I did a post on August 15 in which I expressed shock that the DOJ lawyers in a district court collection suit told the court that the taxpayer could no longer seek IRC 6015(f) relief, since a two-year period to ask for such relief had passed. The DOJ had cited a regulation that is no longer effective after a 2019 statutory amendment allowing a taxpayer to seek (f) relief at any time while the collection statute of limitations is still open, as it is in the case before the court. This is a short post, just to let everyone know that on August 17, the United States filed a document in the district court entitled “United States’ Notice of Errata to United States’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
The operative language from the notice is as follows:
[T]he United States . . . argued that to qualify for relief under § 6015, a taxpayer must first present an administrative claim to the IRS within two years of the date on which the IRS first began collection activity against the taxpayer claiming innocent spouse relief. While innocent spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b) and (c) is limited by a two-year statute of limitations, the United States erroneously asserted that the same statute of limitations also applies to innocent spouse relief sought under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f). Although Mrs. Weathers remains time barred from seeking innocent spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b) and (c), she could seek relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f) before the IRS. This does not impact the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Mrs. Weathers would still have to avail herself of the administrative processes before the IRS to seek this relief and, if necessary, follow procedures for review established in 26 U.S.C. § 6015(e).We just understood our error and respectfully alert the Court and parties through this errata filing. As stated, however, our inadvertent error does not impact the Court’s memorandum opinion and Order, which properly dismissed the asserted affirmative defense for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Undersigned counsel apologizes to the Court for the mistake.
The case was headed for a jury trial beginning August 22. However, there is an entry on the docket sheet that the case settled on August 18. There is no entry (yet?) correcting the district court’s order, though.
About Carlton Smith
Congrats Carl. I’m sure your post generated this correction by the DOJ. And congrats to the people who make this blog happen. It is a real service to the tax community.
Steve, I am not sure that my post was the precipitating cause of the apology, since the parties were in deep settlement discussions this week, and the taxpayer-wife’s attorney may have brought up the subject again. In any case, I don’t feel this whole affair deserves celebration. However, hopefully, it will light a fire under Treasury to finalize the 2013 proposed regs. so that no one else in future will misunderstand current law.
Oh if only alleged taxpayers could just apologize when they misunderstand the tax statutes. I believe harsh penalties must be issued to the attorneys as well as the Dept. Of Injustice agency officers to have equal treatment under law. Ignorance of the law, or in this case deception is no excuse.