We welcome back frequent guest blogger Carl Smith who comments on a portion of the NTA’s recently released annual report relating to the issue of equitable tolling and adequate provision of information to taxpayers facing court filing deadlines. The Ninth Circuit ruled this morning on this issue in the Duggan case linked below and found IRC 6330 jurisdictional. More later. Keith
In her annual report to Congress dated December 31, 2017, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson has made two legislative proposals that will, if enacted, address problems that Keith and I have faced in some cases that were are litigating or have recently litigated in the courts of appeals. These cases have been the subject of a number of posts on PT. Thus, even if we never win any of these cases (and we make no promises on that score), at least we may have provoked discussion of legislative fixes.
Among problems that have come up in these cases are ones that flow from the courts’ view that all filing deadlines in the Tax Court are jurisdictional and therefore not subject to the judicial doctrines of forfeiture, waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling – doctrines that are often applicable to nonjurisdictional statutes of limitations in suits (1) between private parties and (2) outside the tax area, brought against the federal government in such areas of law as Social Security disability benefits, employment discrimination, tort claims, and veterans benefits. The NTA notes that, unlike with the Tax Court, the appellate courts have been divided over whether those doctrines apply to tax case filings in the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims. The NTA has recommended that the Code be amended to provide that all of these tax case judicial filing deadlines be made nonjurisdictional and subject to those doctrines. The portion of her report on this proposal can be found here.
Also, along similar lines, the NTA is recommending a legislative change to require the IRS to show the last date to file any Tax Court petition on all Collection Due Process and innocent spouse notices of determination – just as the IRS has been required (since 1998) to show the last date to file on all notices of deficiency. She would have Congress also amend the Code to state that taxpayers may rely on the last date to file shown in the notice, even if the IRS has given the wrong last date – the same rule (added in 1998) under section 6213(a) applicable to notices of deficiency that show the wrong last date. As part of this proposal, she would also ask Congress to allow persons out of the country an additional 60 days to file Tax Court Collection Due process and innocent spouse petitions. The portion of her report on this proposal can be found here.
read more...I had thought about extending this post to list all the various cases that Keith and I have litigated or are litigating in this area, but have decided that it makes more sense simply to report on the court rulings when they come down. I will, however, note that we are imminently awaiting rulings in the following three cases:
Duggan v. Commissioner, 9th Cir. Docket No. 15-73819 (submitted without oral argument on Dec. 7, 2017; the Harvard Federal Tax Clinic is amicus), and Cunningham v. Commissioner, 4th Cir. Docket No. 17-1433 (oral argument held on Dec. 5, 2017; the Harvard Federal Tax Clinic is counsel for the taxpayer). In both of these cases, the taxpayers argue that they were misled by the IRS through confusing language in the Collection Due Process notice of determination into mailing their Tax Court petitions to the court a day late. They seek equitable tolling to make their filings timely.
Pfizer v. United States, 2d Cir. Docket No. 17-2307 (oral argument to be held on Feb. 13, 2018; the Harvard Federal Tax Clinic is amicus). There, the IRS issued a notice of disallowance of a claim for overpayment interest under section 6611and told the taxpayer it had 6 years to bring suit on the claim in the district court (under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a)) or the Court of Federal Claims (under 28 U.S.C. section 2501). That is the position that the IRS has long taken as to the statutes of limitations applicable to overpayment interest suits. See Rev. Rul. 56-506, 1956-2 C.B. 959. When the taxpayer brought suit in the SDNY about 3 years later, the DOJ moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction as untimely, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations is the 2-year one of I.R.C. section 6532(a). The taxpayer argues that the applicable statute of limitations is the 6-year one, but if the 2-year statute applies, then that 2-year period is nonjurisdictional and subject to estoppel. The taxpayer points to Miller v. United States, 500 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1974), which held that the 2-year period of section 6532(a) is subject to estoppel. Miller is in conflict with Federal Circuit case law holding that the 2-year period is jurisdictional and not subject to estoppel. See, e.g., RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
About Carlton Smith
For those interested, I have published the first of two planned articles on this topic. See Bryan T. Camp, Equitable Principles and Jurisdictional Time Periods, Part 1
Tax Notes, Vol. 156, No. 11, September 11, 2017, available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3048080. The article shows the cases where the Supreme Court has actually applied equitable principles to jurisdictional time periods. Heck, if the Supreme Court can do it, so can the Tax Court. I hope to publish Part 2 by March. Part 2 will review cases where courts actually apply equitable principles even as they say they are not doing so.
“As part of this proposal, she would also ask Congress to allow persons out of the country an additional 60 days to file Tax Court Collection Due process and innocent spouse petitions.”
Hear, hear. It seems to me that statutes which don’t allow those additional 60 days violate the US Supreme Court ruling in Cook v. Tait. The IRS often uses methods of mailing which are reasonably calculated to take longer than 30 days and often succeed in doing so, even when they demand replies within 10 or 20 days. Though stat notices show dates in their postal meters; other IRS mailings usually don’t, and those that do often don’t bear sufficient postage.
“Heck, if the Supreme Court can do it, so can the Tax Court.”
Unfortunately that logic is faulty. The same logic would suggest that if the Supreme Court can put insufficient postage on their mail then taxpayers can too, but the IRS famously says otherwise.