depending on whether it is a lien or levy case but in both instances is a short window of approximately 30 days from the date the IRS sends the notice), then the taxpayer could have a CDP hearing.  If, however, the wrong office did not get the notice to the right office within the 30-day period, the taxpayer lost the right to have a CDP hearing and would receive only an equivalent hearing.

I wrote an article about this issue in Tax Notes in November of 2018 available here.  The article builds on the work of the tax clinic at Harvard concerning jurisdiction and explains that the 30-day time period to request a CDP hearing is not a jurisdictional time period.  We discussed this issue previously here, here and here.  In the PMTA the IRS essentially agrees with the conclusion that the notice need not be received in the “right” IRS office within the 30-day window, though the PMTA does not address the issue using jurisdictional language in the portion of the PMTA made available to the public.  Perhaps the IRS is concerned that taxpayers might litigate about this issue.  Imagine.

read more...

One of the biggest hurdles facing taxpayers seeking a CDP hearing is the CDP notice.  Not only is the notice that the IRS sends generally not well-designed to give someone notice of an impending deadline impacting their right to go to court, but the notice provided affirmatively confusing instructions concerning where to send the request for a CDP here.  The IRS acknowledged in the PMTA that the notice was not a model of clarity:

This CDP notice can take many forms depending on, for example, the type of collection action (NFTL filing, levy), the issuing component (Automated Collection, Field Collection), and the type of levy (Federal Payment Levy Program, State Income Tax Levy Program). Some notices, like the LT11, serve the dual purpose of informing the taxpayer of their CDP rights and soliciting payment. To facilitate this dual purpose, the notices have one address for submitting the hearing request printed at the top of the first page, and another address for submitting payment printed on a removable payment voucher at the bottom of the first page. These notices are printed double-sided, and the payment address is printed to appear through the cellophane window on the envelope enclosed with the letter. Because the notices are printed double-sided, in addition to appearing on the top of the first page, the mailing address for the CDP hearing request may also be printed on the reverse side of the payment voucher. The payment voucher and CDP hearing request addresses may be the same, but often times they are not. Thus, for this type of notice, the taxpayer can inadvertently mail the CDP hearing request to the payment voucher address simply by inserting the voucher in the envelope backwards. In addition to the LT11, the CP92, CP77/78, and CP90/297 have the payment address printed on one side of the voucher and the mailing address for the CDP hearing request printed on the other side. Other notices, like the Letter 3172, do not solicit payment, but they do have the originating address at the top of the page and the mailing address for a CDP hearing request at the bottom of the page.

So, the IRS suggested giving taxpayers a CDP hearing if the request for the hearing is mailed to the IRS within the appropriate time frame:

Because of the confusion caused by including multiple addresses on current versions of the CDP notices, we recommend that the Service determine timeliness based on the date the request was mailed to the wrong office, so long as the address of the wrong office was shown on the CDP notice (such as the payment voucher address on the LT11 or the originating office on the Letter 3172). This recommendation does not conflict with Treas. Reg. §§ 301.6320-1(c)(2) Q&A-C6 & 301.6330-1(c)(2) Q&A-C6, which state that taxpayers must send the CDP hearing request to “the IRS office and address as directed on the CDP notice.” Any addresses on the notice should be deemed the “address as directed on the CDP notice.” The June 2013 PMTA should no longer be followed.

This change in advice should open up the CDP process for a number of taxpayers who send their request to the wrong place.  This is not necessarily the end of the story about timeliness and the CDP request.  Certainly, if a taxpayer mails the request late but has a good reason for doing so, the late mailing of the CDP request should not act as an automatic bar to obtaining a CDP hearing.  Taxpayers in this situation should look to the arguments regarding jurisdiction and equitable tolling to fine situations in which even a late mailed request could still result in a CDP hearing.

The PMTA is welcome news.  The CDP summit work, described in prior posts here and here, deserves credit for engaging the IRS to make improvements in this area.  I hope that this is one of many improvements that the IRS can make administratively.  I also hope this effort also suggests that the IRS will take a hard look at the CDP notices that it issues and the location for making a CDP request.  The notices need significant restructuring to make them more appropriate vehicles for informing taxpayers of their right to a CDP hearing.  The current notices place far too much emphasis on seeking payment and too little information on the right to request a hearing.  I know that members of the CDP summit would be happy to work with the IRS to help to write more effective notices that protect and preserve taxpayer rights.

Additionally, the IRS could make it much easier to make the request by picking a single point of contact for the nation.  It could create a single fax number such as the one used by the CAF unit.  It could create a single mailing address.  The process of making the request does not need to be complicated.  The IRS can move the information around from the single point of contact to the offices that need the information.  It does this regularly with Tax Court petitions, powers of attorney and other documents.  Doing so would also be consistent with the practices of other federal agencies who have similar types of hearing requests being received.

Kudos to the IRS for taking this step.  Let’s work together to keep up the momentum.

District Court Gets Timely Mailing Is Timely Filing Rule of Section 7502 Wrong as Applied to Refund Claim Lookback Period of Section 6511(b)(2)(A)

I remember when I was a young associate at Roberts & Holland LLP in 1983 and marveled at how Sidney Roberts could remember developments in the tax law from as much as 40 years earlier.  Well, now I am approaching 40 years of doing tax procedure, and I marvel at long-ago fights that I still remember.  One of those fights just came up in a district court case in the Western District of Wisconsin, Harrison v. United States, No. 19-cv-00194 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 9, 2020), and, sadly, the court got the upshot wrong.  The exact issue in the case was definitively resolved the other way in regulations adopted in 2001 that followed a once-controversial Second Circuit opinion.  Neither the DOJ nor the district court in Harrison seems to be aware of the Second Circuit opinion or the relevant regulation.  Sad.

The issue is how the refund claim limitations at section 6511(a) and (b) and the timely mailing is timely filing rules of section 7502(a) interact when a late original return was filed seeking a refund, and the return was mailed out only a few days before the expiration of the period that is 3 years plus the amount of any extension to file after the return’s original due date, where the return/claim is received by the IRS and filed after that period.  The DOJ and the district court correctly recognized that the refund claim is timely under section 6511(a) because it was filed on the same date the return was filed – i.e., that a late return is still a return for purposes of section 6511(a).  See Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 C.B. 428 (itself trying to resolve a Circuit split on this issue that still continued for almost 30 years after its issuance).  But, then the DOJ argued (and the district court agreed) that the 3 year plus extension lookback period of section 6511(b)(2)(A) looks back from the date of IRS receipt, and since the taxes were deemed paid on the original due date of the return, the refund claim is limited to $0 because no taxes were paid or deemed paid in that lookback period.  It is this second holding that is manifestly incorrect.

read more...

Harrison Facts

The Harrison facts are quite simple and typical:  All of the 2012 taxes at issue were withheld from wages or other income.  Thus, section 6513(b)(1) deems them paid as of April 15, 2013.  The taxpayers obtained a 6-month extension to file their return, but then did not mail an original return under that extension.  Rather, they filed a very late return in 2016.  It showed an overpayment of $7,386.48, which they asked to be refunded.  The return was sent by certified mail on October 11, 2016, and was received by the IRS on October 17, 2016.

The taxpayers argued that, under the timely mailing is timely filing rules of section 7502(a), the 3 years plus 6 month lookback period for taxes paid begins from the October 11, 2016 date of mailing (making the refund amount limit $7,386.48), while the DOJ argued that the 3 years plus 6 month lookback period for taxes paid begins from October 17, 2016 because section 7502(a) has no application in this case (making the refund amount $0).  The DOJ moved (1) to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted (i.e., under FRCP 12(b)(6)) – a merits dismissal – or (2), in the alternative, for summary judgment that the claim was limited to $0 (also a merits ruling).

Harrison Ruling

The district court correctly noted that there is no Seventh Circuit authority directly answering the question of the date from which the lookback is determined on these facts.  The district court then reasoned that October 15 or 17, 2016, was not the due date for the return – October 15, 2013 was (taking into account the 6-month extension).  The court concluded that section 7502(a) had no application here.  That statute only provides that if a return or claim is delivered to the IRS after the due date, then the date of the United States postmark is deemed the date of delivery.  However, this rule only applies if the postmark falls on or before the due date of the return or claim.  (For certified mail, used herein, the date on the certified mail receipt, not the postmark, is used.  Section 7502(c).)

What does the district court cite in support of its holding under section 6511(b)(2)(A)?  It cites (1) Pitre v. IRS, 938 F. Supp. 95 (D.N.H. 1996), an on point opinion decided before the Second Circuit’s opinion in Weisbart v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 222 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussed below) and (2) two opinions reaching the right result (i.e., no refund) – Washington v. United States, 123 AFTR 2d 2019-1585 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), and Doyle v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 314 (2009) – but where the mailing date was after the 3 years plus any extension period, so the courts’ statements therein that the even-later received date governed under section 6511(b)(2)(A) were correct because section 7502(a)’s extension does not apply if the mailing is after such date. 

Weisbart and the Regulation

The district court in Harrison neither discussed the Weisbart opinion nor the regulations under section 7502.  Had the district court done so, I expect that it would have reached a different result. 

Weisbart is on all fours with Harrison as to its facts.  In Weisbart, to quote the court:

Emanuel Weisbart’s 1991 income tax return was due on April 15, 1992, but he obtained an automatic extension until August 17, 1992. Despite the extension, Weisbart did not file his return by the August 1992 deadline. Tarrying three years, he mailed his 1991 return to the IRS on August 17, 1995. The tax return was submitted on the customary Form 1040 and included a refund claim for $4,867 from the $12,477 in taxes that had been previously withheld from Weisbart’s 1991 wages. The IRS received the return on August 21, 1995.

222 F.3d at 94.

The Weisbart court, relying on regulations that have since been clarified and expanded, reasoned that the rules of section 7502 apply in this case to make the amount paid on the due date within the period provided by section 6511(b)(2)(A) – i.e. that the lookback date is the date of mailing, not the date the IRS received the refund claim.  The court wrote:

The Service argues, and the district court held, that the “prescribed” period applicable to Weisbart’s tax return should also apply to the refund claim. Applying this construction, Weisbart’s refund claim would not enjoy the benefit of the mailbox rule, and would therefore be barred. . . .

Taken together, these two Treasury Regulations provide that the applicability of the mailbox rule to the refund claim should be analyzed independently of the timeliness of the tax return itself, regardless of whether they are in the same document. As such, even though Weisbart’s tax return was untimely filed, his refund claim enjoys the benefit of the mailbox rule, and is deemed filed on August 17, 1995. Because that date is within 3 years of the date when Weisbart is deemed to have paid his withheld employment taxes, he may recover any overpayment included in those taxes under the look back provisions of section 6511(b)(2)(A).

222 F.3d at 97 (citation omitted).

The Treasury decided to accept the Weisbart holding, and so, in 2001, promulgated T.D. 8932, 66 FR 2257.  The Treasury decision stated:

[T]he IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that, in certain situations, a claim for credit or refund made on a late filed original income tax return should be treated under section 7502 as timely filed on the postmark date for purposes of section 6511(b)(2)(A). This is consistent with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Weisbart v. United States Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, 222 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2000), rev’g 99-1 USTC (CCH) P50,549 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), AOD-CC-2000-09 (Nov. 13, 2000).

66 FR at 2258.  The Treasury Decision added a new subsection (f) to Reg. section 301.7502-1.  I won’t quote the technical language of the regulation, but I will quote the one on point example at subsection (f)(3). It reads:

(i) Taxpayer A, an individual, mailed his 2001 Form 1040, “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,” on April 15, 2005, claiming a refund of amounts paid through withholding during 2001. The date of the postmark on the envelope containing the return and claim for refund is April 15, 2005. The return and claim for refund are received by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on April 18, 2005. Amounts withheld in 2001 exceeded A’s tax liability for 2001 and are treated as paid on April 15, 2002, pursuant to section 6513.


(ii) Even though the date of the postmark on the envelope is after the due date of the return, the claim for refund and the late filed return are treated as filed on the postmark date for purposes of this paragraph (f). Accordingly, the return will be treated as filed on April 15, 2005. In addition, the claim for refund will be treated as timely filed on April 15, 2005. Further, the entire amount of the refund attributable to withholding is allowable as a refund under section 6511(b)(2)(A).

Emphasis added.

Observations

Before berating the district judge, who is no doubt not a tax procedure specialist, I would point out that the parties’ briefing on the motion did not mention either the Second Circuit’s opinion in Weisbart or the regulation under section 7502.  The brief accompanying the motion is here, the taxpayers’ brief is here, and the government’s reply brief is here.  I am quite dismayed, though, that the DOJ Trial Section attorney did not know of the relevant authority.  I have sent an e-mail to the Harrisons’ counsel suggesting a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

The district court in Harrison did do something else right, though:  It did not treat compliance with the tax paid amounts rules of section 6511(b) as jurisdictional.  Rather, both the DOJ and the court (unlike many other courts) treated compliance with these rules as a merits issue.  The court granted the DOJ’s motion on the ground of summary judgment, not FRCP 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) or 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).  In not treating the rules of section 6511(b) as jurisdictional, the Harrison court followed Seventh Circuit precedent, stating:

In reviewing the caselaw, requiring administrative exhaustion of a refund claim may be a jurisdictional requirement. See Gillespie v. United States, 670 Fed. App’x 393 (7th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging that recent Supreme Court developments “may cast doubt on the line of cases suggesting that § 7422(a) is jurisdiction”). However, the Seventh Circuit has treated whether there are any tax payments within the “look back period” as an element of the claim. See Gessert v. United States, 703 F.3d 1028, 1036-37 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that the claims do “not meet the [timing] requirements of the statute,” despite headnotes that describe it as a jurisdictional defect); Curry v. United States, 774 F.2d 852, 855 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their claims, but even if they had exhausted, they would be barred from obtaining a refund because of the time requirements under § 6511). As such, the merits of plaintiffs’ claim appear to be properly before the court.

Footnote 2 (emphasis in original).

The Federal Circuit took a similar position (i.e., that compliance with the section 6511(b) tax payment rules is not jurisdictional) in Boeri v. United States, 724 F.3d 1367, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), a case on which Stephen blogged here.  For a discussion of the Gillespie case cited by the Harrison court, see my prior post here.

Review of 2019 (Part 3)

In the last two weeks of 2019 we are running material which we have primarily covered during the year but which discusses the important developments during this year.  As we reflect on what has transpired during the year, let’s also think about how we can improve the tax procedure process going forward.

read more...

Penalty Approval by Manager

The impact of Graev v. Commissioner, a 2017 Tax Court decision, has been felt throughout the world of tax procedure over the last two years. In Graev, the Tax Court adopted the 2nd Circuit’s holding in Chai v. Commissioner and ruled that in order to assess a penalty, the IRS generally has the burden under IRC 6751 of showing that written approval from a supervisor occurred before a Tax Court proceeding was initiated. Automatically-imposed penalties are an exception to the written approval rule. In recent affected Tax Court cases, the IRS has sought to reopen the record in order to submit additional evidence of supervisory approval, as otherwise Graev would preclude the court sustaining a penalty assessment. This is a complicated issue which will continue to drive further litigation in the near-future.

See William Schmidt, Designated Orders: Another Graev Issue and More Petitioners Refusing to Sign a Decision (5/13/19 to 5/17/19), Procedurally Taxing (July 10, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/designated-orders-another-graev-issue-and-more-petitioners-refusing-to-sign-a-decision-5-13-19-to-5-17-19/

Keith Fogg, Prior Supervisory Approval Not Necessary for Late Filing Penalty Imposed Under IRC 6699, Procedurally Taxing (June 18, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/prior-supervisory-approval-not-necessary-for-late-filing-penalty-imposed-under-irc-6699/

Keith Fogg, An IRC 6751 Decision Regarding the Initial Penalty Determination, Procedurally Taxing (June 10, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/an-irc-6751-decision-regarding-the-initial-penalty-determination/

Keith Fogg, Automatically Generated Penalties Do not Require Managerial Approval, Procedurally Taxing (June 6, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/automatically-generated-penalties-do-not-require-managerial-approval/

Keith Fogg, Tenth Circuit Agrees with Graev II – IRS Attorney Can Impose Penalties, Procedurally Taxing (May 20, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/tenth-circuit-agrees-with-graev-ii-irs-attorney-can-impose-penalties/

Keith Fogg, Variance Doctrine Trumps IRS Failure to Obtain Administrative Approval of Penalty, Procedurally Taxing (May 6, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/variance-doctrine-trumps-irs-failure-to-obtain-administrative-approval-of-penalty/

Government Closure

Jurisdiction of Tax Court

Government shutdowns continue to pose problems for tax procedure, and particularly for taxpayers attempting to file petitions with the Tax Court. In 2016, in Guralnik v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that a day on which the Tax Court was closed due to a snowstorm did not hold open IRC 6330(d)’s statutory deadline based on IRC 7503 – the Saturday, Sunday and holiday rule; that the 30-day time period in IRC 6330 was a jurisdictional time period not subject to equitable tolling; and that taxpayer’s use of a better private mailing service than was included on the approved IRS list did not meeting the timely mailing rule of IRC 7502.  However, the Tax Court allowed the taxpayer into the court based on a determination that no Tax Court rule governed the circumstance when the court closed for a reason other than a Saturday, Sunday or holiday and in the absence of a rule it could keep the time period open using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. That holding greatly informed the Tax Court’s treatment of petitions filed during the lengthy government shutdown of 2018-2019. Petitions due during the period of the shutdown were facially untimely, and thus the IRS sought to dismiss the resulting cases. In response, the Tax Court adopted a standard policy of issuing a generic order, requiring that the IRS supplement its motion to dismiss to address the applicability of Guralnik. In the majority of the cases, the IRS then conceded the issue and the Tax Court denied the pending motions to dismiss. Thus, in effect, Guralnik appears to govern in government shutdowns, and thus taxpayers can have their petitions treated as timely filed when delivered to the court upon the conclusion of a shutdown.

See Keith Fogg, The Broad Impact of Guralnik, Procedurally Taxing (Aug. 16, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/the-broad-impact-of-guralnik/

Keith Fogg, How the Government Shutdown Impacted the Tax Court Filing Deadline, Procedurally Taxing (July 12, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/how-the-government-shutdown-impacted-the-tax-court-filing-deadline/

Keith Fogg, Fallout from the Shutdown – The Odyssey of a Tax Court Petition, Procedurally Taxing (May 28, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/fallout-from-the-shutdown-the-odyssey-of-a-tax-court-petition/

Jurisdiction and Equitable Tolling                                            

Myers v. Commissioner, a case decided this summer in the D.C. Circuit, is the first time that an appellate court has found a Tax Court statutory deadline to be nonjurisdictional. Myers concerned IRC 7623(b)(4), which sets forth the deadline for filing a whistleblower award petition in Tax Court. More importantly, the language of section 7623(b)(4) is a near-exact mirror of the deadline language found in the CDP deadline statute, 6330(d)(1) – which the 9th Circuit found was jurisdictional in Duggan v. Commissioner. Accordingly, the ruling for the petitioner in Myers creates a circuit split, which could very well generate a future hearing of the issue by the Supreme Court – which has consistently found statutory deadlines to be nonjurisdictional in recent years.  The D.C. Circuit has denied an en banc hear, the government has asked for an extended time within which to decide whether to make a cert petition because of the perceived circuit split.  The issue has far reaching implications for tax litigation deadlines and the ability of taxpayers with strong excuses for filing late to have their day in court.

The implication of a nonjurisdictional finding is that it allows the Tax Court to hear cases when a petition is not timely filed, if doing so would be fair under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Currently, if a taxpayer fails to timely their petition, then the Tax Court is unable to hear their case, regardless of the circumstances.  The tax clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of Mr. Myers as it had done for Mr. Duggan.

See Carlton Smith, D.C. Circuit Denies DOJ En Banc Rehearing Petition in Myers Whistleblower Case, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 9, 2019) https://procedurallytaxing.com/d-c-circuit-denies-doj-en-banc-rehearing-petition-in-myers-whistleblower-case/

Carlton Smith, D.C. Circuit Holds Tax Court Whistleblower Award Filing Deadline Not Jurisdictional and Subject to Equitable Tolling, Procedurally Taxing (July 3, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/d-c-circuit-holds-tax-court-whistleblower-award-filing-deadline-not-jurisdictional-and-subject-to-equitable-tolling/

Gov’t Jurisdiction & closure

This past year’s federal government shutdown was the longest in U.S. history and as a result, posed many unique and challenging issues for taxpayers and practitioners. For one, as discussed at length above, it was unclear for much of the year whether the Tax Court would apply Guralnik to allow petitions due during the shutdown to be deemed timely. Perhaps more obviously, the shutdown was deeply disruptive for taxpayers engaged in collection matters with the IRS, who were unable to communicate with furloughed IRS employees. The recently-departed former National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, has in the past proposed that the IRS apply an emergency exception to the Anti-Deficiency Act to allow TAS employees to continue to work during a shutdown to assist taxpayers experiencing economic hardship. As future government shutdowns are unfortunately likely, hopefully the IRS will continue to implement reforms that will mitigate the impact of shutdowns on taxpayers.

See Bryan Camp, After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part IV — Equity, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 31, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/after-the-shutdown-dealing-with-time-limitations-part-iv-equity/

Bryan Camp, After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part III, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 28, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/after-the-shutdown-dealing-with-time-limitations-part-iii/

Leslie Book, Finding Guidance on the Effects of the Shutdown, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 27, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/finding-guidance-on-the-effects-of-the-shutdown/

Christine Speidel, The Taxpayer Advocate Service’s Role During an IRS Shutdown, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 25, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/the-taxpayer-advocate-services-role-during-an-irs-shutdown/

Bryan Camp, After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part II, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 23, 2019),  https://procedurallytaxing.com/after-the-shutdown-dealing-with-time-limitations-part-ii/

Bryan Camp, After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part I, Procedurally Taxing (Jan. 22, 2019),  https://procedurallytaxing.com/after-the-shutdown-dealing-with-time-limitations-part-i/

Financial Disability

Stauffer and others

Recent litigation has clarified the narrow scope of the financial disability exception of IRC 6511, which suspends the statute of limitations (“SOL”) for a refund claim if an individual is “financially disabled”. In Stauffer v. Internal Revenue Service, the 1st Circuit recently ruled against the estate of the taxpayer, finding that because the taxpayer’s son held a durable POA during the period in question, the estate is not entitled to file a refund claim outside of the SOL. Similarly, in Carter v. United States, a district court recently found that an estate executor’s disability was irrelevant to the SOL consideration, because the estate was the actual taxpayer in question. Finally, in Thorpe v. Department of Treasury, another district court held against the taxpayers who tried to make a disability argument but failed to comply with any of the enumerated requirements of Rev. Proc. 99-21.

See Keith Fogg, First Circuit Sustains Denial of Financial Disability Claim, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 21, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/first-circuit-sustains-denial-of-financial-disability-claim/

Keith Fogg, An Estate Cannot Use the Financial Disability Provisions to Toll the Statute of Limitations for Filing a Refund Claim, Procedurally Taxing (Sep. 12, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/an-estate-cannot-use-the-financial-disability-provisions-to-toll-the-statute-of-limitations-for-filing-a-refund-claim

Keith Fogg, Financial Disability Argument Loses Because Taxpayer Husband Did not even Allege Disability, Procedurally Taxing (Mar. 25, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/financial-disability-argument-loses-because-taxpayer-husband-did-not-even-allege-disability/

CDP

Summit

The new CDP Summit initiative seeks to improve the CDP process with input from taxpayers, practitioners and IRS staff. Many ideas are on the table as potential ideas for reform. A recent case, Webber v. Commissioner illustrates the need for improvements to the actual physical CDP notices themselves. In Webber, the taxpayer was misled by the multiple IRS mailing addresses on the received CDP notice (one for the CDP appeal and one for remittance of payment) and timely filed his CDP appeal with the incorrect address – thus missing the statutory deadline. Upon later appeal to the Tax Court, the IRS initially filed a motion to dismiss but then quickly withdrew the motion, perhaps recognizing the unfair result and the potential for the Tax Court to reach the issue of the jurisdictional nature of the deadline. The CDP Summit initiative seeks to make improvements to protect such taxpayers from unfair results, which defeat the purpose of CDP as a tool for taxpayers to quickly and effectively settle disputes with the IRS.

Carolyn Lee, Two tickets to Tax Court, by way of § 6015 and Collection Due Process, Procedurally Taxing (Aug. 28, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/two-tickets-to-tax-court-by-way-of-%c2%a7-6015-and-collection-due-process/

William Schmidt, Collection Due Process and Webber v. C.I.R., Procedurally Taxing (July 24, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/collection-due-process-and-webber-v-c-i-r/

Carolyn Lee, Collection Due Process Summit Initiative, Procedurally Taxing (July 18, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/collection-due-process-summit-initiative/

Litigating merits

Under IRC 6330(c)(2)(B), taxpayers are able to contest the merits of their underlying liability in CDP proceedings only if they had (1) not previously received a statutory notice of deficiency for the liability or (2) not had a “prior opportunity” to dispute the liability. While the first element of this provision is relatively clear, the question of what constitutes a prior opportunity has been a topic of recent discussion for practitioners. In a series of recent cases, several circuits agreed with the IRS that a taxpayer is precluded from litigating the merits in CDP hearing if they previously had the ability to request a pre-assessment hearing. The IRS has also apparently taken the position that failure to receive a SNOD is not sufficient for a taxpayer to dispute liability on the merits if the taxpayer later files an audit reconsideration request and receives an opportunity for an appeals hearing in the process.  The opinion appeared to ignore the “or” language in the statute. And in a recent Tax Court proposed opinion in Lander v. Commissioner, a Special Trial Judge has accepted this argument. The proposed opinion in Lander is interesting, as the taxpayer did not receive a SNOD but, per the opinion, was still precluded from challenging on the merits because a pre-assessment hearing had already been offered. However, the case was recently submitted to Judge Goeke on November 13th, so the final disposition of the case may change.

See Keith Fogg, More on the Muddle of CDP, Procedurally Taxing (Sep. 9, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/more-on-the-muddle-of-cdp/

Keith Fogg, The Muddle of Seeking to Litigate the Merits of a Tax Liability in Collection Due Process Cases, Procedurally Taxing (Aug. 6, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/the-muddle-of-seeking-to-litigate-the-merits-of-a-tax-liability-in-collection-due-process-cases/

POA

Scope

A recent case in the Court of Federal Claims provides guidance on the scope of authority conveyed by a Power of Attorney Form 2848. In Wilson v. United States, the taxpayer’s 2848 representative, upon the taxpayer’s instructions, prepared a claim for refund and signed on the paid preparer line, but did not get the taxpayer’s signature before filing. In the subsequent suit, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the claim had not been “duly filed” under IRC 7422. The government argued that the 2848 did not provide the taxpayer’s representative with the authority to sign and file refund claim on the taxpayer’s behalf. The court looked to the instructions on the 2848 and found significance in the form’s express inclusion of a check box for taxpayers to authorize representatives to sign returns on their behalf. The court thus found that the plaintiff had not explained why the 2848 requires express authorization for signing one form under penalty of perjury but not for another. Accordingly, the court ruled for the government, finding that the plaintiff’s representative did not have broad authority under the 2848 to sign the claim for refund.

See Tameka Lester, The Scope of a Power of Attorney: When Can a Representative Sign a Refund Claim?, Procedurally Taxing (Aug. 13, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/the-scope-of-a-power-of-attorney-when-can-a-representative-sign-a-refund-claim/

SG Seeks Extension to File Cert. in Myers

A further quick update:  Today, the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to allow it 30 more days (until February 1, 2020) to file a petition for certiorari in Myers.  A copy of the request can be found here.  I am told by people who practice regularly in the Supreme Court that, these days, if the SG is considering filing a cert. petition, he always now first asks for an extension to file.  Thus, the lack of an extension request would indicate that the SG was not going to file a cert. petition.  But, they also tell me that the request for an extension is not always a prelude to an actual cert. petition.  So, stay tuned.