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.

Does Judge Toro Misunderstand Guralnik?

There’s a pro se deficiency case set for trial in San Francisco before Judge Toro in the week beginning February 3, 2020, Gebreyesus v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1883-19.  Although the IRS had not moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Toro, has essentially issued an order to show cause why he shouldn’t dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because of an untimely petition.  The Judge thinks the petition would be untimely if the notice of deficiency had been mailed to the taxpayer on the date shown on the notice of deficiency – October 22, 2018 – so the judge asks that proof of mailing be submitted to him by January 21, 2020.

This case gets into a particular issue of how the government shutdown interacts with (1) Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (2016) (en banc), and (2) section 7502.  I think it pretty clear that the judge, who seems vaguely aware of Guralnik (but doesn’t cite the opinion), has the analysis wrong, and that there is no way this petition is untimely.  I hope the IRS lawyers in the case explain it to the judge, but just in case they don’t, I hope the judge gets to read this post before he rules.  No pro se taxpayer is likely to be able to explain about how Guralnik should work in this case.  Keith has blogged here, here, and here on the interaction of Guralnik and the recent government shutdown, but not on the facts of Gebreyesus.

read more...

Gebreyesus Facts

Let’s assume that the IRS has documentary proof that it mailed the notice of deficiency on the date shown on the notice – October 22, 2018.  You would probably think the taxpayer has until January 20, 2019 (90 days) to file the petition in person, place it in the mails, or place it with a designated private delivery service.  But, January 20, 2019 was a Sunday, and the 21st was Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday – both of which under section 7503 can’t be the last date to file.  Interestingly, the notice of deficiency correctly stated that the last date to file was Tuesday, January 22, 2019.

But, then, the government (including the Tax Court) shut down in late December.  As a result, the Tax Court’s Clerk’s Office was not open again until Monday, January 28, 2019.

Judge Toro just noticed that on January 23, 2019, the petition was placed with a FedEx service that is a qualifying private delivery service under section 7502(f).  Had the government not shut down, the petition no doubt would have been delivered to the court overnight on Wednesday, January 24, 2019.  But, the petition arrived at the Tax Court instead on Monday, January 28, 2019 – the date the Clerk’s Office reopened – and was filed on that date.

Judge Toro’s Analysis

In his order, Judge Toro writes:

If the notice of deficiency was mailed on October 22, 2018 (that is, on the date shown on the notice of deficiency), then the 90-day period under section 6213(a) would have expired on January 22, 2019 (taking into account that January 20, 2019, was a Sunday and January 21, 2019, was a holiday in the District of Columbia).  Because the ship date reflected on the FedEx envelope – January 23, 2019 -is one day after January 22, 2019, the petition would be untimely under section 6213(a) and the rules of section 7502(a) and (f).
 
If, however, the notice was mailed after October 22, 2018, the 90-day period would have expired no earlier than January 23, 2019, and, since the petition was given to FedEx by January 23, 2019, under section 7502(a) and (f) the petition would be treated as having been timely filed. [footnote omitted]

What’s Wrong With This Analysis?

Section 7502 has no application unless the petition arrives after the last date to file.  But, that did not occur in this case.  Under Guralnik, if the Clerk’s Office is not open on what would ordinarily be the last date to file, then the last date to file becomes the date the Clerk’s office reopens – i.e., January 28, 2019 in this case. But, that’s the date the Tax Court physically received and filed the petition.  So, the petition did not arrive after the due date, taking into consideration Guralnik.  It arrived on the (revised) due date.  Effectively, the taxpayer here should be treated as if he personally walked into the Clerk’s Office on January 28, 2019 and handed in the petition for filing.  Clearly, that would be OK under Guralnik.  FedEx merely acted as the taxpayer’s agent in walking the petition in on that last date to file.

This result may strike some as odd – that the taxpayer could mail out the petition the day after the last date to file shown on the notice of deficiency, yet still get the benefit of filing a timely petition.  But, I don’t see how a court could rule any other way.

Review of 2019 (Part 1)

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.  We welcome your comments on the most important developments in 2019 related to tax procedure.

read more...

Important IRS Announcements

CC Notice 2020-002Contacting IRS attorney by email

This recently-issued Chief Counsel notice announces a process for email communications between practitioners and Chief Counsel attorneys. Formerly, communication with Chief Counsel attorneys was difficult, due to internal restrictions on emailing taxpayer information. Under the new notice, Chief Counsel employees can now exchange email with taxpayers and practitioners using encrypted email methods. This new policy will likely prove helpful for practitioners, who can now make quicker progress in working with Chief Counsel to resolve Tax Court litigation or to prepare for trial.

CC Notice 2019-006Deference

This notice is a policy statement, warning Treasury and the IRS about the current judicial state of play on deference to agency regulations. It states that Chief Counsel attorneys will no longer argue that courts should apply Chevron or Auer deference to sub-regulatory guidance, such as revenue rulings, revenue procedures, or other notices. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court scaled back the applicability of Auer deference and indicated a willingness to rethink the scope of agency deference.  As tax lawyers it’s easy to overlook important administrative law decisions such as Kisor, but we all need to recognize the importance of such decisions on how to practice before the IRS. 

See Keith Fogg, Notices on Communicating with IRS, Chief Counsel’s Office and Deference, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 28, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/notices-on-communicating-with-irs-chief-counsels-office-and-deference/#comments

Altera, Good Fortune, & Baldwin – Deference to regulations

The 9th Circuit recently reversed the Tax Court’s decision that the transfer pricing regulations at issue in Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019), rev’g 145 T.C. 91 (2015) were invalid because they lacked a “reasonable explanation” as required by the Supreme Court in State Farm.  A majority of the Ninth Circuit concluded that Treasury made “clear enough” its decision by including “citations to legislative history” that the dissent said were “cryptic.” The 9th Circuit recently denied Altera’s petition rehearing en banc over a vigorous dissent from three judges, making the case a possible vehicle for certiorari and the latest Supreme Court reexamining of administrative deference.

In contrast, a decision by the D.C. Circuit in Good Fortune Shipping v. Commissioner, 897 F.3d 256 (D.C. Cir. 2018), rev’g 148 T.C. 262 (2017), held invalid regulations that narrowed an excise tax exemption for corporations owned by shareholders in certain countries.  The regulations said ownership of bearer shares could not be used to qualify for the exemption.  The preamble to the regulations suggested the rule was needed because of the difficulty of reliably tracking the location of the owners of bearer shares, but the court observed that other regulations issued by the agency suggested that the location of the owners of bearer shares were becoming easier to track over time.

On the other hand, in Baldwin v. United States, 921 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2019), reh’g denied, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18968 (9th Cir. June 25, 2019), petition for cert. filed, 2019 WL 4673331 (U.S. Sept. 23, 2019) (No. 19-402), the Ninth Circuit held that a claim for refund was late because the common law mailbox rule was supplanted by Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(e)(2)(i).  Because the Ninth Circuit had previously held the statutory rule (IRC § 7502) provided a safe-harbor that supplements the common-law rule, the district court held the regulations invalid.  Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Brand X, “[a] court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion.”  In this case, the regulations trumped the Ninth Circuit’s prior interpretation of IRC § 7502 because it said its earlier decision was filling a statutory gap.  Litigators have indicated this case may be the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron or Brand X. 

See Andrew Velarde, Can the Humble Mailbox Rule Bring Monumental Changes to Chevron? 94 Tax Notes Int’l 412 (Apr. 29, 2019) (noting that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts have arguably expressed reservations about an overly broad reading of Chevron).

Taxpayer First Act (“TFA”)

Innocent Spouse changes/Effect of 6015 (e)(7)

The TFA made perhaps unintentional but significant changes regarding the Tax Court’s review of appeals of adverse innocent spouse determinations.  The change is codified at 6015(e)(7) Such appeals will be reviewed de novo (codifying previous Tax Court precedent). This part of the new law regarding the standard for review is uncontroversial and will not result in changes for those seeking innocent spouse relief; however, the legislation changes the scope of review.  Previously, the innocent spouse proceeding went forward with no restrictions on the information the taxpayer could present in the Tax Court.  Now, the scope of review is limited to the administrative record plus the Tax Court can consider “newly discovered or previously unavailable” evidence. While these provisions may seem innocuous, they also may lead to significant new disadvantages for taxpayers. For one, innocent spouse cases present uniquely burdensome evidentiary issues for taxpayers. Presenting evidence of spousal abuse, for example, may be difficult, especially if police or medical reports do not exist in the administrative record. Meanwhile, the one exception to the administrative record, “newly discovered or previously unavailable” evidence, remains ill-defined in the statute and may prove to be a source of confusion for taxpayers and practitioners. Important evidence that a taxpayer may already possess – thus not making it “newly discovered or previously unavailable” – but didn’t include in the administrative record could potentially be excluded. For pro se taxpayers in particular, who may not be aware of the relevance of certain documents when making their case, this is a particular challenge.

The first few Tax Court cases implicating 6015(e)(7) have begun to emerge and may provide more clarity. One potential judicial solution to the issue would be for the Tax Court to remand cases with under-developed records back to the IRS.

Carlton Smith, Should the Tax Court Allow Remands in Light of the Taxpayer First Act Innocent Spouse Provisions?, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 17, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/should-the-tax-court-allow-remands-in-light-of-the-taxpayer-first-act-innocent-spouse-provisions/

Keith Fogg, First Tax Court Opinions Mentioning Section 6015(e)(7), Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 16, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/first-tax-court-opinions-mentioning-section-6015e7/

Christine Speidel, Taxpayer First Act Update: Innocent Spouse Tangles Begin, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 10, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/taxpayer-first-act-update-innocent-spouse-tangles-begin/

Steve Milgrom, Innocent Spouse Relief and the Administrative Record, Procedurally Taxing (July 9, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/innocent-spouse-relief-and-the-administrative-record/

Carlton Smith, Congress Set to Enact Only Now-Unneeded Innocent Spouse Fixes, Part 2, Procedurally Taxing (Apr. 4, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/congress-set-to-enact-only-now-unneeded-innocent-spouse-fixes-part-2/

Carlton Smith, Congress Set to Enact Only Now-Unneeded Innocent Spouse Fixes, Part 1, Procedurally Taxing (Apr. 3, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/congress-set-to-enact-only-now-unneeded-innocent-spouse-fixes-part-1/

Ex parte in TFA and CDP

The TFA does not specifically address ex parte communications between appeals and examinations or collections personnel. However, it does codify appeals’ status as an independent office, which may further strengthen arguments against ex parte communication. The currently applicable ex parte restrictions are found in Rev. Proc. 2012-18, which sets forth extensive guidance on permissible and impermissible forms of ex parte communications.

 In CDP proceedings, ex parte communications can potentially occur between appeals officers and revenue officers via the transmission of the administrative file to Appeals. Rev. Proc. 2012-18 prohibits the inclusion of material that “would be prohibited if . . . communicated to Appeals separate and apart from the administrative file.” But as demonstrated by a recent case, Stewart v. Commissioner, this may be a high bar for taxpayers to clear in challenging such communications. In Stewart, the revenue officer included contemporaneous notes in the file that indicated the taxpayer’s representation was somewhat uncooperative during a field meeting. The Tax Court declined to accept the taxpayer’s argument that the notes were prejudicial and ruled in favor of the Commissioner. 

See Keith Fogg, Application of Ex Parte Provisions in Collection Due Process Hearing, Procedurally Taxing (Sep. 19, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/application-of-ex-parte-provisions-in-collection-due-process-hearing/

Taxpayer protection program

Identify fraud has been a consistent and significant problem for the IRS. But the Service’s new procedures for protecting taxpayer information may be unduly burdensome, particularly for taxpayers who need representation with time-sensitive matters. For those representing taxpayers whose returns are flagged as potential victims of identity theft, the process of authenticating identity is difficult and requires knowledge of taxpayer personal information that may not be readily available, such as place of birth or parent’s middle name. The burden is such that it may even implicate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR)’s “right to retain representation”. By de facto requiring that the taxpayer actively participate in the identity verification process, the taxpayer is effectively deprived of their right to have their representative act for them in dealings with the IRS.

See Barbara Heggie, Taxpayer Representation Program Sidesteps Right to Representation, Procedurally Taxing (Oct. 3, 2019), https://procedurallytaxing.com/taxpayer-protection-program-sidesteps-right-to-representation/

VITA referrals to LITCs

Especially relevant for our purposes, the TFA “encourages” VITA programs to advise participating taxpayers about the availability of LITCs and refer them to clinics. This is a helpful step, which strengthens the connection between VITA and LITCs and may help inform eligible taxpayers of the existence of their local LITC.

Internal Tracking Data Is Determinative for Designated Private Delivery Services under § 7502(f)

There was a recent Tax Court order (not a designated one) that caught my eye because of the contrast of the ruling with the Seventh Circuit’s ruling a few years ago in Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2017).  I blogged on the Seventh Circuit’s Tilden opinion here.  That opinion criticized the use of United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail internal tracking information as a “postmark” for purposes of determining whether a Tax Court petition was timely filed.  In the recent order in Moncada v. Commissioner, T.C. Docket No. 13303-19 (Nov. 7, 2019), by contrast, the internal tracking information of a Designated Private Delivery Service (DPDS) – here, UPS Next Day Air – was held determinative of the date of the filing of the petition.

Initially, I questioned how these two rulings could be reconciled.   But, I think they are both right.  The different results are the fault of Congress in the adoption of § 7502(f), which allows to IRS to designate private delivery services for purposes of taking advantage of the § 7502(a) timely-mailing-is-timely-filing rule that applies to envelopes sent by USPS mail.

read more...

Tilden Background

There are regulations under § 7502(a) that elaborate on the timely mailing rules when the USPS is used.  The regulations cover four common situations where the Tax Court receives the petition after the last date to file:  (1) where there is only a USPS postmark on the envelope, (2) where there is only a private postmark on the envelope, (3) where there is no postmark (or no legible postmark) on the envelope, and (4) where there is both a USPS and private postmark on the envelope.  See Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii).  In general, if there is a legible USPS postmark, it governs as the date of mailing, and if there isn’t, the envelope better get to the Tax Court within the period that mail ordinarily sent from that address would take to get to the court if the envelope had been mailed on the last date to file.  There are exceptions to this last rule that I won’t get into here, not being relevant.  Further, not relevant to either Moncada or Tilden are the special rules where mail does not arrive at the Tax Court, but had been sent certified or registered mail, and where the taxpayer has a USPS mailing receipt with a legible date stamp.

In Tilden, the envelope containing the deficiency petition bore a private postage label from stamps.com, dated the 90th day.  Apparently, the envelope was placed in the mail by an employee of counsel for the taxpayer, and that employee also affixed to the envelope a Form 3800 certified mail receipt (the white form), on which the employee also handwrote the date that was the 90th day.  The Form 3800 did not bear a stamp from a USPS employee.  Nor did the USPS ever affix a postmark to the envelope.

The envelope arrived at the Tax Court from the USPS.  The USPS had handled the envelope as certified mail.  That meant that the USPS internally tracked the envelope under its “Tracking” service.  Plugging the 20-digit number from the Form 3800 into the USPS website yielded Tracking data showing that the envelope was first recorded in the USPS system on the 92nd day.  The envelope arrived at the Tax Court on the 98th day. 

The IRS later conceded that the taxpayer’s counsel’s employee had brought the envelope to a USPS office on the 90th day.  Eventually, both the taxpayer and IRS argued that the petition should be treated as timely filed under the private postmark rules, since the petition arrived within 8 days of the 90th day, and the IRS agreed that 8 days was within the normal time it takes an envelope to go from Utah to the Tax Court.

The Tax Court, however, viewed the date from the Tracking data to be the equivalent of a USPS postmark and so held that the petition must be treated as having been mailed, late, on the 92nd day.

The Seventh Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s equation of USPS Tracking data and a postmark, writing:

Part [301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)](B)(3) of the regulation specifies what happens if an envelope has both a private postmark and a postmark from the U.S. Postal Service. Tilden’s envelope had only one postmark. The regulation does not ask whether a date that is not a “postmark” is as good as a postmark. It asks whether there are competing postmarks.

To say “A is as good as B” is not remotely to show that A is B. “Vanilla ice cream is as good as chocolate” does not mean that a customer who orders chocolate must accept vanilla, just because the customer likes both. They are still different. Subsection (B)(3) does not make anything turn on a date as reliable as an official postmark. It makes the outcome turn on the date of an official postmark. If the Postal Service were to treat tracking data as a form of postmark, that might inform our reading of the regulation, but we could not find any evidence that the Postal Service equates the two.

For what it may be worth, we also doubt the Tax Court’s belief that the date an envelope enters the Postal Service’s tracking system is a sure indicator of the date the envelope was placed in the mail. The Postal Service does not say that it enters an item into its tracking system as soon as that item is received—and the IRS concedes in this litigation that the Postal Service did not do so for Tilden’s petition, in particular. Recall that the Commissioner has acknowledged that the envelope was received by the Postal Service on April 21. It took two days for the Postal Service to enter the 20-digit tracking number into its system, a step taken at a facility in zip code 84199, approximately ten miles away from the Arbor Lane post office (zip 84117) where the envelope was handed in.

846 F.3d at 887 (emphasis in original).

So, the Seventh Circuit held that the petition had been timely filed.

Moncada Facts

On April 15, 2019, the IRS mailed a notice of deficiency to the Moncadas.  Ninety days from that date was Sunday, July 14, so under § 7503, the due date for a Tax Court petition became the 91st day, Monday, July 15.

On the 88th day, Friday, July 12, the Moncadas went on line and created a shipping label for UPS Next Day Air, a DPDS.  From here, I quote from the taxpayers’ letter in response to the IRS motion to dismiss the petition:

The petition was prepared, signed and placed in the UPS pick-up box on the afternoon of Friday, July 12, 2019 for pick up at the posted pick-up time of 6:00PM. This action would have resulted in a timely delivery to the tax court on Monday, July 15, 2019.

However, UPS inexplicably did not pick up any packages form the pick-up location on Friday, July 12 or on Monday, July 15.  On Tuesday, July 16 we started to track the package and discovered there was no tracking information in the UPS system. We contacted UPS and asked why there was no tracking information. They had no answer. When the driver showed up on the 16th we discovered that the package was still in the box. UPS admitted that their driver did not stop at the box on Friday the 12th or on Monday the 15th. They shipped the package on July 16, and it arrived on July 17 . . . .

While the Tax Court did not find these letter statements to be facts, the taxpayers also submitted receipts to the Tax Court, dated July 12, generated in preparing the UPS label for shipment.

The IRS attached to its motion to dismiss UPS electronic database tracking information showing that the envelope was shipped (picked up) by UPS on July 16 (the 92nd day).  The envelope arrived at the Tax Court, and the petition was filed, on July 17 (the 93rd day).

Because of the different law that applies to shipment by DPDSs from the law that applies to shipment by the USPS, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, it turns out that whether the letter’s alleged facts were true is irrelevant.

Moncada Holding

Section 7502(f) was adopted in 1996.  It provides for the treatment of envelopes sent to the IRS or the Tax Court by IRS-designated private delivery services.  The IRS has designated UPS Next Day Air to be a DPDS.  Notice 2016-30, 2016-1 C.B. 676

There are several requirements for a service to be designated, among which is that the private service “records electronically to its data base . . . , or marks on the cover in which any item referred to in this section is to be delivered, the date on which such item was given to such trade or business for delivery”.  § 7502(f)(2)(C).  Section 7502(f)(1) provides:

Any reference in this section to the United States mail shall be treated as including a reference to any designated delivery service, and any reference in this section to a postmark by the United States Postal Service shall be treated as including a reference to any date recorded or marked as described in paragraph (2)(C) by any designated delivery service.

Thus, in the absence of a mark on the cover of the envelope (there was none here), tracking data supplies the deemed USPS “postmark”.  This is so clear from the statute that the regulations contain no rules about conflicts between private “postmarks” and DPDS “postmarks”.

Given the statute, the Tax Court had little choice but to rule that the UPS tracking data supplied a deemed USPS postmark of July 16 (the 92nd day), so the petition was not timely sent by UPS.  As noted above, the USPS postmark date always governs under the regulations if there is one.  In its order of dismissal in Moncada, the Tax Court was sympathetic to the taxpayers, but wrote:  “The creation of a label and mere placement in a UPS pick-up box is a risk analogous to that identified in the regulations when a sender affixes USPS postage and drops the items in a mailbox, at the mercy of the USPS to pick up and apply a postmark.”

Thus, even though the Seventh Circuit’s criticism in Tilden of using tracking data may still make sense, Congress has chosen for DPDSs to use tracking data instead of anything like the alternative proof of mailing by USPS in the absence of a true USPS postmark.

The moral of the story is that the still safest way to be certain that a petition will be timely filed in the Tax Court is to bring the envelope containing the petition to a USPS office, send it certified or registered mail, and get a legible postmark date on the mailing receipt from the USPS employee.  In that case, even if the document never gets to the Tax Court, the receipt will be proof of mailing.  § 7502(c) (deeming the date of registration or certification to be “the postmark date”); Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(2) (deeming the date on the receipt that was placed there by a USPS employee to be the date of registration or certification).  Use of private postmarks is riskier.  And there is no way to make a private postmark that will have any legal effect when one uses a DPDS.  You simply can’t control when a DPDS will pick up an envelope from a drop box and enter the envelope into its electronic database.

Prison Mailbox Rule Doesn’t Apply to Refund Claims

In what the court thinks is apparently a case of first impression, a district court has held that a refund claim that arrived at the IRS more than three years after it was due is not timely under the “prison mailbox rule”.  Whitaker v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165345 (N.D. Fla. 9/26/19), adopting magistrate’s opinion at 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166975.  The court also holds (following precedent in the Fifth Circuit which a court in the Eleventh Circuit had to follow) that the common law mailbox rule cannot apply because it has been superseded by section 7502.  Circuits are split as to the latter holding. Further, the court holds that the taxpayer did not make out a factual case for equitable estoppel to apply to the IRS.

read more...

Facts

During 2012, the taxpayer, a single individual, performed some work for which he was eventually sent a Form W-2.  But he did not timely file a return for 2012 until sometime in 2016. 

The taxpayer says he filed an original Form 1040-EZ before he got a copy of the Form W-2.  The original return showed no tax liability for the year, but sought refund of (1) $446 that the taxpayer claimed had been withheld as income taxes from his wages and (2) an EITC of $475.  The taxpayer was incarcerated in 2016 and claims that he handed his original 2012 return to prison authorities for mailing on March 25, 2016 – within the 3-year lookback period of section 6511(b).  (Since it was an original return containing a claim, the return would have been timely under the 3-year look-forward rule of section 6511(a), so the issue is whether the 3-year lookback rule of section 6511(b) regarding the amount of taxes paid has been satisfied.)

The taxpayer says that in late April 2016, he first obtained a copy of the Form W-2 for 2012 and only then learned that no income tax withholding had been done on his wages.  He prepared an amended return, therefore, removing the portion of the prior claim for withheld income taxes.  The amended return still sought an EITC refund of $475.  The taxpayer handed this amended return to prison authorities for mailing on April 21, 2016.

The IRS says that it never received the original return, but on April 30, 2016, it received the amended return and filed it as of that date.  The IRS denied the claim as untimely.

The taxpayer brought suit on the $475 refund claim in the district court for the Northern District of Florida.  The DOJ moved for summary judgment that the amount of the claim was limited under section 6511(b) to $0.  The taxpayer cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim should be deemed filed on March 25, 2016.  The taxpayer supported his motion with an unsigned note purportedly from “Classification Counselor Mrs. Doll.” In that unsigned note, Mrs. Doll stated that “[o]n 3/25/16 Mailroom Staff Ms. Bailey sealed, timestamped and post-dated the 2012 tax return. This is logged in the legal/privileged mail log.”   The taxpayer also submitted a copy of his original return, his amended return, and affidavits of inmates who helped or observed him preparing his 2012 tax return.  The taxpayer did not, however, submit the envelope in which the original return was mailed or any proof of its mailing by registered or certified mail.

Holdings

The magistrate’s opinion that was later adopted by the district court judge begins by taking the position that a timely-filed refund claim is necessary to the district court’s jurisdiction, citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 609 (1990).  As an aside, Keith and I have been arguing recently that Dalm is no longer good law on these points – that under more recent Supreme Court case law, both the filing of an administrative claim (required by section 7422(a)) and its timely filing (required by section 6511(a)) are merely mandatory claims processing rules not going to the court’s jurisdiction.  See Gillespie v. United States, 670 Fed. Appx. 393, 395 (7th Cir. 2016) (not deciding issue, but noting that current Supreme Court case law on the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and mere claims processing rules “may cast doubt on the line of cases suggesting that § 7422(a) is jurisdictional”, including Dalm.).

Without discussion, the magistrate’s opinion then mentions the further tax amount paid look-back requirements of section 6511(b) and overall treats compliance with that subsection as a nonjurisdictional matter.  As another aside, most courts today, without noting it, still treat compliance with section 6511(b) as a jurisdictional matter.  However, the Federal Circuit has held that the issue of how much tax was paid during the lookback period of section 6511(b) is not jurisdictional.  See Boeri v. United States, 724 F.3d 1367, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), on which Stephen blogged here.  So, the magistrate in Whitaker unknowingly aligns himself with the Federal Circuit.  By moving for summary judgment, the parties also seem to align with the Federal Circuit, since, if compliance with section 6511(b) is jurisdictional, the DOJ should, instead, have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(1).  It is odd, though, that sometimes in the opinion, the magistrate seems to equate compliance with section 6511(b)’s payment rules as also jurisdictional, but yet grants the DOJ summary judgment that he refund is limited to $0 – a merits holding.

Third, in applying the lookback rules of section 6511(b), the court is supposed to look at how much tax was “paid” in the 3-year period before the claim was filed.  The statute limits the refund to those taxes paid within the lookback period.  But, Whitaker’s claim is now solely predicated on the EITC, which, of course, he never actually “paid”.  Over a decade ago, while the director of the tax clinic of the University of Connecticut, now-Tax-Court-Special-Trial-Judge Leyden argued to the Second Circuit that there is no time limitation under section 6511(b) on EITC claims because they were never “paid” by the taxpayer.  In Israel v. United States, 356 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2004), the court held that the EITC should be treated as “deemed paid” by the taxpayer on the April 15 following the end of the tax year, just like withholding and estimated taxes under section 6513(b)(1) and (2) are treated as paid on that date.  The magistrate in Whitaker cites and applies Israel.  Thus, he deems the EITC “paid” on April 15, 2013, so the amount of the claim allowable is limited to $0 if the claim was filed after April 15, 2016.  Aside:  I wonder why no one has ever litigated the Israel issue in any other Circuit?  As I see it, the Israel opinion’s reasoning is something like “ipse dixit”.

The magistrate in Whitaker then notes that section 7502(a) provides a timely-mailing-is-timely-filing rule for, among other things, refund claims.  But, that rule doesn’t benefit Whitaker, since it only extends the filing date when there is a postmark on the envelope that shows the envelope was mailed on or before the last date to file.  There is no envelope in the record, let alone one bearing such a postmark.  The court also notes the special rule under section 7502(c) that could deem evidence of the date of mailing by registered or certified mail as the date of the postmark under subsection (a), but there is also no evidence in the record as to registered or certified mailing of an envelope.

Next, the magistrate considers the possibility that the common law mailbox rule (allowing for parol and other extrinsic evidence of mailing) has not been eliminated by section 7502 or the regulations thereunder.  The court notes the existing split among the Circuits about whether the common law mailbox rule survived the enactment of section 7502 and the recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit in Baldwin v. United States, 921 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2019), that regulations under section 7502 have abrogated all case law holding that the common law mailbox rule still survives the enactment of section 7502.  We blogged on Baldwin and that case law split here.  As an aside (boy, am I abusing the privilege of asides), the Baldwins filed a petition for certiorari on September 23, 2019 at Supreme Court Docket No. 19-402, a copy of which can be found here.  In the petition, they argue that the Court should revisit the correctness of its opinion in National Cable & Telecomms. Assn. v. Band X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), where it held that regulations may overrule preexisting case law where the case law was not predicated on the court holding the statute’s language unambiguous.  In the alternative, the petition argues for Brand X to be limited so as not to permit regulations that overrule common law case law like the mailbox rule.

The district court in Whitaker is located in the Eleventh Circuit, which has not taken a precedential position regarding the continued existence of the common law mailbox rule since the passage of section 7502 or the enactment of the regulations thereunder.  However, the magistrate notes that the Fifth Circuit in Drake v. Commissioner, 554 F.2d 736, 738-39 (5th Cir. 1977), held the common law mailbox rule to no longer exist after section 7502.  Since that opinion was issued before the Eleventh Circuit was carved out of the Fifth Circuit in 1981, Drake is thus binding precedent on district courts in the Eleventh Circuit under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209-10 (11th Cir. 1981), and the common law mailbox rule proof offered by Whitaker can be of no use to him.

Next, and most novel, the magistrate considers whether the “prison mailbox rule” applies to assist Whitaker.  The court apparently finds no case law on whether the prison mailbox rule can apply to tax refund claims.  In the following passage, the magistrate declines to extend the prison mailbox rule to tax refund claims:

The Supreme Court created the prison mailbox rule when it held that — for purposes of Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure — a notice of appeal that a pro se prisoner sought to file in a federal court of appeals should be considered filed on the date the prisoner delivered it “to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988); Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 820 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016). In reaching its decision, the Court reasoned that the word “filed” was ambiguous insofar as neither Rule 4(a)(1) nor the applicable statute set “forth criteria for determining the moment at which . . . ‘filing’ has occurred.” Houston at 272-76, 108 S. Ct. 2383-85; Bonilla v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 535 F. App’x 891, 893 (11th Cir. 2013). Additionally, in creating the prison mailbox rule, the Supreme Court never stated that the rule applies to every document a prisoner seeks to mail. Rather, the rule announced by the Supreme Court applied only to notices of appeal submitted to federal courts of appeals, and was subsequently codified consistent with that limitation. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).


Other courts expanded the rule announced in Houston v. Lack to apply the prison mailbox rule to other court filings. See Edwards v. United States, 266 F.3d 756, 758 (7th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that courts expanded the prison mailbox rule to include many other types of court filings). This expansion was codified to apply to appellate documents and habeas petitions filed with federal courts. See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c); Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings For the United States District Courts, Rule 3(d); Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings For the United States District Courts, Rule 3(d).
Consistent with its historical roots, in the Eleventh Circuit, the prison mailbox rule is limited to filings made to courts. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Under the ‘prison mailbox rule,’ a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”) (emphasis added); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that the prison mailbox rule announced in Houston applies to pro se prisoners seeking to file in federal courts complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not cited any authority demonstrating that the prison mailbox rule applies to tax returns submitted to prison officials for mailing to the IRS.


Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Fex v. Michigan strongly suggests that the prison mailbox rule does not apply generally to all documents a prisoner seeks to mail to government entities. 507 U.S. 43, 47, 113 S. Ct. 1085, 1089 (1993). In that case, the prisoner sought to apply the prison mailbox rule to a request for disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers that he had provided to prison officials to mail. Fex, 507 U.S. at 46, 113 S. Ct. at 1088. In determining the date the document was “caused to be delivered,” the Supreme Court did not apply the prison mailbox rule and instead held that the document was “caused to be delivered” on the date the prosecutor’s office and court received the request, and not on the date the inmate gave the request to prison officials for mailing. Fex, 507 U.S. at 47, 113 S. Ct. at 1089.


Other courts have noted that “the prison mailbox rule does not apply when there is a ‘specific statutory or regulatory regime’ governing the filing at issue.” Crook v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue Serv., 173 F. App’x 653, 656 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Longenette v. Krusing, 322 F.3d 758, 763 (3d Cir. 2003)); Smith v. Conner, 250 F.3d 277, 277, 279 (5th Cir. 2001); Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d 990, 994-95 (9th Cir. 1994). More specifically, when the particular statute defines the term “filing” or “filed” — as § 7502 essentially does — courts have seen no reason to usurp a statutory or regulatory definition by resorting to the prison mailbox rule. See Crook, 173 F. App’x at 656 (interpreting the word “filed” defined in Section 7502(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code); Smith, 250 F.3d at 279 (holding that the court “shall resort to Houston if the rule does not clearly define filing” and in all other cases the court “will enforce the regulations as written”); Nigro, 40 F.3d at 994 (noting that the prison-mailbox rule did not apply because the administrative regulations defined the word “filed” as “when the receipt is issued.”).  [Emphasis in original.]

Finally, Whitaker had argued that the government should be estopped from arguing for the section 6511(b) limitation in this case. It is well-settled that jurisdictional conditions are not subject to estoppel (just like they are not subject to waiver, forfeiture or equitable tolling).  Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 610 (2010).  Since the magistrate appears not to treat section 6511(b) compliance as jurisdictional, this presents him with the question of whether estoppel could apply to the assertion that section 6511(b)’s conditions were not met. The magistrate states:

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant should be estopped from invoking § 6511’s three-year deadline because the IRS sent him a disallowance letter — dated and sent to Plaintiff on May 5, 2017 — in which the IRS incorrectly stated that May 15, 2016, was Plaintiff’s (already expired) deadline to file his claim for 2012 taxes. (Doc. 56-13 at 2). Plaintiff intimates that he relied on this letter (Doc. 56-13), even though the IRS issued this letter on May 5, 2017, more than a year after the deadline to file his return had expired (April 15, 2016), and long after the date Plaintiff claims that he sent his initial 2012 tax return to the IRS (March 25, 2016).


“The question of whether equitable estoppel is ever available against the federal government is unresolved,” but it is clear that the party asserting estoppel against the government has a heavy burden. Ferry v. Hayden, 954 F.2d 658, 661 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 61, 104 S. Ct. 2218, 2224 (1984)).  [footnote and some citations omitted; emphasis in original]

The magistrate does not decide whether estoppel could ever apply to section 6511, but details exhaustively why the facts alleged by Whitaker could not give rise to estoppel in any event.

Observations

I wonder if Whitaker will appeal his loss to the Eleventh Circuit?  The case only involves $475 plus interest from March or April of 2016 to date. 

Whitaker proceeded pro se in the district court and got the district court $350 filing fee put on an installment agreement so he could proceed in forma pauperis.  He is obligated to pay 20% of his income out of his “inmate account” towards the full $350 fee, over time.  He has so far paid $139.66 towards the fee.  Could he get the $505 appellate filing fee waived? 

Does anyone admitted to the Eleventh Circuit want to represent him?  (He appears to be quite the prison litigator, having filed numerous papers in the district court citing case law.)  In his motion for summary judgment, he argued for the application of the common law mailbox rule and estoppel.  In order for him to prevail in the Eleventh Circuit on the mailbox rule, he would need an en banc panel that decided to no longer follow the Fifth Circuit’s controlling Drake opinion holding that the common law mailbox rule has been supplanted by section 7502.  That is pretty unlikely.  And the Supreme Court in Baldwin is not being asked to resolve that Circuit split about the common law mailbox rule – merely to hold that the regulation under section 7502 doesn’t overrule any Circuit Court that has already held that the common law mailbox rule still applies after section 7502.  So, a taxpayer victory in Baldwin won’t be enough help Whitaker.

Whitaker’s case might have been a good litigating vehicle for the Israel issue of whether the section 6511(b) limits apply at all to EITC claims.  If section 6511(b) doesn’t apply, then all the issues decided by the magistrate on whether Whitaker mailed too late go by the wayside as irrelevant.  But, I have read Whitaker’s motion for summary judgment, and he doesn’t argue that section 6511(b) doesn’t limit EITC claims. It appears he has waived that Israel issue.  Too bad.

Designated Orders June 18 – 22: Mailing Issues

Caleb Smith from University of Minnesota brings us this week’s designated orders. Two of the orders present interesting issues regarding the mail and the Court’s jurisdiction. One concerns the timing of the mailing by the petitioner while the other concerns the location of the mailing by the IRS. As with almost all mailing issues, the jurisdiction of the Court hangs in the balance. Keith

There is yet no sign of summer vacation in D.C., as the Tax Court continued to issue designated orders the week of June 18. Indeed, if the Tax Court judges are hoping to get away from the office for a while their orders don’t show it: one of the more interesting ones comes from Judge Gustafson raising sua sponte an interesting jurisdictional question for the parties to address. We begin with a look at that case.

read more...

The Importance of Postmarks: Murfam Enterprises LLC, et.al v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 8039-16 (order here)

Most of this order deals with Judge Gustafson essentially directing the parties to play nice with each other. The order results from petitioner’s motion to compel the IRS to respond to interrogatories and to compel the IRS to produce documents. Since litigation in Tax Court is largely built around informal discovery and the stipulation process, there usually needs to be some sort of break-down between the parties before the Court will step-in to compel discovery.

One could read this order for a study of the boundaries of zealous (or over-zealous) representation of your client. Some of the deadlines proposed by petitioners for the IRS to respond appear to be less than fair, and it does not appear that petitioners tried too hard to work things out with the IRS prior to filing the motions to compel -according to the IRS, only one call was made, before business hours, without leaving a message. All of this leads to a mild tsk-tsk from Judge Gustafson: “communication during the discovery process and prior to the filing of the subject motions has been inadequate.”

But the more interesting issue, in my opinion, is the jurisdictional one that Judge Gustafson raises later. It is, after all, an issue that could render all of the discovery (and the entire case) largely moot: did Murfam mail the petition on time?

Judge Gustafson notes that under the applicable law, a tax matters partner must petition the court within 90 days after the notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) is mailed. We are told that the IRS mailed the FPAA on December 21, 2015, which we may as well accept as true for present purposes. (As a practitioner, one should note that the IRS date on the notice is not always the date of the actual mailing, which would control. See post here. Assuming the FPAA was actually mailed on December 21, 2015, Murfam would need to mail their petition by March 21, 2016, because 90 days later (March 20) falls on a Sunday. See IRC 7503.

This appears to be an easy question: did Murfam mail the petition by March 21, 2016? Because the Court did not actually receive the petition until April 2, 2016, we get into the “timely mailing” rules of IRC 7502. And here things get interesting. The envelope in which the petition was sent has a mostly illegible postmark. The day the petition was mailed is smudged, and may be either March 16 or March 26. The problem is, only one of those two dates (i.e. the 16th) is a timely mailing.

Carl Smith recently posted on the Treasury Regulation on point for these sorts of issues, with the interesting question of whether there is any room left for the common law mailbox rule in the same sphere as the Treasury Regulation. A slightly different question exists in Murfam, and the regulation specifically provides what to do with “illegible postmarks” at Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(A). Essentially, it provides that the burden of proof is on the sender to show the correct date. How, exactly, would one be expected to do that? That is where things would likely become difficult, and the practitioner may need to be creative. Though not quite the same issue, my favorite case for proving mailing is the Estate of Wood v. C.I.R., 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) taking place in small-town Easton, Minnesota… a place where, much like Cheers, everybody knows your name. So much so that the “postmistress” was able to credibly testify that she specifically remembered sending the tax return in the mail on the day in question. It is unclear whether Murfam could rely on similar credible testimony to prove the date of the mailing.

I would also note that, at present, this is likely more of an academic point than anything else: the parties can stipulate that the petition was timely filed (and while I cannot access their stipulations, my suspicion is that they came to an agreement on that point… how much more efficiently things do progress when the parties work together). But, apart from again serving as a reminder on the importance of sending (certain) mail certified, the point to keep in mind is the evidentiary issues that can easily arise when mailing important documents.

The Importance of Addresses: Gamino v. C.I.R., dkt. # 12773-17S (order here)

Lest the importance of proper mailing issues be doubted, it should be noted that there was another designated order issued the same day primarily concerning mailing addresses. In Gamino, the IRS sent out a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) to the taxpayer at two different addresses. Those delivery attempts were in May of 2015. The petition that the taxpayer sent, and which Judge Guy dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, was mailed in May of 2017. Clearly the 90 days have passed. The only argument remaining for the taxpayer would involve, not the date of the mailing, but the address.

Neither of the NODs appear to have been “actually” received by the taxpayer at either address, although that may well have been by the taxpayers refusal to accept them -the NOD sent to the address the taxpayer was known to live at was marked “unclaimed” after multiple delivery attempts. However, actual receipt is not necessary for an effective NOD so long as it is sent to the “last known address.” Here the Court does not go into great detail of how to determine what the correct last known address would be. In fact, it appears as if that may be an issue, since the Court is squarely confronted with whether it was an effective mailing. But rather than dredge up the last filed tax return (perhaps Mr. Gamino never files?) or the other traditional methods the Service relies on for determining the last known address (see Treas. Reg. 301.6212-2) the Court relies on the petitioner effectively shooting himself in the foot during a hearing. That is, the fact that at a hearing on the issue Mr. Gamino “acknowledged that he had been living at the [address one of the NODs was sent to] for over 10 years.” No other information or argument is given as to why this should be treated as the proper “last known address,” but “under the circumstances” the Court is willing to treat it as such.

This order leaves me a bit torn. From a purely academic standpoint, it is not clear to me that just because the taxpayer was actually living somewhere that place should be treated as their “last known address.” In fact, that seems to go against the core concept behind the last known address and constructive receipt: it isn’t where you actually live, it is where the IRS (reasonably should) believe you to live. So the IRS sending a letter to anywhere other than my last known address should, arguably, only be effective on actual receipt.

On the other hand, a taxpayer shouldn’t be able to throw a wrench in tax administration just by refusing mail from the IRS. One could argue that such a refusal is “actual receipt” of the mail. In that respect, I would bet that Judge Guy got to the correct outcome in this case. But the order is nonetheless something of an anomaly on that point, since there should be much easier ways to show “last known address” and “actually living” at the address isn’t one of them. My bet is that the IRS couldn’t point to the address on the last filed return as the taxpayer’s “last known address” because that address may well have been a P.O. box (where one of the two NODs was sent, and returned as undeliverable). Taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be able circumvent the valid assessment of tax by providing undeliverable addresses… Although, even if you don’t “live” at a P.O. box, if that was the address you used on your last tax return, shouldn’t that be enough for a valid last known address? Truly, my mind boggles at these questions.

Changed Circumstances and Collection Due Process: The Importance of Court Review

English v. C.I.R., Dkt. # 16134-16L (order here)

On occasion, I wonder just how IRS employees view the role of “collection due process” in the framework of tax administration. Is it a chance to earnestly work with taxpayers on the best way of collecting (or perhaps foregoing) collecting tax revenue? Or is it just one more expensive and time-consuming barrier to collecting from delinquents? With some IRS employees (and counsel) I get the feeling that if they had to choose, they would characterize it as the latter. The above order strikes me as an example of that mindset.

Mr. English appears to be pursuing a collection alternative to levy, and is dealing with serious medical issues. I obviously do not have access to his financial details, but it should be noted that he is pro se, and that his filing fee was waived by the Court. This isn’t to guarantee that Mr. English may be dealing with financial hardship, but it is a decent indicator.

Further, this does not appear to be a case where the taxpayer simply never files a tax return and/or never submits financial information statements. In this case, the issue was the quality of the financial statements that were submitted (apparently incomplete, and with some expenses unsubstantiated). IRS appeals determined that Mr. English could full pay and sustained the levy. IRS counsel likely thought they could score a quick win on the case through summary judgment.

But that does not happen in this case, and for good reason.

Since the time of the original CDP hearing, Mr. English’s medical (and by extension, financial) position has seriously deteriorated. For one, he is now unemployed. For another, his left leg was amputated above the knee. The amputation occurred in late September, 2016. The unemployment was in July of 2017. In other words, both occurred well before the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment in 2018. Why did IRS counsel think that summary judgment upholding the levy recommendation, made by an IRS Appeals officer that was confronted with neither of those issues, was right decision? I have truly no idea. But I’ve come across enough overworked IRS attorneys to have a sense…

Fortunately, we have Judge Buch who apparently does appreciate the value of CDP. It is not clear whether Mr. English made any motion for remand to IRS appeals (it actually appears that he did not), but Judge Buch sees Mr. English’s “material change in circumstance” as good enough reason for it. And so, at the very least, the judicial review afforded CDP hearing provides Mr. English with another chance to make his case.

Odds and Ends

The remaining designated orders will not be given much analysis. One illustrates the opposite side of Mr. English in a CDP case: the taxpayer that does pretty much nothing other than petition the Court, while giving essentially no financials or other reasons for the IRS Appeals determination to be upheld (order here). The other deals with an apparently wrong-headed argument by an estate to exclude an IRS expert report (order here).

 

Does the Mailbox Rule Survive a 2011 Reg. Under Section 7502?

We welcome back frequest guest blogger Carl Smith who discusses important forthcoming arguments regarding the mailbox rule.  This seemingly simple procedural provision gives rise to its fair share of litigation because it can make or break a case.  The cases that Carl flags are worth watching for those in need of the mailbox rule to preserve the timeliness of a submission.  Keith

 Before section 7502 was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1954, courts determined the timeliness of various filings required under the Internal Revenue Code under a common law mailbox rule under which, if there was credible extrinsic evidence of timely mailing via the U.S. mails, then a document was presumed to have been delivered (despite denials of receipt), and if the mailing was made before the filing date, the mailing effected a timely filing. Of course, the use of certified or registered mail was excellent proof of timely mailing under the mailbox rule, but testimony about timely use of regular mail could be believed by the court, as well.

Over the years, some Circuits have faced the issue of whether the enactment of the statutory timely-mailing-is-timely-filing provision of section 7502 preempted or supplemented the mailbox rule. Compare Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9thCir. 1992)(mailbox rule still valid); Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990)(same); withMiller v. United States, 784 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1986)(mailbox rule preempted by section 7502); Deutsch v. Commissioner, 599 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1979)(same). See alsoSorrentino v. Internal Revenue Service, 383 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2004)(carving out a middle position).

In 2011, a Treasury Regulation under section 7502 was amended to specifically provide, in effect, that the common law mailbox rule no longer operated under the Code.  Since then, a few district courts have faced the question of the validity of this regulation.  Two courts have held the regulation valid under the deference rules of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).  McBrady v. United States, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2016);Jacob v. United States, No. 15-10895, 2016 WL 6441280 at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2016).  Another district court, in an unpublished opinion in a tax refund suit, followed Andersonand applied the mailbox rule, without discussing the regulation.  Baldwin v. United States, No. 2:15-CV-06004 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

While no court of appeal has yet ruled on the validity of the regulation, on August 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument both on the government’s appeal of Baldwinand the taxpayers’ allegedly late appeal from an unrelated Tax Court Collection Due Process (CDP) case.  Both cases squarely present the issue of whether the Ninth Circuit should hold that its Andersonopinion has been superseded by a Treasury regulation abolishing the mailbox rule – a regulation that must be considered valid under Chevrondeference.

read more...

Baldwin

Baldwin is a tax refund suit.  There, the taxpayers reported a loss on their 2007 income tax return, filed on or before the extended due date of October 15, 2008.  They wished to file an amended return for 2005, carrying back the 2007 loss to generate a refund in 2005.  Under section 6511(d), this had to be done by filing the amended return within three years of the due date of the return generating the loss – i.e., by October 15, 2011.  The taxpayers, while living in Connecticut, had properly filed their original 2005 return with the Andover Service Center, but by 2011, original returns of Connecticut residents needed to be filed at the Kansas City Service Center.  In 2011,Reg. § 301.6402-2(a)(2)provided that “a claim for credit or refund must be filed with the service center serving the internal revenue district in which the tax was paid.” That would be Andover.  But, instructions to the 2010 Form 1040X (the one used by the taxpayers) told Connecticut taxpayers to file those forms with Kansas City, where original Forms 1040 for 2010 were now being filed.  (In 2015, the regulation was amended to provide that amended returns should be filed where the forms direct, not where the tax was paid.)

The taxpayers introduced testimony by one of their employees that the employee mailed the 2005 amended return by regular mail on June 21, 2011 from a Hartford Post Office to the Andover Service Center.  But, the IRS claimed it never received the Form 1040X prior to October 15, 2011, and that the filing was in the wrong Service Center.

The district court credited the testimony of mailing, citing the Anderson Ninth Circuit opinion that allowed for the common law mailbox rule to apply.  The Baldwincourt’s opinion does not mention the August 23, 2011 amendment to the regulation under section 7502 (quoted below) that purports to preempt use of the mailbox rule.  The court went on to find that, given the conflict between the regulation under section 6402 and the form instructions, a taxpayer was then “simply required . . . [to] mail his amended return in such a way that it would, as a matter of course, be delivered to the proper service center to handle the claim within the statutory period.”  Finding that this was done here, the court held the refund claim timely filed.  The Court also observed:  “The fact that the IRS routinely forwards incorrectly addressed refund claims as a matter of course also suggests that the IRS does not consider an address problem to be fatal to a refund claim.”

Then, the Baldwin court, over the government’s objections, found that a net operating loss had been incurred in 2007 and could be carried back to 2005, resulting in a refund due the taxpayers of $167,663.  To add insult to injury, the court also held that the government’s litigating position in the case, after a certain point, was not substantially justified, so the court imposed litigation costs payable to the taxpayers under section 7430 of $25,515.

The government appealed, arguing not only that there was no valid net operating loss in 2007 to be carried back (and so the litigation costs, as well, should not have been imposed), but that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the refund claim was not filed within the time set forth in section 6511(d).

Waltner

The Waltners are a couple who have been to the Tax Court may times, and even have been sanctioned under section 6673for making frivolous arguments (even their attorney has sometimes been sanctioned thereunder).  Their Tax Court case at Docket No. 8726-11L involved an appeal by them of multiple CDP notices of determination involving multiple years of income tax and frivolous return penalties under section 6702.  In an unpublished orderon April 21, 2015, Judge Foley granted the IRS’ motion for summary judgment with respect to some of the notices of determination, but not as to all notices.  The parties later reached a settlement on the other notices, which was embodied in a stipulated decision entered by the court on January 21, 2016.  Under section 7483, this started a 90-day window in which the Waltners had to file any notice of appeal.

An August 9, 2016 unpublished order of then-Chief Judge Marvel describes what happened next:

On August 4, 2016, petitioners electronically filed a Statement Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court (With Ex.).  Among other things, in that Statement petitioners assert that: (1) on April 15, 2016, petitioners sent by regular U.S. mail to the Tax Court a notice of appeal in this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and (2) that notice of appeal (a) either may have been lost by the U.S. Postal Service, or (b) may have been lost after delivery to the Tax Court.  Attached to the Declaration of Sarah V. Waltner as Exhibit A, is a copy of Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Because this case is closed, petitioners’ Statement Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court (With Ex.) may not be filed.

On August 15, 2016, the Waltners then admittedly filed a proper notice of appeal with the Tax Court.   But, the Ninth Circuit questioned whether the appeal was timely and sought briefing on this issue.  The DOJ argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely.

DOJ Argument

 Here are the links to the Baldwin Ninth Circuit appellant’s brief, appellees’ brief, and the reply brief.  Also, here are the links to the Waltner Ninth Circuit appellants’ brief, appellee’s brief, and the reply brief in the Ninth Circuit.  Although the two cases are not consolidated with each other, they have been scheduled to be argued one after the other before the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena on August 31, 2018.  And the DOJ briefs are clearly coordinated in their argument.

The DOJ arguments are predicated on the Treasury’s section 7502 regulation, Chevron, and Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).

As amended by 76 Fed. Reg. 52561-01 (Aug. 23, 2011), Reg. § 301.7502-1(e)(2)(i)provides, in relevant part:

Other than direct proof of actual delivery, proof of proper use of registered or certified mail, and proof of proper use of a duly designated [private delivery service] . . . are the exclusive means to establish prima facie evidence of delivery of a document to the agency, officer, or office with which the document is required to be filed.  No other evidence of a postmark or of mailing will be prima facie evidence of delivery or raise a presumption that the document was delivered.

The DOJ argues that section 7502, when enacted (and still today) is ambiguous as to whether it preempts the common law mailbox rule.  The DOJ contends that there is thus a gap to fill, which, under Chevron, can be filled by a reasonable regulation. The Circuit split over whether the mailbox rule has been preempted is evidence of two reasonable interpretations of section 7502.  The regulation is valid because it chooses one of those two reasonable interpretations.

In Brand X, the Supreme Court held that Chevron deference must even apply to a regulation that takes a position that has been rejected by a court, so long as the court opinion did not state that it found the statute unambiguous.  If the statute was unambiguous, then there can be no gap under ChevronStep One to fill.  PT readers may remember the extensive discussion of Brand X in the section 6501(e) Treasury Regulation case of United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 U.S. 478 (2012).

The DOJ argues that Anderson did not describe its interpretation of section 7502 to still allow the mailbox rule as one required by an unambiguous statute.  Accordingly, under Brand X, the 2011 amendment to the section 7502 regulation is entitled to Chevron deference, in spite of Anderson.

We’ll see in Baldwin and Waltner if the government can effectively overrule Anderson by its regulation.

Observations

I will not needlessly extend this post by explaining my beef with the DOJ’s other arguments that compliance with the filing deadlines for refund claims under section 6511 and for notices of appeal under section 7483 are “jurisdictional” conditions of the courts.  I don’t think that either deadline is jurisdictional under current Supreme Court case law that makes filing deadlines now only rarely jurisdictional.  And, sadly, none of the taxpayers in these two cases made an argument that the filing deadlines are not jurisdictional – probably because it makes no difference in the outcome of their cases whether the filing deadlines are jurisdictional or not.  The taxpayers are not arguing for equitable tolling, just the mailbox rule (which is not an equitable doctrine that would be precluded by a jurisdictional deadline).  I only regret that I did not learn of either of these two cases earlier, when I could have filed amicus briefs raising the issue of whether the two filings deadlines are really jurisdictional.  At least the courts, then, might have noted that it is a debatable question whether these two filing deadlines are jurisdictional.

Designated Orders: 9/18 – 9/22/2017

Professor Patrick Thomas brings us this week’s Designated Orders, which this week touch on challenges to the amount or existence of a liability in a CDP case without the right to that review, a pro se taxpayer fighting through a blizzard of a few differing assessments and an offset, and the somewhat odd case of the IRS arguing that a taxpayer’s mailing was within a 30-day statutory period to petition a determination notice. Les

Thank goodness for Judge Armen’s designated orders last Wednesday. In addition to Judge Halpern’s order in the Gebman case on the same day (which Bryan Camp recently blogged about in detail), Judge Armen’s three orders were the only designated orders for the entire week.

read more...

A Review of the Underlying Liability, without a Statutory Right

Dkt. # 7500-16L, Curran v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

The Curran order presents a fairly typical CDP case, though both the IRS, and I’d argue the Court, give the Petitioners a bit more than they were entitled to under the law. Mr. Curran was disabled in 2011, and received nearly $100,000 in disability payments from his employer, Jet Blue. Under section 104(a)(3), such payments are included in gross income if the employer paid the premiums for the disability policy (or otherwise contributed to the cost of the eventual disability payments). If the employee, on the other hand, paid the premiums, the benefits are excluded from gross income.

It appears that Jet Blue paid for Mr. Curran’s benefits, but Mr. Curran did not report these on his 2011 Form 1040. Unfortunately for Mr. Curran, employers (or, in this case, insurance companies contracted with the employer to provide disability benefits) are required to report these benefits on a Form W-2. The IRS noticed the W-2, audited Mr. Curran, and issued a Notice of Deficiency by certified mail to Mr. Curran’s last known address, to which he did not respond. The IRS then began collection procedures, ultimately issuing a Notice of Intent to Levy under section 6330 and a Notice of Determination upholding the levy.

The Court does not critically examine the last known address issue, but presumes that the Petitioner has lived at the same address since filing the return in 2012. So, ordinarily, Petitioners would not have had the opportunity to challenge the liability, either in the CDP hearing or in the Tax Court.

Nevertheless, the IRS did analyze the underlying liability in the CDP hearing, yet concluded that Mr. Curran’s disability payments were included in gross income under section 104(a)(3). The Court also examines the substantive issue regarding the underlying liability, though notes that Petitioners do not have the authority to raise the liability issue. Of particular note, the IRS’s consideration of the liability does not waive the bar to consideration of the liability, and most importantly, does not grant the Court any additional jurisdiction to consider that challenge. Yet, Judge Armen still engages in a substantive analysis, concluding that Petitioners’ arguments on the merits would fail.

It’s also worth noting that the Petitioners provided convincing evidence that, at some point after 2011, they repaid some of the disability benefits (likely because he also received Social Security Disability payments, and his contract with the insurance company required repayment commensurate with those SSDI benefits). Under the claim of right rule, Petitioners were required to report the benefits as income in the year of receipt. Repayment of the benefits in a latter year does not affect taxation in that earlier year; rather, the Petitioners were authorized to claim a deduction (for the benefits repaid) or a credit (for the allocable taxes paid) in the year of repayment.

Three Assessments, Two Refund Offsets, and One Confused Taxpayer

Dkt. # 24295-16, McDonald v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

In LITC practice, we often encounter taxpayers who are confused as to why the IRS is bothering them, what the problem is, and even why they’re in Tax Court. Indeed, at a recent calendar call I attended, a pro se taxpayer asked the judge for permission to file a “Petition”. This mystified the judge for a moment; further colloquy revealed the Petitioner actually desired a continuance.

In McDonald, we see a similarly confused taxpayer, though I must also admit confusion in how the taxpayer’s controversy came to be. Initially, the taxpayer filed a 2014 return that reported taxable income of $24,662, but a tax of $40.35. Anyone who has prepared a tax return can immediately see a problem; while tax reform proposals currently abound, no one has proposed a tax bracket or rate of 0.16%. Additionally, Mr. McDonald did self-report an Individual Shared Responsibility Payment (ISRP) under section 5000A of nearly $1,000 for failure to maintain minimum essential health coverage during 2014.

So, the IRS reasonably concluded that Mr. McDonald made a mathematical error as to his income tax, and assessed tax under section 6213(b)(1). Such assessments are not subject to deficiency procedures. Because the assessment meant that Mr. McDonald owed additional tax, the IRS offset his 2015 tax refund to satisfy the liability. Another portion of his refund was offset to his ISRP liability (which appeared on a separate account transcript—likely further confusing matters for Mr. McDonald).

But then the IRS noticed, very likely through its Automated Underreporter program, that Mr. McDonald did not report his Social Security income for 2014. Unreported income does not constitute a mathematical error, and so the IRS had to use deficiency procedures to assess this tax. The IRS sent Mr. McDonald a Notice of Deficiency, from which he petitioned the Tax Court.

Mr. McDonald filed for summary judgment, pro se, arguing that he had already paid the tax in question. Indeed, he had paid some unreported tax—but not the tax at issue in this deficiency proceeding. Rather, this was the tax that had already been assessed, pursuant to the Service’s math error authority—and of course the ISRP, that Mr. McDonald self-assessed. Accordingly, Judge Armen denied summary judgment, since Petitioner could not prove his entitlement to the relief he sought.

Headline: IRS Argues for the Petitioner; Loses

Dkt. # 23413-16SL, Matta v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

I just taught sections 7502 and 7503 to my class, so this order is fairly timely. Judge Armen ordered the parties to show cause why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely petition.

Now why the Petition was filed in the first instance, I can’t quite discern. The Notice of Determination, upon which the Petition was based, determined that the taxpayer was entitled to an installment agreement, and did not sustain the levy. The Notice was dated on September 12, 2016, but the mailing date was unclear. (This is where the eventual dispute lies).

A petition was received by the Court on October 31, 2016. Clearly, this date is beyond the 30-day period in section 6330(d) to petition from a Notice of Determination. However, the Court found that the mailing date of the petition was October 13, 2016, as noted on the envelope. The mail must have been particularly slow then. This creates a much closer call.

The twist that I can’t quite figure out is that it’s the Service here that’s arguing for the Petitioner’s case to be saved, rather than the Petitioner, who doesn’t respond. The Service argues that, although the Notice was issued on September 12, it wasn’t actually mailed until September 13—which would cause the October 13 petition to fall within the 30-day period. The Service argues that because the Notice arrived at the USPS on September 13, that’s the mailing date.

But Judge Armen digs a bit deeper, noting that the USPS facility the Service references is the “mid-processing and distribution center”, and that it arrived there at 1:55a.m. Piecing things together, Judge Armen surmises that the certified mail receipt, showing mailing on September 12, must mean that the Notice was accepted for mailing by the USPS on September 12, and then early the next morning, sent to the next stage in the mailing chain. That means the Notice was mailed on September 12, and that accordingly, the Petition was mailed 31 days after the determination.

Helpfully for Petitioner, it looks as if decision documents were executed in this case, as Judge Armen orders those to be nullified. Perhaps the Service and the Petitioner can come to an agreement administratively after all, as Judge Armen suggests.