Math Error

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

We have written before about Math Error here, here, here and here.  Last week, the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) wrote a very nice blog post explaining math error but also providing some surprising details on the volume of math error notices sent out during the past filing season.  This is the first of a two-part post by the NTA on math error.  If the second post is as good as the first, it will be worth the read.

The IRS has pushed to expand math error authority for many years.  The combination of the direct path to assessment coupled with its confusing notice to taxpayers that leaves most of them wondering what they received makes this an easy path to move cases into collection without the hassle of having to send a notice of deficiency and possibly have the taxpayer file a Tax Court petition.  Of course, the alert taxpayer can write and contest the math error notice triggering the opportunity for a notice of deficiency, but this process just makes it easier to get to assessment.


It’s not just me complaining that the math error notices lack clarity.  Here is what the NTA says about them:

Unfortunately, because the math error notices do not clearly articulate what was adjusted and why, taxpayers are often left confused as to what changes have been made to their return, making it difficult for taxpayers to determine whether they agree or disagree with the changes. Many math error notices are vague and do not adequately explain the urgency the situation demands. In fact, in some instances, math error notices don’t even specify the exact error that was corrected, but rather provide a series of possible errors that may have been addressed by the IRS through its math error authority.

She points out that the math error notice does not describe the steps the taxpayer must take to disagree with the notice and trigger a notice of deficiency until the middle of the second page “where they are directed to call the IRS if they have questions about the adjustment.”  Directing taxpayers to call the IRS does not create an easy path to getting answers.  Assuming they get through, just how thoughtfully do you think the person answering the phone will advise the taxpayer regarding the decisions to be made when confronted with a math error notice?  The default should be to object if the taxpayer is unsure if the notice is correct, but that’s not what the taxpayer will pick up from the notice itself or from a phone call to an IRS assister.  The NTA also points out the problem of getting through to an assister.

The NTA recommends improving the language of the notice.  I agree with that recommendation but would like to see a more robust system for engaging the public in the drafting of notices and particularly the notices that go in high numbers to low-income taxpayers.

Speaking of high numbers, here is where the blog post surprised me.  She states:

This filing season, over 5 million math error notices were erroneously issued omitting the 60-day time period language entirely where the only adjustment was to the RRC. Taxpayers were not informed of their rights and the ability to request an abatement.

I thought 5 million was a high number of math error notices, but apparently it is only the number of notices sent to people claiming the Recovery Rebate Credit. 

Are these notices valid if they don’t tell taxpayers when they must object in order to avoid having the assessment become permanent?  In Malone v. Commissioner, TC Summary Op. 2011-24, the Tax Court in a non-precedential opinion held that a portion of the assessment based on math error was invalid because the IRS letter did not notify taxpayers that the adjustment was “based on a mathematical error, did not set forth the specific error alleged, and did not adequately explain such error” where the letter simply states “[the IRS has] processed your Amended Return.”.  Les has recently updated the discussion of math error in the treatise “IRS Practice and Procedure” at Chapter 10.04[1][a] for those seeking a deeper discussion.

Section 6213(b)(1) provides for math error assessments as an exception to the normal deficiency procedure.  It states in its final sentence that “Each notice under this paragraph shall set forth the error alleged and an explanation thereof.”  It does not state in that subsection any time frame.

Section 6213(b)(2)(A) provides for the abatement of math error notices in certain situations.  It says “a taxpayer may file with the Secretary within 60 days after notice is sent under paragraph (1) a request for an abatement of any assessment specified in such notice, and upon receipt of such request, the Secretary shall abate the assessment.”  It does not say that the IRS needs to tell the taxpayer about the 60-day period.  It only says there is a 60-day period.

The math error provision does not require that the IRS include in the notice the last date to object to the assessment.  With the deficiency notice the IRS must tell the taxpayer the last day to file a Tax Court petition.  Here, there is no such requirement imposed and, therefore, no easy basis for these five million taxpayers to know to contest the assessment.

As the IRS uses math error more and more, taxpayers need to understand the power of this procedure and be prepared to protect their right to contest the liability in situations where they do not agree.  To do this they need information.  They need a letter that clearly explains the next steps and phone assistance for those who struggle with letters.  If a taxpayer misses the deadline to request an abatement of the liability, they have the chance to contest the merits in a collection due process (CDP) case, but it is much better to contest up front than to do so while the liability is in the collection stream.


  1. Bob Wunderle says

    Have a new twist on the Math Error issue. Client called last week. The EITC had been removed from their refund. They learn of this on the IRS refund web page. The message said that they would be getting a letter explaining the change. Reduced refund was issued yesterday. No opportunity to protest. We called the practitioner priority line, and the CSR could not tell us why the EITC was removed. Taxpayer had been trading on Robin Hood—all nickel & dime stuff, and reported a $3 capital loss. Also had a solar panel energy credit of $5200 that was carried forward. Non-refundable credits for education, child tax, retirement savings and child and dependent care were not fully used or used at all because tax wasn’t high enough to use them all.

    The problem here is that the change was made without giving the taxpayer any notice whatsoever.

    CSR advised use to file an amended return. We are doing that today. Will add words in explanation that the 1040X is a protest of the Math Error. Believe taxpayer rights are being abused—the rights to be informed; the right to Quality Service and the right to challenge the IRS’s Position and be Heard.

  2. Norman Diamond says

    NTA: “Many math error notices are vague and do not adequately explain the urgency the situation demands.”

    Furthermore some notices don’t identify themselves as math error notices. Luckily I figured out that the notice falsely alleging that I didn’t attach Forms 1042-S to my 1040-NR was a math error notice, so I sent a letter demanding abatement. Haven’t heard back.

    Dr. Fogg: “Directing taxpayers to call the IRS does not create an easy path to getting answers.”

    I kept a printout of my Skype bill for phoning the US, where an IRS recording said they wouldn’t take my call. But even if they took my call, they hang up if the caller is recording. So a call is useless.

    Do we have any trouble figuring out why a math error notice, besides not identifying itself as a math error notice, doesn’t mention the possibility of mailing a demand for abatement?

  3. Bob Kamman says

    Speaking of math errors, there is an interesting post on a software message board I follow by a practitioner who complains that the IRS miscalculated and overpaid the refunds due clients who reported unemployment compensation income on returns filed before the exclusion was enacted in March. The joint returns also reported Social Security income.

    “The bottom line on this particular calculation is that I figured the taxable amount of SS using the IRS instructions and the [Intuit] software and correctly calculated taxable SS, using the full amount of UC received before any exclusion. The IRS corrected the returns and calculated the taxable amount of SS using the net amount of UC if any after the allowed exclusion.”

    Will the NTA blog inform taxpayers what to do with excess refunds caused by IRS math errors?

  4. Richard Stack says

    The IRS’s failure to specify the basis for math errors adjustments and/or to provide a clear time frame for contesting the adjustment is a trap for the unwary taxpayer. You would think that Congress would tighten up the language of I.R.C. Secs. 6213(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A) to clarify the IRS’s notice obligations in making math error adjustments.

  5. Keith,

    Here’s my answer to your question “just how thoughtfully do you think the person answering the phone will advise the taxpayer regarding the decisions to be made when confronted with a math error notice?”

    When I call in for telephone assistance regarding a math error on my own tax account and I don’t identify myself as a tax lawyer, I get thoughtful answers over 50% of the time. My still-in-progress resolution of my 2019 math error notice, which wasn’t mailed to me until 12-14-20, has received very thoughtful assistance at least the last three times I called in, on March 12, May 5, and yesterday, Aug. 3. The March 12 call yielded a referral to the processing center requesting reprocessing of my 2020 return, which had been processed as if it were my 2019 return. My May 5 call got me a 13-week “status delay” hold, which prevents automatic mailing of balance due notices, and the Aug 3 call got me another 13-week extension.

    I’ve heard other tax professionals speak dismissively of people who answer telephone assistance lines, but my experience is that they’re very thoughtful and frequently very knowledgable, and I’m always glad I called.

    • Thanks for tempering my overall broad statement about the quality of phone assistance. I too have had good experiences with assistors. Low income taxpayers and anyone calling who lacks enough understanding to put things into proper context for the assistor may not have as good an experience as you or I either because they cannot adequately explain the problem to the assistor or they can fully comprehend the response. Nonetheless, it is possible to get good assistance and to the extent my post painted this possibility too negatively, I appreciate your comment. Keith

  6. Given that reaching the IRS via telephone is so difficult, what’s the best way to request the abatement via writing in 60 days?

    Form 843?

    To which address?

    Is faxing the request an option? If so, to which fax number?

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Speak Your Mind