Assessment Statute Extension under 6501(c)(8); Changes of Address; and Lessons for Counsel – Designated Orders: December 9 – 13, 2019

My apologies for this delayed post; I had my head so buried in the Designated Orders statistics from our panel at the ABA Tax Section’s Midyear Meeting that I neglected the substantive orders from December. Worry no longer: here are the orders from December 9 – 13. Not discussed in depth is an order from Judge Guy granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in a routine CDP case, along with an order from Judge Gustafson sorting out various discovery disputes in Lamprecht, Docket No. 14410-15, which has appeared in designated orders now for the seventh time. Bill and Caleb covered earlier orders here and here.

read more...

As I mentioned during the panel, Designated Orders often resolve difficult, substantive issues on the merits. These orders are no exception. There were two cases that dealt with the deductibility of conservation easements. (Really, there were four dockets resulting in an order disposing of petitioner’s motion for summary judgment from Judge Buch, and one case resulting in a bench opinion from Judge Gustafson.) I’m not going to get into the substance of conservation easements, as clients in a low income taxpayer clinic seldom run afoul of these rules. Interestingly, this is also the first time we’ve seen a bench opinion in a TEFRA case—at least one that was also a designated order.

I must wonder, however, whether the Court strikes the appropriate balance in resolving substantively complex cases, on the merits, in either manner. While neither Judge Buch’s order nor Judge Gustafson’s bench opinion could have been entered as a Tax Court division opinion—as far as I can tell, they do not break any new ground—they could both easily qualify as memorandum opinions. As a practitioner, I find value in the ability to research cases that appear in reporters—precedential or otherwise. Relegating these cases to the relatively unsophisticated search functions found on the Tax Court’s website often makes it quite difficult to efficiently conduct case research.

Perhaps the Court’s new electronic system in July will remedy some of these issues. Nevertheless, any solution that doesn’t integrate with the systems that practitioners utilize to conduct case research—namely, reporters and the third-party services that catalogue and analyze the cases issued in those reporters—strikes me as inferior.

I fully understand and appreciate the value that the Court and individual judges place on efficiently resolving cases; that is no minor concern. I’ve been informed that issuing a memorandum opinion, as opposed to resolving a case through an order or bench opinion, can tack on months to the case.

But individual judges and the Court as an institution ought to carefully consider (1) whether the Court suffers from systemic problems in efficiently issuing memorandum opinions (and whether anything can be done to remedy these problems) and (2) whether the efficiency concern outweighs practitioners’ and the public’s interest in effective access to the Court’s opinions. 

More to come on this point in future posts. But for now, let’s turn to this week’s orders.

Docket No. 13400-18, Fairbank v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

First, a foray into the world of foreign account reporting responsibilities, which Megan Brackney ably covered in this three part series in January. Here, the focus lies not on the penalties themselves, but on another consequence of failing to comply with foreign account reporting requirements: the extension to the assessment statute of limitations under section 6501(c)(8).

Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment in this deficiency case, on the grounds that the statute of limitations on assessment had long since passed. Petitioners timely filed returns for all of the tax years at issue, but the Service issued a Notice of Deficiency for tax years 2003 to 2011 on April 12, 2018—long after the usual 3 year statute of limitations under section 6501(a).

But this case involves allegations that the Petitioners hid their income in unreported foreign bank accounts. And section 6501(c)(8) provides an exception to the general assessment statute where a taxpayer must report information to the IRS under a litany of sections relating to foreign assets, income, or transfers. If applicable, the assessment statute will not expire until 3 years after the taxpayer properly reports such information to the IRS.

The statute applies to “any tax imposed by this title with respect to any tax return, event, or period to which such information relates . . . .” This appears to be the same sort of broad authority in the 6 year statute of limitations (“the tax may be assessed . . . .”) that the Tax Court found to allow the Service to assess additional tax for the year in question, even if it didn’t relate to the underlying item that caused the statute extension. See Colestock v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 380 (1994). While the Tax Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on this question, it is likely that it would reach a similar conclusion for this statute.  

Respondent claimed that Ms. Fairbank was a beneficial owner of a foreign trust, Xavana Establishment, from 2003 to 2009, and thus had a reporting requirement under section 6048—one of the operative sections to which 6501(c)(8) applies. Further, for 2009 and 2011, Respondent claimed that Ms. Fairbank was a shareholder of a foreign corporation, Xong Services, Inc.—again triggering a reporting requirement under section 6038 and a potential statute extension under 6501(c)(8). Respondent finally claimed that Ms. Fairbank didn’t satisfy these reporting requirements for Xong Services until June 18, 2015—thus the April 12, 2018 notice would have been timely. Moreover, Respondent claimed, Ms. Fairbank hadn’t satisfied the reporting requirements for Xavana Establishment at all.

It’s important to pause here to note that the reporting requirements under sections 6048 and 6038 are separate from the FBAR reports required under Title 31. While the Petitioners filed an FBAR report for Xong Services, they seem to argue that this filing alone satisfies their general reporting requirements for this interest. That’s just not true; foreign trusts and foreign corporations have independent reporting requirements under the Code, under sections 6048 and 6038, respectively. Specifically, Petitioners needed to file Form 3520 or 3520-A for their foreign trust; they needed to file Form 5471 for their interest in a foreign corporation. And it is failure to comply with these reporting requirements that triggers the assessment statute extension under section 6501(c)(8)—not the failure to file an FBAR (which, of course, would have its own consequences). 

Petitioners claimed that they had, in fact, satisfied all reporting requirements for Xavana Establishment at a meeting with a Revenue Agent on July 18, 2012. But it seems that the Petitioner’s didn’t submit any documentation, such as a submitted Form 3520, to substantiate this. As noted above, they further claim the FBAR filed for Xong Services in 2014 satisfied their reporting requirements. Respondent disagreed, but did allow that the reporting requirements were satisfied later in 2015 when Petitioners filed the Form 5471. 

Because Petitioner couldn’t show that they had complied with the 6038 and 6048 reporting requirements quickly enough to cause the assessment statute to expire, they likewise couldn’t show on summary judgment that the undisputed material facts entitled them to judgment as a matter of law. Indeed, many of the operative facts here remain disputed. Thus, Judge Buch denies summary judgment for the Fairbanks, and the case will proceed towards trial.

Docket No. 9469-16L, Marineau v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

This case is a blast from the past, hailing from the early days of our Designated Orders project in 2017. Both Bill Schmidt and I covered this case previously (here and here). Presently, this CDP case was submitted to Judge Buch on cross motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, Judge Buch rules for Respondent and allows the Service to proceed with collection of this 2012 income tax liability. 

They say that 80% of life is simply showing up. Petitioner had many chances to show up, but failed to take advantage of them here. Petitioner didn’t file a return for 2012; the Service sent him a notice of deficiency. While Petitioner stated in Tax Court that he didn’t receive the notice, he didn’t raise this issue (or any issue) at his first CDP hearing.

Nonetheless, the Tax Court remanded the case so he could raise underlying liability, on the theory that he didn’t receive the notice of deficiency and could therefore raise the underlying liability under IRC § 6330(c)(2)(B)—but Petitioner didn’t participate in that supplemental hearing either!

Back at the Tax Court again, Petitioner argued that not only did he not receive the notice of deficiency, but that it was not sent to his last known address. This would invalidate the notice and Respondent’s assessment. The validity of the notice also isn’t an issue relating to the underlying liability; rather, this is a verification requirement under IRC § 6330(c)(1). So, if the Settlement Officer failed to verify this fact, the Tax Court can step in and fix this mistake under its abuse of discretion standard of review.

Petitioner changed his address via a Form 8822 in 2014 to his address in Pensacola. On June 8, 2015, he submitted a letter to the IRS national office in Washington, D.C., which purported to change his address to Fraser, Michigan. The letter contained his old address, new address, his name, and his signature—but did not include his middle name or taxpayer identification number. The IRS received that letter on June 15.

The Tax Court recently issued Judge Buch’s opinion in Gregory v. Commissioner, which held that neither an IRS power of attorney (Form 2848) nor an automatic extension of time to file (Form 4868) were effective to change a taxpayer’s last known address. We covered Gregory here. (Keith notes that the Harvard clinic has taken the Gregory case on appeal.  The briefing is now done and the case will be argued in the 3rd Circuit the week of April 14 by one of the Harvard clinic’s students.) Similarly, Judge Buch deals in this order with what constitutes “clear and concise” notification to the Service of a taxpayer’s change of address.

Judge Buch held that Petitioner didn’t effectively change his address. Under Revenue Procedure 2010-16, a taxpayer must list their full name, old address, new address, and taxpayer identification number on a signed request to change address. Taxpayers do not have to use Form 8822 in order to change their address, but this form contains all the required information to do so under the Rev. Proc. Because Petitioner failed to include his middle name and taxpayer identification number, the letter was ineffective.

Judge Buch ultimately holds that the letter was ineffective because the IRS received the letter on June 15—three days before the NOD was issued. The Rev. Proc. provides that a taxpayer’s address only changes 45 days after the proper IRS offices receives a proper change of address request. The national office is not the proper office; even if it was, the IRS only had three days to process the request prior to sending out the NOD. The lesson here is that if you know a NOD is coming, you can’t quickly trick the IRS into sending it to the wrong

If that wasn’t enough, Petitioner argued that because the USPS rerouted the NOD to a forwarding address in Roseville, Michigan, the NOD should be invalidated. However, the NOD was valid because Respondent send it, in the first instance, to Petitioner’s last known address prior to any subsequent rerouting.

There being no issue with the NOD’s validity—and because Petitioner didn’t participate in the supplemental hearing—Judge Buch granted Respondent’s motion and allowed the Service to proceed with collections.

Docket Nos. 12357-16, 16168-17, Provitola v. C.I.R. (Orders Here & Here)

The Court seems a little frustrated with Respondent’s counsel in this case. These orders highlight a few foot-faults that counsel—whether for Respondent or Petitioner—ought to be careful not to make.

This case is also a repeat player in designated orders; previous order include Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment from Judge Leyden here and Petitioners’ motion for a protective order here, which I made passing mention of in a prior designated order post.

Regarding the present orders, the first order addresses Respondent’s motion in limine, which asked that the Court “exclude all facts, evidence, and testimony not related to the circular flow of funds between petitioners, their Schedule C entity, and petitioner Anthony I. Provitola’s law practice.” Judge Buch characterizes this as a motion to preclude evidence inconsistent with Respondent’s theory of the case—i.e., that the Schedule C entity constituted a legitimate, for profit business. That doesn’t fly for Judge Buch, and he accordingly denies the motion.

He then takes Respondent to task for suggesting that “The Court ordinarily declines to consider and rely on self-serving testimony.” I’m just going to quote Judge Buch in full, as his response speaks for itself:

The canard that Courts disregard self-serving testimony is simply false. We disregard self-serving testimony when there is some demonstrable flaw or when the witness does not appear credible. If we were to disregard testimony merely because it is self-serving, we would disregard the testimony of every petitioner who testifies in furtherance of their own case and of all the revenue agents or collections officers who testify that they do their jobs properly, because that testimony would also be self-serving.

Ouch. In general though, I appreciate Judge Buch’s statement.  I recall being mildly annoyed reading court opinions that disregard a witness’s testimony because it was “self-serving.” For all the reasons Judge Buch notes, quite a lot of testimony will be self-serving. That’s not, without more, a reason to diminish the value of the testimony. It’s certainly not a reason to prohibit the testimony through a motion in limine. 

The second motion was entitled Respondent’s “unopposed motion to use electronic equipment in the courtroom.” (emphasis added). Apparently, the courthouse in Jacksonville has some systemic issues in allowing courts and counsel access to electronic equipment. Of what kind, the order does not make clear, though many district courts or courts of appeals where the Tax Court sits limit electronic equipment such as cell phones, tape recorders, and other devices that litigants may wish to bring as evidence to court. IRS counsel is likely the best source of knowledge on such restrictions; here, Judge Buch notes that the Court’s already taken care of these matters on a systemic basis for the upcoming trial session.

But Respondent’s counsel again makes a foot-fault here that draws an avoidable rebuke from Judge Buch. Respondent noted in his motion that he “called petitioners to determine their views on this motion, and left a voicemail message. Petitioners did not return this call as of the date of the motion, and as a result, petitioners’ views on this motion are unknown.” 

That’s not an unopposed motion! In Judge Buch’s words again, “The title of the motion (characterizing [it] as “unopposed”) is either misleading or false. . . . Consistent with Rule 50(a), we will treat the motion as opposed.”

Of course, because the Court had already resolved the issue with electronic equipment, Judge Buch denies the motion as moot.

Trial was held on 12/16 and 12/17. Judge Buch issued a bench opinion that held for Respondent, and designated the order transmitting the bench opinion on January 27. That’s Caleb’s week, so I’ll leave it to him to cover the underlying opinion.

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.

D.C. Cir. Myers Whistleblower Opinion Status Affecting Some Other Tax Court Cases

Just a short update post.  We blogged here last summer when the D.C. Circuit in Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019), reversed the Tax Court and held that the petition filing deadline at section 7623(b)(4) for a whistleblower award review proceeding is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling under recent non-tax Supreme Court case law.  We also reported here when the D.C. Circuit rejected a DOJ petition and refused to rehear the case en banc.  The Solicitor General has not yet decided whether to file a petition for cert. in Myers.  He must do so, if at all, by January 2, 2020.  In the meantime, the Tax Court has put all whistleblower cases involving late filing on hold.

read more...

As a result of Myers, the Tax Court has been put in a bit of a quandary as to what to do with late-filed whistleblower award cases (whether or not the petitioners therein have any argument for equitable tolling).  There are currently five whistleblower cases pending in which the IRS has moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction for being late filed.  Since all whistleblower cases are appealable to the D.C. Circuit under section 7482(b)(1)(flush language), the Tax Court under Golsen will have to follow whatever happens ultimately in Myers.  If the SG does not seek cert. and the petitioners filed late and do not make any successful equitable tolling argument, then the Tax Court will have to dismiss the cases on the merits, not for lack of jurisdiction.  Given that there is no other court in which such petitioners can litigate such awards (or lack thereof), a loss in the Tax Court on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction is probably of no practical difference to the petitioners.  But, the Tax Court cares about whether it has jurisdiction to rule or not.

So, in each of the five cases, the Tax Court has decided simply not to rule on the IRS motions at this time, but to order the IRS to provide status reports on the progress of the Myers opinion becoming final.  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).

Although arguably the language in section 7623(b)(4) is virtually identical to that in the Collection Due Process (CDP) provision at section 6330(d)(1), the Tax Court has not been holding up rulings on similar CDP case motions to dismiss – still following its holding in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235-238 (2016), that the CDP filing deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling under recent Supreme Court case law.  The Ninth Circuit agreed with Guralnik in Duggan v. Commissioner, 879 F.3d (9th Cir. 2018).  A case on the CDP filing deadline is currently pending before the Eighth Circuit, where briefing is complete, and the case is awaiting oral argument (not yet scheduled).  Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 8th Cir. Docket No. 19-2003.  In Boechler, the taxpayer asks the court to follow Myers and not Duggan.  Here are links to the briefs filed in the Boechler case:  the brief for the appellant, an amicus brief filed by the Harvard clinic, the brief for the appellee, and the reply brief for the appellant.  No doubt, the existence of the Boechler case will be one of the things that the SG will consider in deciding whether to seek cert. in Myers

Whatever the SG does about Myers, the arguments therein are not going away anytime soon with respect to at least some other Tax Court jurisdictions.

At least one other practitioner has contacted Keith and me and is considering raising the Myers arguments in pending Tax Court CDP cases appealable to a Circuit that hasn’t spoken yet on the arguments.  Further, as we have blogged before, there are two late-filed deficiency jurisdiction cases that were argued to the Ninth Circuit on October 22, 2019 in which the Myers arguments were raised.  Organic Cannabis Foundation LLC v. Commissioner, 9th Cir. Docket No. 17-72874, and Northern California Small Business Assistants, Inc. v. Commissioner, 9th Cir. Docket No. 17-72877.  A ruling in those cases could come any day now.

Filing Form 1040 did not Extend Statute for Filing Form 945

Last year I wrote about the case of Quezada v. IRS. In the aspect of the case decided last summer, the bankruptcy court refused to grant summary judgment to the IRS regarding the statute of limitations for the taxpayer to file Form 945. The taxpayer argued that his Form 1040 provided the IRS with the information necessary and started the statute of limitations. The taxpayer needed the Form 1040 to serve as a surrogate Form 945 in order to discharge the liabilities it should have reported on Form 945. Now, the court has ruled on the issue and found for the IRS in Adv. Proc. No. 16-01101 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2018). The court provides a thoughtful analysis for its decision.

read more...

Mr. Quezada operates a masonry company that builds projects for general contractors. He hires subcontractors to perform some of the work and provided to the subcontractors Forms 1099. The problem occurred because the Forms 1099 contained missing or incorrect TINs of the subcontractors. A missing or inaccurate TIN prevents the IRS from effectively using the Form 1099 to check on the reporting by the subcontractor. So, the IRS sent Mr. Quezada a notice in September 2006 that the 1099s had missing or inaccurate information and that if he did not correct the situation he had to start backup withholding. The IRS sent the same notice in 2007 and twice in 2009.

In 2008 the IRS began examining Mr. Quezada regarding his backup withholding liability for the subcontractors. This ultimately led to the recommendation of an assessment of $600,000 plus penalties of over $300,000. He eventually filed bankruptcy in which the IRS filed a claim for over $1.2 million. He brought an action to determine dischargeability arguing that the IRS waited too long to make its assessment. Mr. Quezada argued that his timely filed Forms 1040 and 1099 started the running of the statute of limitations on assessment while the IRS countered that he had an obligation to file Form 945 and his failure to file that form meant the statute never began running.

When a business pays an independent contractor, it must deduct backup withholding if the independent contractor fails to provide its TIN or if the IRS notifies the business that the TIN is incorrect. In addition to the backup withholding, the business must also file Form 945. Mr. Quezada argued that he had all of the TINs in a notebook but did not provide a record to the court and he had previously signed a sworn statement that he “did not obtain Social Security numbers (SSN) OR Taxpayer identification numbers (TIN) from all of [his] subcontractors.” The failure of proof in the trial coupled with the admission against interest caused the court to find that he had an obligation to file Forms 945.

Having found he had a duty to file the Forms 945, the court then looked at whether his failure to do so could somehow be excused. In Commissioner v. Lane-Wells, 321 U.S. 219 (1944) the Supreme Court analyzed whether a taxpayer who had filed a Form 1120 satisfied the requirement for filing a Form 1120H for holding companies. It found that Lane-Wells did not meet its statutory requirement for filing a return with respect to the holding company liability. The bankruptcy court found that Mr. Quezada, like Lane-Wells, had a separate liability requiring him to file two returns and preventing him from relying on the Form 1040 to satisfy his backup withholding liability.

The court also addressed his argument that he provided sufficient data to meet the Beard test. Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), aff’d 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) establishes the well-recognized test for what constitutes a return. Even though the bankruptcy court found that he had a responsibility to file the Form 945 return, if he could convince the court that his submissions on the Form 1040 essentially provided the information needed for the Form 945 he could meet the filing requirement. Beard has four tests: 1) sufficient data to calculate the tax liability; 2) document must purport to be a return; 3) honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax law requirements; and 4) execution of the return under penalties of perjury.

The court found that he failed the second and fourth tests. He argued that missing TINs are “not relevant to his tax liability.” The court rejected this argument pointing out that the IRS needs to have the TINs in order for the Form 1099 to have meaning. The data provided did not meet the needs of the IRS and could not be considered sufficient. With respect to the third test the court explained that the IRS told him on several occasions of his failure and need to correct. His failure to correct over an extended period of time negates any argument that he acted in good faith and reasonably attempted to satisfy his tax law requirements.

This type of case provides a horrible result for a taxpayer such as Mr. Quezada if the subcontractors actually paid their taxes. Earlier this year we blogged about a case involving the misclassification of workers. We also posted a response from the National Taxpayer Advocate to our blog post. The situation faced by Mr. Quezada has similarities with the misclassification cases. The goal of backup withholding is ensuring that the third parties report their income to the IRS. If Mr. Quezada could show that his independent contractors actually reported their taxes, there should be some way to relieve him of at least a part of his liability. By failing to follow the rules, he causes the IRS to expend a fair amount of effort and for that he should be penalized. At the same time it seems he should have a path to reduce this crushing liability if he can prove that his independent contractors reported and paid the proper amount of tax. Maybe they did not pay and maybe, even if they did, he could not prove it but it seems a shame he does not have a chance to show that his failure did not result in loss to the IRS.

 

NTA Highlights Errors in IRS Calculation of Collection Statute of Limitations

We blogged previously on the problem of properly computing the collection statute of limitations here, here, here, here and here. Calculating the statute of limitations on collection has become quite difficult. The National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) has just blogged on the subject making it clear not only that relying on the IRS calculation of the collection statute of limitations (CSED) might be unwise but highlighting again the difficulties in this area.

The NTA identifies five situations in which a computer glitch at the IRS causes the IRS to improperly calculate the CSED. Not surprisingly, the problems center on cases in which the taxpayer has entered an installment agreement (IA). When IAs start, end, restart, etc. can create problems in determining which can translate into problems in calculating the impact of an installment agreement on the collection statute of limitations.

The NTA identifies five situations with problems:

  • Multiple pending IAs with only one corresponding rejected IA determination;
  • One pending IA and one approved IA where 52 or more weeks have passed;
  • Multiple pending IAs with one approved IA, where 26 or more weeks have passed;
  • On pending IA with one rejected IA, at least 52 weeks later; and
  • One pending IA, with no other action on the IA request for at least 52 weeks.

The IRS agreed to review the cases in situation 3) above. The NTA cites to an unpublished report in which the IRS finds that 83% of the CSEDs on its system incorrectly identified the last date to collect. Then the NTA says that she believes the number of wrong CSEDs in the group is higher than stated in the unpublished report. By this point you should have a high level of discomfort with what the IRS may tell you about the CSED.

The NTA seeks to have the IRS audit all five of the identified areas of problem and to notify all impacted taxpayers. These taxpayers may have had money collection from them after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Most of the remainder of the post explains the remedies available to those who have wrongly overpaid their taxes. While understanding the remedies available certainly carries importance, my main take away from the post concerns the extremely high error rate in the group of identified cases and how that reinforces my general concern about the ability of the IRS to correctly calculate the CSED.

Paresky– A Mirror Image of Pfizer

Today we welcome back Bob Probasco. Bob directs the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth. In this post Bob discusses the Paresky case in the Court of Federal Claims and follows up on issues he discussed in his post last month on the Pfizer case and the difficult issues arising from suits for overpayment interest. For good measure this terrific post sweeps in Bernie Madoff, equitable tolling and the possibility of some refund suits with no statutes of limitation.  Les

 I wrote a blog post recently on a jurisdictional issue in the Pfizer case, concerning claims for overpayment interest.  The district court for the Southern District of New York denied the government’s first motion to dismiss (based on lack of jurisdiction) but granted its second motion to dismiss (based on expiration of the statute of limitations).  Pfizer appealed and we’re still waiting to hear from the Second Circuit.

In the meantime, the Court of Federal Claims issued its decision on August 15th in the case Paresky v. United States, docket no. 17-1725, another suit for overpayment interest that involved essentially a mirror image of the jurisdiction issue in Pfizer. It also had some other interesting procedural twists and turns.

read more...

Background

Here’s a recap of what the CFC called “[t]wo different, divergent, and conflicting jurisdictional paths . . . proffered by the parties.”  The first jurisdictional path is that set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)– district courts and the CFC have concurrent jurisdiction over

Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.

Let’s call this “tax refund jurisdiction,” because that is its primary use – although Pfizer argued about whether that is the only use.

The second jurisdictional path is “Tucker Act jurisdiction” – 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)for district courts and 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) for the CFC – which authorizes suits for

any claim against the United States . . . founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.

What about statutes of limitation?  There is a general six-year statute of limitations for actions in federal courts – 28 U.S.C. § 2401 or 2501, for district courts and the CFC respectively. The Code also sets forth a statute of limitations.  Specifically, Section 7422 of the Code requires a refund claim be filed first for any suit

for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected.

And Section 6532 precludes a suit under Section 7422 begun more than 2 years after the IRS mails a notice of disallowance of the claim.

One might infer a link between the jurisdictional grant itself, for “tax refunds” or under the Tucker Act, and the corresponding statute of limitations.  That is, suits brought under the “tax refund” jurisdictional grant would be subject, based on similar language, to Code sections 7422 and 6532. Suits brought under the Tucker Act, however, would be subject to the general six-year statute of limitations for the district courts and the CFC.  However, the plaintiffs in both of these cases argued for a disconnect – either “tax refund” jurisdiction + the general six-year statute of limitations, or Tucker Act jurisdiction + the Code’s refund suit statute of limitations.  And there is actually a footnote in E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005) stating that the similarity of the language in Section 7422 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) doesn’t necessarily mean they are interpreted the same way.

 (Some cases have applied both statutes of limitations to tax refund suits, so the statute of limitations doesn’t remain open indefinitely when the IRS doesn’t issue a notice of disallowance of the claim.  See, e.g., Wagenet v. United States, 104 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-7804 (C.D. Cal.). The Court of Claims, on the other hand, held that the six-year statute of limitations doesn’t apply to tax refund suits and allowed a refund suit filed 2 years after the notice of disallowance, which wasn’t issued until 28 years after the original refund claim.  Detroit Trust v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 223 (1955).  The IRS agrees with the latter position.  Chief Counsel Notice 2012-012.  But we’re wandering far afield from the issues in Pfizer and Paresky.)

Pfizer– recap

Pfizer brought its suit in district court under tax refund jurisdiction.  Its issue revolved around whether a taxpayer is entitled to overpayment interest when: (a) the IRS issued a refund within 45 days of the claim (when overpayment interest is not required under the exception in Section 6611(e)), (b) the check was not received, and (c) a replacement check was issued more than 45 days after the refund claim.  Pfizer wanted to rely on a favorable Second Circuit precedent on this issue, so it wanted to file in the SDNY rather than the CFC, but Tucker Act jurisdiction for district courts is limited to claims for $10,000 or less.  Thus, Pfizer filed its suit asserting tax refund jurisdiction.

Because Pfizer filed its suit late under the Section 6532 statute of limitations, it argued that its “tax refund suit” was subject instead to the general six-year statute of limitations.  The SDNY agreed that suits for overpayment interest qualified for tax refund jurisdiction, following Scripps.  So the taxpayer won on the government’s first motion to dismiss. But the court concluded tax refund jurisdiction carries with it the Section 6532 statute of limitations.  So the taxpayer lost on the government’s second motion to dismiss.  On appeal, Pfizer continues to argue for tax refund jurisdiction + Tucker Act statute of limitations.

Enter the Pareskys

The Pareskys had a different problem.  They filed their suit in the CFC as a Tucker Act claim.  But in their case, the two-year statute of limitations in Section 6532 was still open although the six-year statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims was not.  Two years is less than six years, but the two different limitation periods began running at different times.  So the Pareskys argued that a Tucker Act claim was nevertheless subject to the statute of limitations for tax refund suits.  Again, they argued for one jurisdictional grant coupled with a statute of limitations apparently applicable to a different jurisdictional grant. As with Pfizer, but in reverse.

The Pareskys’ problems traced back to investments with Bernie Madoff.  They reported substantial income for 2005 through 2007 that turned out to be fictitious.  On their tax return for 2008, they claimed a net operating loss from the Ponzi scheme. Revenue Procedure 2009-20 provides an optional safe harbor method of treating losses from investments in fraudulent schemes. That method precludes double-dipping: taxpayers claim the entire loss in the year the fraud was discovered but cannot file amended returns to exclude the fictitious income (never received) that was reported in taxable years before the discovery year.

The Pareskys did not follow the optional Revenue Procedure method.  Instead, in October 2009, they filed amended returns on Forms 1040X for years 2005 – 2007, to exclude the fictitious income reported in those years. The claimed a loss on their 2008 tax return, when they discovered the fraud.  In December 2009, they filed Form 1045s, claiming tentative carryback refunds under Section 6411for years 2003 – 2007, by carrying back the net operating loss from 2008. But the net operating loss was reduced by the amount of the fictitious income for 2005 – 2007, so there was still no double-dipping.  The overpayment interest claim involves solely the tentative carryback refunds, not the refunds associated with the amended returns on Forms 1040X.

The refunds claimed on Forms 1045 for tentative carrybacks, totaling almost $10 million, were issued in April and May of 2010, just a few months after the Pareskys filed the Forms 1045 in December 2009.  The government paid no interest on those refunds, even though it issued the refunds more than 45 days after it received the Forms 1045, because it argued the applications were not in processible form when originally submitted.  The Pareskys, of course, disagreed.

The IRS examination of the Pareskys’ tax liabilities for 2003 through 2008, trigged by the amended returns, also included the refunds sought on the Forms 1045 as well as the Pareskys’ claim for overpayment interest on the Form 1045 refunds.  The examination continued until October 2011, during which time the parties agreed to an extension of the limitations period. In October 2011, the IRS began preparing a report to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), required under Section 6405 for large refunds.  (Section 6405(a) prohibits the IRS from issuing such large refunds until 30 days after the IRS submits the report to JCT, but that restriction does not apply to refunds made under Section 6411.  Section 6411 provides for only a “limited examination” of the tentative carryback applications before issuing the refund.)  The IRS submitted the report to JCT on January 25, 2013, stating that the refunds sought on the Forms 1045 had been approved.

The Pareskys filed a protest with the IRS on June 6, 2014, concerning the resolution of the examination. Appeals determined, on September 4, 2014, that no overpayment interest was due on the Form 1045 refunds because the refunds were issued within 45 days after the applications were submitted in processible form.  That determination letter instructed the Pareskys to file a formal claim on Form 843 by September 12, 2014, which they did.  The claim was denied on September 24, 2015, and the Pareskys filed their complaint in the CFC on September 15, 2017.

Was it timely? 

The government argued that, under the Tucker Act, the claim accrued in May 2010 and the plaintiffs did not file suit within the six-year statute of limitations.  The plaintiffs asserted three alternative arguments.  First, they argued that the tax refund statute of limitations, rather than the six-year period applicable to Tucker Act claims, applied and began running when their claim was denied on September 24, 2015. Second, they argued that if the six-year limitations period applied, their claim didn’t accrue until the report to JCT on January 25, 2013.  Finally, they argued that under the “accrual suspension rule” the claim doesn’t accrue until the plaintiff is aware of the claim.  The court rejected all three arguments.

The Sixth Circuit in Scripps and the SDNY in the Pfizercase agreed that taxpayers could bring a suit for overpayment interest under the “tax refund jurisdiction” provision.  But the CFC didn’t buy that argument.  There were too many precedents in that court, the Federal Circuit, or the Court of Claims to the contrary.  The Federal Circuit might decide to overrule those, but the CFC would not.

The court also rejected the argument that the suit was filed within the six-year limitations period. The claim accrued when the underlying tax refunds were “scheduled.”  There was an evidentiary dispute regarding when the refunds had been scheduled; the Pareskys therefore argued that the date of the report to JCT was the earliest moment when it was certainthat the refunds had been allowed.  But the government pointed out that the report to JCT has nothing to do with the date a tentative carryback refund is allowed, and the court found the government’s evidence sufficient to establish that the refunds were scheduled in early 2010.

The accrual suspension rule didn’t save the Pareskys either.  The IRS may not have explicitly disclosed to the taxpayers the date that the refunds were scheduled, but they received the refunds and knew they did not include overpayment interest.  Those were the relevant facts that established their claim and the IRS did not conceal those.

Equitable tolling or estoppel?

In both Pfizer and Paresky, the IRS sent the taxpayers a letter stating a different statute of limitations than the court determined applied to their respective situations.  Appeals sent Pfizer a letter stating that the six-year statute of limitations applied, presumably because the claim involved overpayment interest, without addressing the impact of which jurisdictional grant Pfizer would rely on.  The Pareskys received the determination by Appeals concerning their protest and also a denial of their subsequent refund claim, both of which stated the Section 6532 statute of limitations, without addressing potential different treatment for claims involving overpayment interest.

That misinformation certainly seems to provide a potential factual predicate for equitable tolling or estoppel of filing deadlines, but many courts have been resistant to that.  Carl Smith and Keith Fogg are continuing their quest to overcome that resistance including by filing an amicus brief in Pfizer, which I am shamelessly paraphrasing for the following summary.

In brief, statutory deadlines that are “jurisdictional” cannot be waived or extended for equitable reasons.  Unfortunately, as the Supreme Court observed in 2004, courts have been careless in applying that label.  “Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label ‘jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules, but only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court’s adjudicatory authority.”  Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004).  The Supreme Court has also held that time periods in which to act are almost never jurisdictional, unless Congress makes a “clear statement” to that effect.  In particular, if the filing deadline and the jurisdictional grant are not part of the same provision, that likely indicates that the time bar is non-jurisdictional. United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015).

Carl and Keith are arguing in Pfizer that Section 6532’s statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and is subject to estoppel under the standard set forth in recent Supreme Court decisions.  The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Section 6532(a) deadline is jurisdictional or subject to estoppel or equitable tolling.  However, before the recent Supreme Court decisions, the Second Circuit applied estoppel to prevent the government from arguing that the filing deadline barred the court from hearing the case.  Miller v. United States, 500 F.2d 1007 (2nd Cir. 1974).  Although some other circuits had disagreed, the Second Circuit could rely on that precedent to estop the government in the Pfizer case.

Theoretically, the same result should apply to the six-year filing deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Alas, this argument would not work for the taxpayers in the Pareskycase.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on Section 6532’s deadline but it has ruled on 28 U.S.C. § 2501, and concluded that it was jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling or estoppel. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008). However, that was more a matter of stare decisisbecause the Court had called the deadline jurisdictional in a number of opinions over decades.  In the Wongcase, the Court held that the FTCA filing deadline in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b) was non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling, while observing that the John R. Sand & Gravel Co.did not follow the Court’s current thinking because of those precedents.

So – hopefully Carl and Keith will persuade the Second Circuit in Pfizer, as well as other courts in other cases.  The National Taxpayer Advocate also proposed, in her most recent annual report to Congress, a legislative fix by amending the Code to provide that judicial filing deadlines are non-jurisdictional.  We wish them well!

Where do we go from here?

The Court of Federal Claims agreed to transfer the case, at the plaintiffs’ request and over the government’s objections, so the Pareskys are headed to the Southern District of Florida. They hope to persuade the SDF that a suit for overpayment interest fits within “tax refund jurisdiction” and the suit therefore would be timely under the tax refund statute of limitations in Section 6532.  There is a split between the Federal Circuit and the Sixth Circuit – add the Second Circuit if it affirms the District Court in the Pfizer case.  Neither party cited precedents from the Eleventh Circuit, so it’s at least possible that the SDF will follow Scrippsand find it has jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, Pfizer is still waiting for a ruling by the Second Circuit.  Paresky offers arguments for both sides in PfizerParesky held that the six-year statute of limitations applies (good for Pfizer) but that tax refund jurisdiction is not available (bad for Pfizer).  Pfizer has requested, if the Second Circuit affirms the SDNY, that it also transfer the case to the CFC.  It seems that court would clearly have jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and Pfizer met the six-year statute of limitations, so the CFC apparently would hear the merits of the case.  The favorable Doolin precedent in the Second Circuit wouldn’t carry as much weight in the CFC but Pfizer might still prevail on the merits.

The government stated in its brief that it may or may not oppose transfer, depending on whythe Second Circuit (hypothetically) rules against Pfizer.  If the Second Circuit rules that “tax refund jurisdiction” does not apply to suits for overpayment interest, the government would not oppose transfer.  But if the Second Circuit agrees that “tax refund jurisdiction” applies to the case and rules against Pfizer only on the basis that Pfizer did not file its suit within two years of the notice of disallowance, the government asked that transfer be denied.

When Does an Offer in Compromise Extend the Statute of Limitations on Collection?

United States v. Kenny, No. 1:16-cv-02149 (N.D. Ohio June 6, 2018) involves a spectacularly non-compliant taxpayer against whom the IRS seeks both the reduction of assessments to judgment and an injunction. The court grants both. Mr. Kenny’s defense relied upon the statute of limitation on collection and the failure of his three OICs to extend it. The issue arises regularly because of the handling of OICs by the offer groups in Brookhaven and Memphis.

read more...

Mr. Kenny failed to pay taxes voluntarily for about 25 years. He receives income as an independent contractor or a business owner and not as a wage earner. The court described in some detail his failure to voluntarily comply with his tax obligations and his expenditures which included almost $5,000 in monthly rent, almost $2,000 each month in meals and gas, extensive travel, payment of his son’s student loans and his daughter’s tuition. As with almost any case of this type, the described behavior would appear to have the facts needed in order to pursue prosecution under IRC 7201 for evasion of payment; however, for reasons not explained in the opinion, the government seeks other remedies against Mr. Kenny.

In addition to obtaining a judgment against him for the outstanding balance of the taxes, the IRS also sought an injunction to “to comply with his on-going tax obligations.” In addition to the almost $1.5 million in income taxes he also owes about $10,000 in trust fund recovery penalty. I have seen injunction cases to keep taxpayers from pyramiding trust fund taxes, but his case appears to be an injunction directed at complying with the income tax laws.

The court starts out stating that it generally disfavors injunctions “that do no more than require on-going compliance with the law.” The court goes on, however, to state that the unique facts here support the use of injunction as a tool to promote compliance. It cites to five factors developed by the 6th Circuit for determining whether to issue an injunction:

  • The gravity of the offence
  • Extent of participation
  • Scienter
  • Recurrent nature of offense
  • Likelihood that his business activities will involve him in some offense again

The court spends a long paragraph explaining how Mr. Kenny fits into all of the categories set out by its circuit. The paragraph ends with the notation that the IRS withdrew the request for the appointment of a receiver to handle the business affairs of Mr. Kenny. The appointment of a receiver is a remedy even more extraordinary than an injunction.

Statute of Limitations

Mr. Kenny’s defense to the effort to obtain a judgment against him focuses on the statute of limitations and the impact on the statute on the three offer in compromise (OIC) requests that he filed with the IRS. Essentially, he argues that the IRS rejected the OICs as non-processable returning them without consideration. Further, he argues that because each of the offers were returned as non-processable his submission of the OICs would not extend the statute of limitations on collection and that the IRS needs the extra time it argues results from his submission of the OICs in order for the suit against him reducing the liability to judgment to be considered timely. The applicable IRM provision (IRM 5.8.7.2) provides “An offer can be returned as either a “not processable return” or a “processable return”. It is important to note the distinction because when there is a not processable return the collection statute is not suspended…”  The court does not provide the detail needed to reveal exactly what happened when Mr. Kenny submitted his OIC requests; however, it appears that the IRS rejected the OICs at some time after the processability point thereby triggering the statute of limitations extension needed by the IRS.

The issue of when the IRS rejects an OIC has significance not always noted when the OIC gets returned to the taxpayer. Just as a taxpayer should not submit an OIC without thinking about the statute of limitations implications, a taxpayer should carefully note the basis for the IRS returning an OIC without acceptance. Many things can cause the IRS to return an OIC as non-processable and a detailed description of the circumstances that cause the IRS to determine an offer is non-processable as well as the process for making the determination can be found in IRM 5.8.2. The Centralized OIC units make the determination as stated in IRM 5.8.7.2.1 which provides:

Not Processable Returns

  1. An offer is determined to be not processable if any of the “Not Processable” criteria listed in IRM 5.8.2.3.1, Determining Processability, is present. This decision is the sole responsibility of the Centralized OIC (COIC) sites located in the Brookhaven and Memphis Campus.

About a dozen years ago several taxpayers litigated the processability issue with respect to the bankruptcy criteria. These taxpayers argued that making bankruptcy a processability criteria disadvantaged them in an inappropriate manner. After a couple of victories at the bankruptcy level (See In re Holmes, 298 B.R. 477 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003); In re Chapman, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1091 (Bankr. S.D. W. Va. 1999)), the tide turned on this issue and the IRS prevailed (See In re Shope, 347 B.R. 270 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006); In re Uzialko, 339 B.R. 579 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006). I mention the cases for those who might have interest in attacking the processability criteria to show that such an attack would prove difficult because of the discretion IRC 7122 gives to the IRS in making the OIC determination.

A sure sign that the IRS is returning an OIC as non-processable is that the IRS does not give a taxpayer appeal rights when it rejects an OIC. Those who regularly submit offers know that getting a call from the OIC unit relatively quickly after submitting an OIC where the person at the offer unit says “if I do not receive X within 10 days I am going to return your offer as non-processable” happens fairly regularly.

It appears from IRS activity on Mr. Kenny’s OIC submissions several months after the initial submission that the IRS did consider the OICs on their merits before rejecting them; however, the type of rejection may not always be clear. In a recent post complaining about the telephone number provided by the offer unit, I spoke about a processability rejection (an incorrect one) because the assessment occurred as a result of a restitution order and when it does the IRS has no ability to administratively compromise the liability. Unfortunately, the Kenny case offers little guidance on when the return of an OIC results from a non-processable submission verses an unacceptable one on the merits of the offer because Mr. Kenny did not provide much evidence. Despite the absence of clear guidance, the Kenny case serves as a reminder that submitting an offer suspends the statute of limitations on collection and submitting multiple offers can suspend it for quite some time if the submitted offers make it past the processability stage. For taxpayers seeking to defend collection suits on the basis of the statute of limitations keeping careful track of these submissions and the basis for denial of the OIC requests becomes important in deciding if a procedural defense to the suit is available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Developments on CDP Statutes of Limitation: US v Hendrick and Weiss v Commissioner

In this post I will discuss  two cases involving statutes of limitation and CDP, US v Hendrick and Weiss v Commissioner.

US v Hendrick is a recent federal district court opinion out of the Western District of PA that concluded that the statute of limitations on collection was tolled for the 30-day period following a CDP determination even when the taxpayer chose not to challenge the determination in Tax Court. Weiss v Commissioner is a case on appeal in the DC Circuit that addresses when a 30-day period runs requesting a CDP hearing when the date the CDP notice was mailed differs from the date on the notice itself.

read more...

First Hendrick. Simplifying somewhat, the case involved trust fund assessments, the taxpayer’s timely filing of a CDP request, and the IRS’s issuing of a Notice of Determination sustaining the proposed levy action which informed the taxpayer of the right to appeal the determination in Tax Court within 30 days (I note, and perhaps will return in a later post, to the possible significance of the 2015 legislative change substituting the word “petition” for “appeal” in Section 6330, a subtle point made in Judge Holmes’ Kasper opinion concerning the relationship of the APA and administrative law generally to the mix of non deficiency cases in Tax Court).

The taxpayer did not file an appeal in the 30-day window. Moving with not much speed, the government waited about ten years to file a suit to reduce the assessment to judgment. (It is possible that the government had made administrative efforts to collect; the opinion is silent on that).

As most readers know, under Section 6502 the government may bring a suit within ten years. The government’s collection suit was outside the ten-year period if you did not include in the tolling period the 30-day period that the taxpayer could have filed a petition for review to the Tax Court. Not surprisingly, the taxpayer argued that the 30-day appeal window should not count when in fact the taxpayer does not exercise his appeal rights and challenge a CDP determination in Tax Court.

Section 6330 essentially states that the ten-year period is suspended while a CDP hearing and any appeal is pending. The case turned on whether the hearing or an appeal was pending in that 30-day window when the taxpayer could have filed a petition to Tax Court. The statute does not define the term pending, though regulations provide that the period when the taxpayer could have appealed the determination is part of the time that the statute is suspended:

[t]he period of limitation under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment) … [is] suspended until the date the IRS receives the taxpayer’s written withdrawal of the request for a CDP hearing by Appeals or the determination resulting from the CDP hearing becomes final by expiration of the time for seeking judicial review or the exhaustion of any rights to appeals following judicial review. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(g)(1).

This precise issue was addressed in a 2014 Ninth Circuit case, US v Kollman, that Keith blogged about here. The district court opinion, as did the Ninth Circuit, concluded that the statute itself was not clear and the regulation under a Chevron Step Two analysis was a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

In finding for the government, the opinion notes that in analogous areas IRS and courts have taken a consistent approach and concluded that limitations periods are tolled pending periods when appeals could be taken. From a policy perspective, the decision is correct, as apart from offset,  the IRS cannot take administrative collection action during that 30-day period.

Weiss: A Case for the Dogs?

Another case involving a CDP statute of limitations issue is percolating its way through the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Weiss v Commissioner, a case that Keith blogged here. The case involves some colorful facts: the revenue offer attempted to hand deliver the notice of intent to levy but a dog prevented him from making it up the driveway. After failing to successfully hand deliver the notice, when he returned the office two days later, the Revenue Officer mailed it using certified mail but did not change the date on the notice.The taxpayer claimed that the earlier date on the notice governed the 30-day period to make the CDP request.

The taxpayer in Weiss was trying to wait out the SOL on collection, as an equivalent hearing filed outside the 30-day window does not toll the SOL, and if the request was considered an equivalent hearing the IRS was out of time to collect. The Tax Court did not buy the argument, and held that the actual date of mailing controlled the 30-day period, and since Weiss filed within that 30-day period, the request was for a full blown CDP hearing and not an equivalent hearing.

On brief, Weiss also argues in the alternative that the government should be estopped from arguing that the mailing date controls, since it showed the earlier date in the notice of intent to levy. This argument presupposes that the deadline at issue is not jurisdictional, an issue that should be familiar to our readers, though the taxpayer did not press the jurisdictional predicate on brief.

For those wanting a deeper dive, an audio recording of the Weiss oral argument can be found here. Weiss’ brief can be found here; government brief here; and taxpayer’s reply here.