Another Aftershock from Pfizer

Guest blogger Bob Probasco brings us a brief update on overpayment interest litigation. Christine

I have been writing here over the last year or so about concerning the issue of whether district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) over standalone suits for additional interest on refunds under Section 6611. If so, there is no limit on the amount of the taxpayer’s claim. If instead jurisdiction over these suits falls under § 1346(a)(2), the “little” Tucker Act, it is limited to claims of $10,000 or less. As a result, taxpayers with significant claims would be forced to litigate in the Court of Federal Claims. The government believes these significant claims for overpayment interest should be litigated in the CFC. Some taxpayer prefers district court, often to either benefit from a favorable precedent in the applicable circuit court or to avoid an unfavorable precedent in the Federal Circuit.

Before September of this year, only one Circuit Court of Appeals had decided this issue. In E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005), the court concluded that § 1346(a)(1) does grant jurisdiction for district courts over standalone suits for overpayment interest. Although the government (and several tax practitioners) disagree with the Scripps case, that was the majority consensus. See Bank of America Corp. v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109238 (W.D.N.C. 2019) (collecting cases), which I discussed here. But then on September 16th this year, in Pfizer v. United States, 939 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2019), the court held that § 1346(a)(1) does not cover these suits. I discussed that decision here.

The Pfizer decision by the Second Circuit was a significant milestone, creating a circuit split. Pfizer also is having an impact on other courts considering the issue. In that October blog post, I mentioned that, three weeks after the Second Circuit’s decision in Pfizer, a district court followed Pfizer and decided that it did not have jurisdiction for an overpayment interest suit under § 1346(a)(1). That case was Estate of Culver v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173235 (D. Colo. 2019), which resulted in a transfer to the Court of Federal Claims. Now the Southern District of Florida has ruled on the issue as well, in the Paresky case.

When I last discussed the Paresky case, the magistrate judge had issued her report and recommendation on August 30, 2019, concluding that § 1346(a)(1) does provide district court jurisdiction for that suit. The Second Circuit’s decision in Pfizer came out on September 16, 2019. And on October 21, 2019, the district court judge in the Paresky case issued her order, rejecting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and following Pfizer.

read more...

The Paresky case was originally filed in the Court of Federal Claims, which found it lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed too late and transferred the case to the SDF. So, instead of transferring the case as in Estate of Culver, the SDF dismissed it. The Pareskys have no forum remaining and are out of luck unless they successfully appeal the decision.

The statute states that district courts have jurisdiction of:

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

Litigants sometimes argue over the meaning of “recovery” – is that limited to something that has been collected and the taxpayer seeks to get back? (If so, overpayment interest would not qualify, but courts have relied on alternative definitions.) But most of the argument concerns how overpayment interest might fit into one of the three categories in the statute – (1) tax erroneously or illegally assessed or collected; (2) any penalty collected without authority; or (3) any sum that was excessive or wrongfully collected. Overpayment interest is neither tax nor penalty; it is simply an amount owed by the government for its use of the taxpayer’s money.

Scripps concluded that “any sum” could include overpayment interest and that the sum was “excessive” because the government retained more of the taxpayer’s money than it should have by refunding the overpayment with no, or insufficient, interest. It supported that conclusion in part by a brief reference in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), stating that “any sum” could encompass interest. The district court in Pfizer and the magistrate judge in Paresky agreed with Scripps.

The Second Circuit disagreed with that analysis in Pfizer, calling the Scripps interpretation of “any sum alleged to have been excessive” a strained reading, and concluding that the reference in Flora was properly understood to concern deficiency interest rather than overpayment interest. (The two types of interest are treated very differently.) The district court judges in both Estate of Culver and Paresky found that more persuasive than Scripps.

As I mentioned in a previous post, most large dollar interest cases (both underpayment interest and overpayment interest), at least through 2014, were filed in the CFC rather than district court. That may have changed, as a body of precedent built up in the Federal Circuit and taxpayers tried to avoid it (as in Bank of America) or just preferred precedents in other circuits (as in Pfizer). The government is still vigorously arguing that § 1346(a)(1) does not cover standalone suits for standalone suits for additional overpayment interest. As anticipated, when the government filed its opening brief in its appeal of the Bank of America case to the Federal Circuit on November 4th, it mentioned Pfizer, Paresky, and Estate of Culver frequently.

Before Pfizer, there was an overwhelming majority consensus on this issue. But the number of cases that directly addressed it was relatively small. Sometimes an overwhelming majority can melt away quickly after just one circuit court reaches an opposite conclusion. It will be interesting to see over the next year or two if that occurs with this issue. There may be several opportunities. The Pareskys can appeal this latest ruling to the Eleventh Circuit; the Bank of America case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit; the Estate of Culver case might wind up in the Federal Circuit as well; and Pfizer could try to challenge the Second Circuit’s decision in the Supreme Court.

 

Overpayment Interest – Is the Tide Turning?, Part Two

Guest blogger Bob Probasco returns with the second of a two-part post on developments in overpayment interest litigation. Christine

In the last post, I discussed the latest developments in the Paresky and Pfizer cases.  The latter in particular was an important milestone that may change how courts approach the issue of district court jurisdiction for taxpayer suits seeking interest payable to them by the government on tax refunds.  This post turns to Bank of America, with some additional general observations.

These cases involve the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), which provides district court jurisdiction over tax refund suits.  Does it also offer jurisdiction for suits for overpayment interest, even though technically those are not refund suits?  The government says no, but taxpayers may argue it does, in order to escape the $10,000 dollar limitation for district court jurisdiction under the “little” Tucker Act, § 1346(a)(2).  If § 1346(a)(1) provides jurisdiction for these overpayment interest suits, which statute of limitations applies – the general six-year statute of limitations under § 2401 or the two-year statute of limitations for refund suits under section 6532(a)(1)?

As discussed in the last post, the report and recommendation by the magistrate judge in Paresky concluded that the Southern District of Florida had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) but the suit should be dismissed because the refund claim was not filed timely.  We’re waiting to see what the district court judge thinks.  In Pfizer, we had the first Circuit Court decision to directly decide that § 1346(a)(1) does not provide jurisdiction for these kinds of suits, setting up a circuit split.  And in Estate of Culver, the District of Colorado adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Pfizer.  It will be a while before we see what effect, if any, Pfizer has in the Bank of America case, where there has also been a new development.

read more...

What is happening with Bank of America?

Bank of America filed this case in the Western District of North Carolina (WDNC), apparently to avoid an unfavorable precedent in the CFC (see here for details).  The bank’s interest netting case sought both recovery of underpayment interest and additional overpayment interest.  The government filed a motion to transfer the claims requesting overpayment interest to the CFC; in the alternative, to dismiss because § 1346(a)(1) does not cover suits for overpayment interest.  It also suggested that cases filed under § 1346(a)(1) would be subject to the Code refund claim requirement and statute of limitations, sections 7422 and 6532 respectively.  The WDNC denied the government’s motion on June 30, 2019, relying heavily on the Scripps decision.

An interlocutory appeal by the government to the Fourth Circuit seemed more probable than the alternative of waiting until a decision on the merits.  A transfer to the CFC would likely result in certain victory by the government for most of the amount at issue, so it certainly would make sense to challenge the jurisdictional ruling now.   Then I belatedly checked the docket for Bank of America and realized there was a third possibility that I hadn’t even counted upon (gratuitous reference for fellow baby boomers).  The government filed a notice of appeal on August 28, 2019 – not to the Fourth Circuit, but to the Federal Circuit. 

Appellate specialists are probably nodding their heads now and murmuring “of course.”  And they may have been rolling their eyes at my earlier speculation about an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit.  But, alas, I am not an appellage specialist and had never before encountered 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4).  I now know that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction for appeals of a district court interlocutory order granting or denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the CFC.  Before I ran across this provision, I assumed that the CFC and Federal Circuit would never have occasion to rule on a jurisdictional provision that applied only to district courts (more about that below).  But that assumption is apparently wrong.  The WDNC’s denial of the motion to transfer the case to the CFC was based on its determination that district courts do have jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) so that is presumably what the Federal Circuit will have to decide.

The government could also have appealed to the Federal Circuit in the Pfizer case, after the denial by the SDNY back in 2016 of the first motion to dismiss, but did not do so.  Perhaps it wanted to get a ruling on the separate statute of limitations issue.  But it may have just been a case of different strategies by different trial teams.  Pfizer was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the SNDY; while Bank of America was handled by DOJ Tax Division, as was Paresky.

Is there a Supreme Court visit in the future?

We now have a circuit split between the Second (Pfizer) and the Sixth (Scripps).  But the government won in Pfizer, so the taxpayer would have to seek certiorari.  Pfizer may decide to proceed without the favorable Second Circuit precedent; it can still win in the CFC.  Bank of America seems more likely than Pfizer to go to the Supreme Court, since both parties have strong motivations.  The government wants to overrule Scripps and Bank of America would lose most of the value of its interest netting claim if forced to litigate in the CFC.  We’ll have to wait to see how Paresky and Estate of Culver proceed.

A comment on underlying policy

We all recognize the Tax Court’s relative expertise, compared to courts of general jurisdiction, on tax issues.  But there is also a difference in expertise between the CFC and district courts.  The district court jurisdictional structure demonstrates two different policy decisions, aiming in different directions.  The dollar limitation in § 1346(a)(2) – the “little” Tucker Act – was based on a judgement by Congress that the Court of Claims (now the CFC) would have more expertise with claims against the government, because that is a major part of its caseload compared to district courts.  Small claims could be pursued in district courts so that taxpayers wouldn’t have to litigate in far off Washington, D.C., but larger ones should be filed in the Court of Claims.

When the predecessor of § 1346(a)(1) was enacted, it also was subject to a dollar limitation but that limitation was later removed.  That was based on a judgement by Congress that tax refund suits were different from other claims against the government and taxpayers should always be able to litigate those locally instead of with the CFC.

Which of those policy judgements should apply to the specific questions of interest on overpayments and underpayments of tax?

Many years ago, Mary McNulty and I were tracking all significant interest cases (both overpayment interest and underpayment interest).  I recently looked back at the list as of five years ago.  It showed 5 cases filed in district courts and 63 filed in the CFC.  When you factor in the number of district court judges compared to the number of CFC judges, that ratio is orders of magnitude more experience by the CFC judges (as well as the Federal Circuit) with the specific, complex issues of interest.  Most taxpayers chose that forum, although as precedents built up and unresolved issues were narrowed, there may be more motivation for taxpayers to avoid unfavorable precedents in the CFC and Federal Circuit, as in Bank of America.

And a final comment on CFC jurisdiction

I’ve been focusing in all of these blog posts on district court jurisdiction.  But when I discussed Pfizer recently with Jack Townsend, he pointed out something in some of these opinions that I skipped over.  The courts occasionally referred to § 1346(a)(1) as granting jurisdiction to both the district courts and the CFC.  Early in my career, I read the provision that way but over the years I came around to the idea that the reference to the CFC is just a reminder rather than an actual grant of jurisdiction.  I don’t recall offhand ever seeing the CFC refer to that provision as the basis for its jurisdiction over a tax refund suit.  I mentioned that briefly in this blog post but it’s worth pointing out explicitly.

The structure of the statute strongly supports that interpretation.  Section 1346(a)(1) is part of Chapter 85 of Title 28, which is titled “District Courts; Jurisdiction.”  Chapter 91 covers the CFC’s jurisdiction.  The specific language “shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of” appears in § 1346(a) and thus applies not only to § 1346(a)(1) but also to § 1346(a)(2).  The latter certainly doesn’t grant jurisdiction to the CFC for Tucker Act claims, since the CFC already has jurisdiction under § 1491.  And § 1346(a)(2) refers to “any other civil action or claim against the United States,” whereas § 1491 just says “any claim against the United States.”  That convinces me that tax refund suits, covered by § 1346(a)(1), are a “claim against the United States” encompassed within § 1491.

If that doesn’t convince you, Jack’s blog post has a footnote by Judge Allegra on the topic that should.

Overpayment Interest – Is the Tide Turning?, Part One

Today Bob Probasco returns with further updates on overpayment interest litigation, in a two-part post. We are grateful to Bob for following the issue closely and sharing his observations with us. Christine

In August, I wrote about the Bank of America case (here and here), and provided updates on the status of the Pfizer and Paresky cases, all of which addressed the question of district court jurisdiction for taxpayer suits seeking interest payable to them by the government on tax refunds.  Recently we’ve had developments in all three cases, plus one new case.  This post will cover Paresky and Pfizer.  Part Two will move on to Bank of America, speculation concerning where this issue may head next, and some general observations about jurisdiction and policy considerations.

Setting the stage

There are two district court jurisdictional statutes at issue in these cases. This first is 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). It has no dollar limitation. That’s the statute we rely on when filing tax refund suits in district court, so I usually refer to it as “tax refund jurisdiction.” However, some taxpayers argue that this provision also covers suits for overpayment interest, although technically those are not refund suits.  The government strongly opposes that interpretation and we’ve seen a lot of litigation over the issue recently.

The second is § 1346(a)(2), which provides jurisdiction for any other claim against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department . . . .” This is commonly referred to as “Tucker Act jurisdiction” and for district courts is limited to claims of $10,000 or less. The comparable jurisdictional statute for the Court of Federal Claims, § 1491(a)(1), has no such dollar limitation.  Practitioners often refer to § 1346(a)(2) as the “little” Tucker Act.

read more...

There are also two different statutes of limitation potentially applicable. The general federal statute of limitations, § 2401 (for district courts or § 2501 for the Court of Federal Claims), requires that complaints be filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. In the Code, section 6532(a)(1) requires the taxpayer to file a refund suit no later than two years after the claim is disallowed.

A preliminary decision in Paresky

In the interest of space, I’ll just refer you back to the earlier blog post for the factual background on Paresky.  The taxpayers originally filed in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).  That court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the suit because the applicable six-year statute of limitations in § 2501 began running in 2010 and had expired.  The Pareskys had previously requested that the court transfer the suit to the Southern District of Florida (SDF), in response to the government’s motion to dismiss, and the CFC agreed.  That would allow the Pareskys to try to persuade the SDF that § 1346(a)(1) covers claims for overpayment interest and that the two-year statute of limitations in section 6532(a)(1) applies.

After the transfer, the government quickly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that § 1346(a)(1) did not apply and that the Pareskys’ claim exceeded the $10,000 limit for jurisdiction under the “little” Tucker Act.  On August 30, 2019, the magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation.  The report agreed with the Pareskys that § 1346(a)(1) covers claims for overpayment interest but also agreed with the government that taxpayers have to file an administrative refund claim within the time limitations set forth in the Code.  They had done so timely for the 2007 tax year but not for the earlier years.  The Pareskys argued for equitable estoppel based on the directions they had received from IRS personnel, but the judge was not convinced.  She concluded that equitable estoppel for the timely refund claim requirement is not available, based on the decision in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997).  Technically, Brockamp involved an equitable tolling claim but the judge quoted a statement in the decision that suggested application to any equitable doctrines.

This is still a preliminary decision, not yet adopted by the district court judge in the case.  Both parties filed objections (on different grounds) to the report and recommendation on September 10, 2019; both parties filed a response to the other side’s objections on September 19, 2019; and the government then filed a reply on October 7th.  We’re still waiting to hear from the district court judge.  That decision may be complicated by the development in our next case.

A new decision in Pfizer

The IRS mailed refund checks to Pfizer within the 45-day safe harbor of section 6611(e).  The checks were never received, and the IRS eventually direct deposited a replacement approximately a year later, without overpayment interest.  The IRS takes the position that when the original refund check is issued timely but never received, the replacement refund still falls within section 6611(e).  (Some exceptions to this position are set forth in I.R.M 20.2.4.7.3.) Pfizer filed suit in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), asserting jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1) to take advantage of the favorable Doolin v. United States, 918 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1990) precedent on the issue of interest on replacement refund checks. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that district courts only have jurisdiction for standalone suits for overpayment interest under the “little” Tucker Act but the amount at issue exceeded the $10,000 limit. The court agreed with Pfizer and denied that motion to dismiss.  The court granted a second motion to dismiss, because the refund statute of limitations under section 6532(a)(1) had expired before suit was filed.  Pfizer argued that the general six-year statute of limitations in § 2401 applied.  But the court agreed with the government regarding the statute of limitations and dismissed the case.

In the first motion to dismiss, Pfizer requested that the case be transferred to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) if the motion to dismiss were granted.  That was denied when the SDNY ruled that it had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1).  In the second motion to dismiss, Pfizer did not make the same request for transfer.  The government also did not recommend transfer.  But on appeal, Pfizer asked that the Second Circuit, if it affirmed the decision by the SDNY, transfer the case.  That would allow the case to proceed, as suit was filed within the six-year general statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims, although the Second Circuit precedent Pfizer wanted to rely on would not be binding in the CFC.  

The government argued that if the Second Circuit concluded that § 1346(a)(1) applies to suits for overpayment interest but affirmed the SDNY because of the statute of limitations issue, it should not transfer the case because it was not timely when originally filed in the SDNY.  This struck me as over-reaching.  The CFC does not apply the Code statute of limitations to these cases and under the CFC’s jurisdictional statute (more discussion below), it would have been timely filed.   The argument that transfer would not be in the interests of justice because Pfizer had successfully resisted transfer under the first motion of dismiss might carry more weight.  In any event, the government said that it would not oppose transfer if the Second Circuit concluded that § 1346(a)(1) does not apply to suits for overpayment interest.  That is the result the government was hoping for.

On September 16, 2019, the Second Circuit ruled – and the government got exactly what it was hoping for.  The court disagreed completely with the analysis by the district court and in E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005).  The text in § 1346(a)(1) that those decisions relied on – “a sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected” – did not apply to suits for overpayment interest.  Read in harmony with the rest of the statute, that would “plainly refer to amounts the taxpayer has previously paid to the government and which the taxpayer now seeks to recover.”  Further, “any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected” is written in present-perfect tense, indicating that “excessive” or “wrongfully collected” occurred in the past, that is, an assessment previously paid by the taxpayer.  Finally, dicta in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), stating that “any sum” would encompass interest, was clearly referring to underpayment interest based on the context.  The Second Circuit therefore transferred the case to the CFC.

Judge Lohier filed a concurrence to point out that if the district court had jurisdiction under § 1346(a)(1), it would have been subject to the Code statute of limitations and Pfizer would have lost anyway.  He rejected Pfizer’s attempt to disassociate § 1346(a)(1) and section 7422 of the Code.  Keith and Carl had filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the filing deadline in section 6532(a) applies, it is not jurisdictional and is subject to estoppel or equitable tolling arguments.  The judge rejected equitable tolling in a footnote due to the lack of an “extraordinary circumstance” but did not mention estoppel.  But it’s a footnote in a concurrence, so this is still an open question.

I found the statutory interpretation in this decision much more persuasive than that in Scripps, although the statute may be sufficiently ambiguous that other courts could reasonably disagree.  In any event, this is a significant milestone.  Before Pfizer, Scripps was the only other Circuit Court decision to have directly ruled on this issue.  (Sunoco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 663 F.3d 181, 190 (3d Cir. 2011) suggested the same interpretation, but that was dicta.)

What effect will this have on other cases?  On October 7th, in Estate of Culver v. United States, the district court for the District of Colorado also adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit and transferred that case to the CFC.  Even district court decisions disagreeing with Scripps have been rare, so this may also be a sign that the tide is turning.  As with Bank of America, an immediate appeal of that order would go to the Federal Circuit.

As one might expect, the government quickly brought the Pfizer decision (on September 18th) and the Culver decision (October 7th) to the attention of the SDF in the Paresky case.  If the district court judge is influenced by Pfizer and rejects the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Pareskys may have to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and hope that court agrees with Scripps

It will be a while before we see what effect, if any, Pfizer has in the Bank of America case, where there has also been a new development.  I’ll turn to that in Part Two.

The EITC Ban – Further Thoughts, Part Three

Guest blogger Bob Probasco returns with the third and final post on the ban for recklessly or fraudulently claiming refundable credits. Part Three tackles the ban process.

The first two parts of this series (here and here) addressed judicial review of the EITC ban. The National Taxpayer Advocate’s Special Report on the EITC also made several recommendations about improvements during the Exam stage. The report is very persuasive (go read it if you haven’t already). In Part One, I quoted Nina’s preface to the report, which says that she is “hopeful that it will lead to a serious conversation about how to advance the twin goals of increasing the participation rate of eligible taxpayers and reducing overclaims by ineligible taxpayers.” Part Three is my small contribution to the conversation, concerning the ban determination process.

About that “disregard of rules and regulations” standard

The ban provision refers to a final determination that the taxpayer’s claim of credit was due to “reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.” This standard seems to have been imported from section 6662, although there it covers not only reckless or intentional disregard but also negligent disregard. It seems a strange standard in this context, though.

read more...

The accuracy-related penalty regulations, § 1.6662-3(b)(1), state that disregard of rules and regulations is not negligent, let alone reckless or intentional, if there is a reasonable basis for the return position. But the definition of reasonable basis, § 1.6662-3(b)(3), cross-references the types of authority, § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii), applicable to determining whether there was substantial authority for a return position. And those are legal authorities. Arguably, the “disregard of rules and regulations” standard – for the EITC ban as well as the accuracy-related penalty – carries with it an unexamined implication that the facts are known and indisputable; only the application of the law to those facts is at issue.

Such a standard may make a lot of sense with respect to the accuracy-related penalty, at least for sophisticated taxpayers with good records. Those of us who deal a lot with low-income taxpayers and the EITC, however, know that often the credit is disallowed because the taxpayer’s proof is not considered sufficient. It’s a factual dispute, rather than a dispute as to what the law means.

Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 356 (11th Cir. 1995) has some interesting discussion of this distinction in the context of the substantial understatement penalty. The very first sentence of the case mentions “certain tax deductions attributable to their farming and horse breeding operations,” so we know that section 183 is going to be the focus. The taxpayers, both of whom were employed full-time, were breeding and raising Percheron horses with the expressed intent to train them, show them, use them to operate a horse-powered farm, and then sell them. The Tax Court opinion, 66 T.C.M. 1237 (1993), determined that the taxpayers did not have “an actual and honest objective of making a profit,” and the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.

The penalty discussion took much longer than the analysis of the profit objective issue. The Tax Court had rejected the petitioners’ penalty defense, which was based on substantial authority, and that puzzled the Eleventh Circuit:

The application of a substantial authority test is confusing in a case of this kind. If the horse breeding enterprise was carried on for profit, all of the deductions claimed by the Osteens would be allowed. There is no authority to the contrary. If the enterprise was not for profit, none of the deductions would be allowed. There is no authority to the contrary. Nobody argues, however, not even the Government, that because the taxpayers lose on the factual issue, they also must lose on what would seem to be a legal issue.

The court reversed on the penalty issue and said that “substantial authority” for a factual issue is met if a decision in the taxpayers’ favor would not have been clearly erroneous:

If the Tax Court was deciding that there was no substantial authority because of the weakness of the taxpayers’ evidence to establish a profit motive, we reverse because a review of the record reveals there was evidence both ways. In our judgment, under the clearly erroneous standard of review, the Tax Court would be due to be affirmed even if it had decided this case for the taxpayers. With that state of the record, there is substantial authority from a factual standpoint for the taxpayer’s position. Only if there was a record upon which the Government could obtain a reversal under the clearly erroneous standard could it be argued that from an evidentiary standpoint, there was not substantial authority for the taxpayer’s position.
 
If the Tax Court was deciding there was not substantial legal authority for the deductions, we reverse because of the plethora of cases in which the Tax Court has found a profit motive in the horse breeding activities of taxpayers that were similar to those at hand.

For those interested in the “factual issue versus legal authority” question, there was also an interesting article by Bryan Skarlatos in the June-July 2012 issue of the Journal of Tax Practice & Procedure: “The Problem With the Substantial Authority Standard as Applied to Factual Issues.”

This is not directly applicable to the EITC ban but a similar approach seems reasonable. A determination in Exam to disallow the EITC often merely means “the taxpayer didn’t prove that she met the requirements,” rather than “the taxpayer didn’t meet the requirements.” But I suspect that some or many of those who make the ban determination proceed with an assumption, implicit if not explicit, that the former is the equivalent of the latter. If the taxpayer doesn’t meet her burden of proof, that may suffice for denying the credit in the conduct year but may not be enough to impose the ban for future years.

For example, one of the three scenarios in IRM 4.19.14.7.1 (7), used as a starting point to help determine whether the ban is appropriate, addresses situations in which the taxpayer provided insufficient documentation but “indicates they clearly feel they are eligible, and is attempting to prove eligibility and it is clear they do not understand.” In those circumstances, the technician is supposed to “[c]onsider the taxpayer’s lack of understanding” before asserting the ban. There is no reference to the relative strength or weakness of the support offered. That formulation strongly supports an assumption by the technician that (understanding the rules + insufficient documentation), rather than (understanding the rules + not meeting the requirements), is sufficient to assert the ban. If so, that’s a problem.

Recommendations for a revised ban recommendation process

The Office of Chief Counsel issued Significant Service Center Advice in 2002 (SCA 200245051), concluding that neither the taxpayer’s failure to respond to the audit nor a response that fails to provide adequate substantiation is enough by itself to be considered reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. That conclusion is also set forth in IRM 4.19.14.7.1 (1): “A variety of facts must be considered by the CET [correspondence examination technician] in determining whether the 2-Year Ban should be imposed. A taxpayer’s failure to respond adequately or not respond at all does not in itself indicate that the taxpayer recklessly or intentionally disregarded the rules and regulations.”

But, as the Special Report points out, the guidance in IRM 4.19.14.7.1 (7) is erroneous and/or woefully inadequate for the CET’s. And research described in the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2013 Annual Report to Congress showed an incredibly high error rate in the ban determination. The Special Report recommends that the IRS develop a ban examination process independent from the audit process, modeled on other means-tested programs, to improve accuracy and provide adequate due process protections. The report also mentions several recommendations from earlier annual reports. For example, in the 2014 Annual Report to Congress, the NTA recommended (again) that a single IRS employee be assigned to work any EITC audit in which the taxpayer calls or writes to respond.

The Special Report didn’t, and couldn’t, define the appropriate process in depth. That is something that the IRS, in consultation with TAS, will have to develop, and it may take a significant amount of time. But while we’re waiting for that, here are suggestions for some specific parts of a revised process that would be on my wish list.

First, the ban determination process should incorporate the concept of the strength of evidence for and against eligibility. The ban should be asserted only when the evidence against eligibility is significantly stronger than evidence for eligibility. The inability to provide evidence for eligibility is not equivalent to deemed evidence against eligibility. And some types of evidence against eligibility will be stronger or weaker than other types.

Second, the process for determining eligibility for the credit should expand the types of evidence that can be submitted and considered, which in turn will affect the relative strength of evidence to be considered during the ban determination phase. The standard audit request and the IRM 4.19.14-1 list focus on third-party documents. Third-party documents are strong evidence but they’re not the only evidence; they’re just the only evidence Exam seems to accept. The IRS experimented with allowing third-party affidavits in test cases from 2010-2013. Starting with tax year 2018, taxpayers can submit third-party affidavits (signed by both the taxpayer and the third party) to verify the residency of qualifying children (IRM 4.19.14.8.3). Why not for other aspects of the eligibility determination? Why not talk directly with the taxpayer and assess credibility?

This is a pet peeve of mine. It’s frustrating to receive a notice of deficiency (because the technician did not accept other types of evidence) and then get a full concession by the government in Tax Court (because the IRS attorney understands the validity of testimony as evidence). I like getting the right result but would prefer to avoid the need to go to Tax Court, delaying the resolution. As the Special Report points out, the IRS cannot properly determine whether to assert the ban without talking to the taxpayer. If a technician/examiner is talking to the taxpayer for that, and assessing their understanding of the rules and regulations, why not also accept verbal testimony (or statements by neighbors and relatives) and evaluate credibility, to accurately evaluate the strength of the evidence for eligibility and therefore the propriety of imposing the ban?

Conclusion

The Special Report would, if its recommendations were implemented, transform a critically important benefit to low-income taxpayers. Nina, Les, and the rest of the team did a fantastic job. It will be a long, hard fight to achieve that transformation but it will be worth it.

The EITC Ban – Further Thoughts, Part Two

Guest blogger Bob Probasco returns with the second of a three-part post on the ban for recklessly or fraudulently claiming refundable credits. In today’s post Bob looks at legislative solutions to the issue of Tax Court jurisdiction.

My last post summarized previous arguments by Les and Carl Smith that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to review the proposed imposition of the EITC ban and then examined what the Tax Court is actually doing.  Some cases have ruled on the ban, but some cases have expressed uneasiness about this area and have declined to rule at all.  Congress has clearly stated its intent that judicial review would be available, but it’s appropriate to clarify that by an explicit grant of jurisdiction – preferably in a deficiency proceeding for the year in which the alleged conduct – the taxpayer intentionally or recklessly disregarded rules and regulations – occurred.  The National Taxpayer Advocate’s Special Report on the EITC recommended that Congress provide an explicit grant of jurisdiction to the Tax Court to review the ban determination.  This post offers suggestions – some sparked by Tax Court decisions and/or previous posts here on PT – about exactly how that should be implemented.  The point at which recommendations turn into legislation is a danger zone where flawed solutions can create problems that take years to fix.

Grant Tax Court jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding for the “conduct year,” not the “ban years”

Les explained the benefits of this approach in his “Problematic Penalty” blog post.  Ballard saw the “attractiveness,” as do I.  It’s even more attractive today.  Although challenging the ban in a proceeding with respect to the conduct year is a better solution, back in 2014 taxpayers at least would have the opportunity to challenge the ban in a proceeding with respect to the ban year. (The “conduct year” is the year for which the taxpayer recklessly or intentionally disregarded rules or regulations to improperly claim the EITC and the “ban year” is a subsequent year for which the taxpayer cannot claim the EITC.)  As Les pointed out, and the Office of Chief Counsel explained in 2002 guidance (SCA 200228021), summary assessment procedures were available for post-ban years (for failure to re-certify) but the IRS would have to issue a notice of deficiency to disallow EITC in a ban year.  But since then, summary assessment authority for the ban years was added by the PATH Act of 2015, in section 6213(g)(2)(K), and the IRS is using it.  There is still an opportunity for judicial review after a summary assessment, but that opportunity has a lot of problems, as described in the Special Report.

read more...

The Special Report, Part IV, also recommends changes in summary assessment authority, under which some adjustments are not subject to the deficiency procedures, for an initial determination in the conduct year that the taxpayer is not entitled to the EITC.  Although I’m not entirely sure, I think the report is not recommending any change to the summary assessment authority under section 6213(g)(2)(K) for automatic disallowances in the ban year.  That’s understandable, as normally the correct application of the ban will be straight-forward and not require a separate examination in the ban year.  But there may some instances where the ban shouldn’t be applied automatically.  I’ll return to that below in the discussion of the application of the determination in the ban year.

Require that the proposed ban be set forth in a notice of deficiency for the conduct year

Of course, judicial review will be difficult if not impossible unless imposition of the ban is explicitly asserted and at issue in a case for the conduct year.  In all seven of the Tax Court cases discussed in my last post, the ban was explicitly asserted in an amended answer (Taylor) or the NOD itself (the other cases).  But that doesn’t always happen.

Carl Smith mentioned, in comments to the “Ballard” blog post, seeing a lot of cases where the ban was imposed by letter (presumably Notice CP79) rather than NOD.  I’ll quote his final sentence:

I wonder why some 32(k) sanctions are imposed by a simple letter and others (though apparently very few) are imposed in notices of deficiency.

My answer might be along the lines of: “Because the IRS thinks it can do that, unless Congress explicitly says otherwise, and it’s easier.”  My experiences with the EITC ban have made me more cynical.

My experience is consistent with Carl’s.  In just the past couple of years, my clinic has had four cases in which the IRS imposed the ban and issued Notice CP79.  Only one of the NOD’s explicitly stated the intent to impose the EITC ban.  In the other three cases, there was no indication whatsoever. 

In fact, in one case, there was an indication that an examiner had decided not to impose the ban.  After the NOD was issued, the taxpayer provided additional information and received a response from the IRS declining to change the proposed tax increase.  The letter included Form 886-A Explanation of Items that, again, did not propose the ban.  It also included a separate attachment, explaining why the additional information provided was insufficient.  That attachment stated at one point (emphasis added):

For future reference on the EITC BAN (Earned Income Tax Credit Ban) – The ban was considered.  If you continue to claim XXXXXXX for the credit and disallowed for no relationship, you could be subject to a 2-year earned income tax ban if you are found reckless and intentionally disregard the tax laws, rules and regulations.  You must meet the relationship test, residency test, age test and support test to be eligible for the credits.

That certainly sounds as though the determination required for the ban had not been made when the NOD was issued.  Nevertheless, when the taxpayer failed to file a petition timely, the IRS imposed the ban.

Given all the evidence that the IRS is asserting the ban without ever mentioning it in a notice of deficiency, the grant of jurisdiction to the Tax Court should be carefully crafted.  It should include not just jurisdiction to review the determination but also incorporate safeguards like those found in Section 6213(a) for tax assessments:

  • The determination required by section 32(k) is not a final determination until: (a) a notice of deficiency setting forth the determination has been properly mailed to the taxpayer; and (b) the expiration of the 90-day or 150-day period or, if a petition is filed in Tax Court, the decision of the Tax Court has become final.
  • Any disallowance of the credit in subsequent years based on the ban, before the determination is final, can be enjoined by a court proceeding, including in the Tax Court, despite the Anti-Injunction Act.

Applying the ban in the ban year

The cases I discussed in the last post suggested some specific issues that may need to be addressed when legislation is drafted to grant Tax Court jurisdiction to review the ban.  The first is obvious and fairly straight-forward.  Congress may need to modify section 7463(b) to specify that the determination in a small case with respect to the ban will be treated as binding for a proceeding in a future ban year.

How do we address the problem (discussed in Ballard and Griffin) that the court may not know yet whether the ban even had an effect in the ban years, because (for example) the taxpayer may not yet have filed returns claiming the credit for those years?  I don’t consider this concern an insurmountable obstacle.  Consider an analogy to the TEFRA partnership rules.  Under those rules, the court makes a redetermination of proposed adjustments on one return (the partnership’s).  The effect of that adjustment on other returns (the partners’) is authorized by provisions for computational adjustments.  The redetermination might turn out to have no effect on the partners’ returns, but the court doesn’t have to consider that in making its ruling in the partnership proceeding.

Currently, any credit claimed in the ban years can be disallowed automatically through the summary assessment authority in section 6213(g)(2)(K).  I don’t like that solution and think that instead Congress and/or the IRS should consider an approach similar to that in TEFRA: providing for some assessments without requiring a notice of deficiency in the ban year, but in other circumstances requiring a notice of deficiency because new fact determinations are needed.

Why might new fact determinations be needed?  Primarily because some exceptions or limitations should be carved out.  An all-or-nothing approach simply doesn’t make sense all the time.  What if:

A. The credit was reduced, but not disallowed, because some of the taxpayer’s earned income was disallowed.

B. The credit was claimed for 3 children and was only disallowed with respect to one.

C. The credit was disallowed because Husband’s earned income could not be verified.  Husband later married Wife, who has earned income and children from a previous marriage, and filed a joint return.  (See page 48 of the Special Report.)

Should we consider for future years, in situations like those: (A) allowing the credit but solely with respect to the taxpayer’s earned income from a Form W-2; (B) allowing the credit solely with respect to the children who qualified in the conduct year; or (C) allowing the credit but solely with respect to Wife’s earned income and qualifying children?

Lopez (situation A) suggested that there might be an exception for a partial disallowance:

It would appear that our findings will result in the reduction of petitioner’s claimed earned income tax credit for each year, but we expect that the credit will not be entirely disallowed for either year.  Consequently, we make no comment in this proceeding regarding the application of section 32(k).

A recent CCA (situation B) mentioned in Les’s blog post, however, concluded that partial disallowance was enough to trigger the ban.  The CCA’s reasoning was that section 32(k) doesn’t prohibit imposition of the ban for partial disallowances; thus, any disallowance is enough to trigger the ban.  “Disallowance” is not explicitly restricted to “total disallowance.”

Fair enough, but that doesn’t seem to be how Lopez interpreted the statute.  I don’t think it is entirely clear under current law.  Section 32(k) doesn’t refer to a disallowance (without explicitly specifying “total”) in the conduct year; it refers to the taxpayer’s “claim of credit” due to disregard of rules and regulations.  If the taxpayer could not legitimately claim any credit at all, that could meet the requirement (if done intentionally or recklessly).  In Lopez, was the “claim of credit” contrary to rules and regulations?  Or was the “claim of [at least some amount of] credit” consistent with rules and regulations but the amount excessive?  Lopez suggests the latter.  Does the answer depend on the reason for the excessive amount?  These questions deserve more thought.  The conclusion in the CCA may not be the best answer.

Another wrinkle came up in Griffin.  The court found the taxpayer was not entitled to EITC at all for 2013 because the taxpayer did not establish that any of the claimed dependents met the necessary tests.  However, the court found the taxpayer might be entitled to EITC for 2014, subject to applicable AGI limitations and thresholds after adjustments, because one of the two dependents claimed as qualifying children did meet all of the tests.  Should the ban be imposed if the taxpayer is not entitled to the EITC at all for one year but is entitled to at least some EITC in another year included in the same NOD, particularly if it’s the latest year included in the NOD?

Even if the CCA above is correct, current law is not immutable.  Congress should consider carving out exceptions or limitations to the ban.  If it doesn’t, we can try to change the law by persuading a court concerning the proper interpretation of the statute.  If the law changes, either through Congress or a court decision, we may want to use a more nuanced approach, like that in TEFRA, rather than blanket summary assessment authority.

Conclusion

This finishes my discussion of judicial review.  Establishing robust judicial review with all the flourishes will provide significant protection to low-income taxpayers who claim the EITC.

Some protection but, given current IRS practices, not enough.  Not all cases even go to Tax Court, so our primary goal should be to reduce the need for judicial review by improving the ban determination process in Exam.  The Special Report offered several suggestions along those lines.  I have some additional thoughts, coming up in Part Three of this series.

The EITC Ban – Further Thoughts, Part One

Guest blogger Bob Probasco returns with the first of a three-part post on the ban for recklessly or fraudulently claiming refundable credits. In today’s post Bob looks at how the Tax Court has addressed the ban. Part Two will suggest legislative solutions to the issue of Tax Court jurisdiction. Part Three tackles the ban process.

As Bob mentions, in the recent Special Report to Congress on the EITC that I helped write, we flagged the ban as an issue that potentially jeopardizes taxpayer rights. The Senate Appropriations Committee in a committee report accompanying the IRS funding for FY 2020 directs the IRS to “make the elimination of improper payments an utmost priority.” S. Rep. No. 116-111, at 26-27. At the recent Refundable Credits Summit at the IRS National Office that I attended IRS executives explored ways to reduce overpayments (in addition to increasing participation and improving administration more generally). The ban is part of the IRS toolkit. As Bob highlights today, there are fundamental questions concerning the path that taxpayers can employ to get independent review of an IRS determination. Les

One of Nina Olson’s last acts as National Taxpayer Advocate was the release of the Fiscal Year 2020 Objectives Report to Congress.  Volume 3 was a Special Report on the EITC; Les discussed it in a recent post.  If you are interested in issues affecting low-income taxpayers, you’ve probably already read it.  It’s definitely worth your time.  Kudos to Nina and to Les and the rest of the team that worked on the Special Report.  There are a lot of innovative, creative suggestions, backed up by thorough research, that would not just improve but transform how the IRS administers this program.

Nina’s preface to the report says that she is “hopeful that it will lead to a serious conversation about how to advance the twin goals of increasing the participation rate of eligible taxpayers and reducing overclaims by ineligible taxpayers.”  In that spirt, I’d like to offer my small contribution to the conversation, with additional thoughts about some of their suggestions.  The entire Special Report is important, but after a client’s recent “close encounter of the worst kind” with the EITC ban of section 32(k)(1), I have a particular interest in Part V.  This post will address the need for judicial review and what the Tax Court is actually doing.  Part Two will provide some further thoughts about how the Tax Court’s jurisdiction (when clarified by Congress) should be structured.  Part Three will address suggested changes to the ban determination process.

Does the Tax Court have jurisdiction to review the imposition of the ban?

Congress clearly envisioned the opportunity for pre-payment judicial review.  According to the legislative history for the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, “[t]he determination of fraud or of reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations are (sic) made in a deficiency proceeding (which provides for judicial review).”  H. Conf. Rpt. 105-220, at 545.  But there is no jurisdictional statute that clearly and unequivocally covers this, at least not until the ban is actually imposed in a future year.

read more...

The question of Tax Court jurisdiction has been discussed here on Procedurally Taxing several times: 

I will follow Les’s terminology and refer to the year in which the taxpayer recklessly or intentionally disregarded rules and regulations by claiming the EITC as the “conduct year,” and to the subsequent years in which the taxpayer is not allowed to claim the credit because of the ban as the “ban years.”

Les and Carl Smith advanced arguments, in the “Problematic Penalty” and “Ballard” blog posts, that the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review an EITC ban in a deficiency proceeding for the conduct year.  The Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine the amount of a deficiency stated in a notice of deficiency as well as accuracy-related penalties applicable to the understatement, but explicitly does not have jurisdiction to determine any overpayment or underpayment for other years.  Although the EITC ban looks somewhat like a “penalty,” it does not fall within the scope of penalties that are treated like taxes, which are limited to Chapter 68.  Ruling on whether the ban was valid, in a deficiency proceeding for the conduct year, would therefore be a declaratory judgement for which the court has no jurisdiction.  The ban years will only be subject to the court’s deficiency jurisdiction if/when a notice of deficiency is issued with respect to them.

What has the Tax Court actually been doing?

I’m persuaded by Les’s and Carl’s arguments.  The Tax Court may not be, though.  It has addressed the issue of the ban in seven cases to date: Campbell v. Commissioner (2011 decision concerning 2007-2009 tax years), Garcia v. Commissioner (2013 decision concerning 2008 tax year), Baker v. Commissioner (2014 decision concerning 2011 tax year), Ballard v. Commissioner (2016 decision concerning 2013 tax year), Lopez v. Commissioner (2017 decision concerning 2012-2013 tax years), Griffin v. Commissioner (2017 decision concerning 2013-2014 tax years), and Taylor v. Commissioner (2018 decision concerning 2013 tax year).  All were either summary opinions, bench opinions, or orders granting a decision for the government when the taxpayer did not participate.

I’m not going to go into a lot of detail here concerning the cases.  The PT blog posts above have already discussed Campbell (in the blog comments only),Garcia, Baker, Ballard, and Taylor – only Lopez and Griffin appear to be new here.  (The Lopez case was actually discussed here, but that was with respect to an earlier order dealing with a different issue.)  But I do want to summarize how the Tax Court responded to the issue, with a couple of additional observations.

Campbell and Taylor imposed the ban, when the taxpayers did not respond to a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and a Motion for Default Judgment respectively, without any discussion of jurisdiction to do so.  In addition to the jurisdictional issue, it’s noteworthy that there was – or could have been – evidence supporting a determination of intentional or reckless disregard of regulations.  In Taylor, as previously noted in William Schmidt’s blog post, the court granted a motion to deem Respondent’s allegations, including those relevant to civil fraud and the ban, as admitted when the Petitioners did not respond to the amended answer.  (Because the ban was apparently not proposed in the notice of deficiency but was instead asserted in the notice of deficiency, the government would have the burden of proof.)  In Campbell, Respondent filed a motion to show cause why statements in a proposed stipulation of facts should not be deemed admitted.  The court granted the motion, Petitioners did not respond, and the court could have deemed those statements (which presumably would have covered the ban) as admitted.  Instead, the court simply granted the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.

These decisions to impose the ban demonstrate an interesting quirk.  The Office of Chief Counsel issued Significant Service Center Advice in 2002 (SCA 200245051), concluding that neither the taxpayer’s failure to respond to the audit nor a response that fails to provide adequate substantiation is enough by itself to be considered reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.  That conclusion is also set forth in IRM 4.19.14.7.1 (1): “A variety of facts must be considered by the CET [correspondence examination technician] in determining whether the 2-Year Ban should be imposed. A taxpayer’s failure to respond adequately or not respond at all does not in itself indicate that the taxpayer recklessly or intentionally disregarded the rules and regulations.”  In these cases, and assuming the taxpayers were equally uncooperative during the audit, arguably the IRS should never have asserted the ban.  But that’s during the audit.  If the IRS does assert the ban, challenging that in Tax Court (if the taxpayer remains uncooperative) opens the door for deemed admissions supporting the ban.  It’s better to cooperate.

Garcia and Baker disallowed the EITC but concluded that claiming the credit was not due to a reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations and therefore that the taxpayers were not subject to the ban for following years.  Reliance on a paid return preparer was significant for both decisions.  Neither case discussed the court’s jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the proposed ban.

Ballard and Griffin declined to rule on the ban.  Both made the same argument: there was no information in the record as to whether returns had been filed, and whether the EITC had even been claimed, for the ban years.  Further, both pointed out that any ruling in an S-case is not precedential in any other case.  It was questionable whether a ruling in a proceeding with respect to the conduct year would have any effect at all in the ban years.  Ballard seemed to suggest that this factor was the most critical:

Respondent made that determination for the year in dispute here, but the determination obviously has no consequence to the deficiency determined in the notice – the consequences of the determination take effect in years other than the year before us.  Normally, in a deficiency case the Court is reluctant to make findings or rulings that have no tax consequences in the period or periods presently before us.  Nevertheless, we can see the attractiveness in making the determination in the same year that the earned income credit is disallowed albeit on other grounds and we have addressed the issue in other non-precedential opinions, see
Section 7463(b).
 
In this case not only does the application of section 32(k) have no tax consequence to Petitioner’s Federal income tax liability for the year before us, the record does not reveal whether a finding or ruling on the point would have any Federal tax consequence in either 2014 or 2015.

The court “is reluctant,” rather than “has no jurisdiction,” and even that is qualified as “normally.”  The court’s concern may have been jurisdiction but the language in the opinion suggests that the court might have been willing to rule if the record included appropriate information about the future years.  As far as I know, though, Campbell, Taylor, Garcia, and Baker also did not have such information in the record.

Ballard did, however, rule that the petitioner (who relied on a paid return preparer) was not liable for an accuracy-related penalty for negligence.  That strongly suggested that the ban should not apply; if the taxpayer was not negligent with respect to erroneously claiming the EITC, how would the IRS demonstrate the higher culpability of “reckless or intentional”?

Lopez also declined to rule on the ban, for a slightly different stated reason.  The IRS had disallowed the total gross receipts reported on Schedule C, eliminating the earned income required for claiming EITC.  The court allowed gross receipts in an amount less than the taxpayer had claimed.  With respect to the ban, it said:  “It would appear that our findings will result in the reduction of petitioner’s claimed earned income tax credit for each year, but we expect that the credit will not be entirely disallowed for either year.  Consequently, we make no comment in this proceeding regarding the application of section 32(k).”

Thus, in four cases the court ruled on the ban – two upholding it and two rejecting it – apparently without considering the jurisdictional issue.  Although Ballard, Griffin, and Lopez all declined to rule on the ban, none of them simply stated that the court had no jurisdiction with respect to the proposed ban.  Ballard and Griffin pointed out that a decision would not be precedential in an S-case.  The court, however, explained the primary justification not as lack of jurisdiction but what appears to be more like a concern about ripeness.  Lopez, on the other hand, did not mention that a summary opinion has no precedential effect for any other case.  Although far from clear, that decision sounds as though it assumed an implicit requirement for the ban – that it applies only when the credit was improperly claimed, not when it was properly claimed but in an excessive amount.  (I’ll return to that point in my next post.)

Despite the court (sometimes) being willing to rule on the issue, it would be better if the court’s jurisdiction to do so were firmly established.  The lack of explicit jurisdiction creates a serious problem.  What happens if the IRS asserts the ban in a notice of deficiency, the court disallows at least a portion of the EITC, but the court does not rule on the ban?  I suspect that the IRS will impose the ban in the future years.  It would be interesting to know what happened to Mr. Ballard, after the strong hint in the bench opinion. 

The taxpayer could still contest the validity of the ban in a deficiency proceeding for a ban year; that clearly would come within the scope of section 6214.  But the “Problematic Penalty” blog post pointed out pragmatic problems with that solution, which lead Les to conclude that it wouldn’t make sense from a policy perspective.  Since that blog post, an additional problem has arisen, making that solution even worse.  Summary assessment authority for the ban years was added by the PATH Act of 2015, in section 6213(g)(2)(K), and the IRS is using it.  Although the taxpayer still has an opportunity for judicial review after a summary assessment, the opportunity is less obvious than with a notice of deficiency and may be missed by unrepresented taxpayers.  It also comes with a shorter time to respond.

Thus, we are left with two alternatives for Tax Court review of the assertion of the ban.  Doing so in a deficiency proceeding for the conduct year is by far the best alternative and is consistent with Congress granting summary assessment authority for the ban years.  I suspect that is what Congress had in mind, but if so, it forgot to clearly grant jurisdiction.  Reviewing the assertion of the ban in a deficiency proceeding for a ban year has the advantage of fitting within the Tax Court’s existing jurisdiction but is a horrible solution for a number of reasons. 

Even if the court were willing to rely on the legislative history as implicit jurisdiction to address the ban in a deficiency proceeding for the conduct year, it would still be worthwhile to establish appropriate guidelines.  There are some obvious questions about exactly how the entire process should work.  Setting those guidelines proactively in legislation or regulation would also be helpful for the vast majority of these cases that never make it to Tax Court. 

The Special Report recommends a ban determination process independent of the audit process.  That is a great idea that would go a long way in solving some of the problems the report points out.  But for simplicity, and in case the IRS is reluctant to implement the Special Report’s recommendation, Part Two will discuss how Tax Court jurisdiction could be structured within the framework of a deficiency proceeding for the conduct year.

Another Court Rules on Jurisdiction for Overpayment Interest Suits – Part Two

Today Bob Probasco continues his update on overpayment interest suits. Part One can be found here Christine

And now Bank of America

Bank of America filed its case in the Western District of North Carolina (WDNC). As noted above, Pfizer chose its forum to take advantage of a favorable Second Circuit precedent; Bank of America likely chose the WDNC to avoid an unfavorable precedent. Approximately $141 million of the $163 million at issue involves interest netting and, as the government pointed out, Bank of America currently has another interest netting case pending in the CFC. 

The case in the WDNC likely raises the “same taxpayer” issue (see discussion here and here). It involved overpayments and underpayments for tax years ranging from 1987 to 2009, for six different entities that ultimately merged into a seventh, the plaintiff. Federal Circuit precedent, from Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2016), allows separate companies that merge to be considered the “same taxpayer.” But it also applies a “temporal requirement” that the two entities must be the “same” for the entire period of overlap between the overpayment and the underpayment. Effectively, this means that the latest of the two tax years with balances to be netted must be after the date of the merger. Based on information in the complaint, most of the amount at issue appears to be precluded by the holding in Wells Fargo. Bank of America’s case in the CFC, on the other hand, did not have a Wells Fargo problem. Settlement negotiations began almost immediately and are ongoing.

Bank of America had a strong incentive to file the current case in the WDNC. As I stated before, in my second post on interest netting, I think Wells Fargo was an overly narrow construction of the statute. But the CFC is bound by that precedent, while the WDNC might reach a different conclusion. Unfortunately, the amounts at issue exceeded the limitation on Tucker Act jurisdiction by a district court. Thus, Bank of America had to argue that the case fell under “tax refund jurisdiction” and the government promptly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that claims for additional overpayment interest are only cognizable under Tucker Act jurisdiction. A magistrate judge reviewed the motion to dismiss and concluded that “tax refund jurisdiction” encompasses claims for additional overpayment interest. In Bank of America Corp. v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109238, the district court judge agreed and adopted the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation.

read more...

The court found the interpretation of § 1346(a)(1) in E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005) persuasive. The statute provides concurrent jurisdiction for district courts and the CFC over actions for the recovery of “any sum alleged to have been excessive . . . under the internal-revenue laws.” The Scripps court concluded that a claim for overpayment interest fit that part of the statute. The “sum” at issue is not the amount of overpayment interest at issue; it is the total balance the United States retained, the net of tax liability, penalties, underpayment interest, and overpayment interest.

That’s a bit abstract; here’s a simple illustration. Say that the taxpayer originally paid $5,000,000 but the IRS eventually determined that the correct tax liability was only $4,500,000 and refunded $500,000. The sum retained by the government is $4,500,000; it received $5,000,000 but then refunded $500,000. But if the government should have paid (but did not) $80,000 of overpayment interest, it should have only retained $4,420,000, the net of $5,000,000 originally received and $580,000 (tax refund plus overpayment interest) paid back to the taxpayer. The sum actually retained ($4,500,000) is “excessive,” more than the proper amount of $4,420,000. I think this is a somewhat strained reading of the statute, but it persuaded the Scripps court and the district court in Bank of America.

The opinion also noted that most courts that have considered the issue have held that claims of additional overpayment interest fall within “tax refund jurisdiction.” Strictly speaking, that may be true, but it fails to address a couple of limitations on that statement. First, only one Circuit Court (the Sixth), and few district courts outside the Sixth Circuit, have directly addressed the issue. Historically, most claims for overpayment interest have been filed in the CFC rather than district court. It’s not at all clear that other Circuit Courts would reach the same conclusion. For example, although technically dicta, in Sunoco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 663 F.3d 181, 190 (3d Cir. 2011) the Third Circuit stated that actions for overpayment interest in district court fall under § 1346(a)(2) rather than § 1346(a)(1).

Second, the CFC (which handles most interest cases) generally won’t have disputes as to which jurisdictional statute applies, for structural reasons. District court jurisdiction is split between § 1346(a)(1), for tax refund actions, and § 1346(a)(2), for Tucker Act claims, because there is a dollar limitation for the latter. The CFC has no such dollar limitation and only has one relevant jurisdictional statute, § 1491(a)(1), which is similar to the language of § 1346(a)(2). When a case includes both underpayment interest and overpayment interest (most interest netting cases do), some practitioners may specify both § 1346(a)(1) – under Chapter 85 of Title 28, governing district court jurisdiction, but referencing the CFC – and § 1491 for jurisdiction, just in case. But the CFC may not address the jurisdictional statute at all in those cases. When it does, it often refers to jurisdiction for both tax refunds and overpayment interest as arising under the Tucker Act, i.e., § 1491; only the underlying cause of action and statute of limitations are different. That was the only jurisdictional basis that Paresky mentioned and there are many other examples.

The government also relied on similar language in § 1346(a)(1) and Code section 7422(a). Here’s § 1346(a)(1), with the relevant language italicized:

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

And here’s Code section 7422(a), which states requirements for refund suits, also with the relevant language italicized:

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.

The government argued that: (a) it is well-established actions for overpayment interest are not refund suits; (b) § 1346(a)(1)’s language is virtually identical to that in section 7422; (c) therefore, § 1346(a)(1) is limited to refund suits, just as section 7422 is; and (d) therefore, district courts only have jurisdiction over actions for overpayment interest under § 1346(a)(2), which is limited to $10,000.

Bank of America circumvented this conclusion by arguing that § 1346(a)(1) includes both refund suits and “non-refund” suits, such as those for overpayment interest. There are very minor differences in the language of the two statutes, but the court identified one significant difference that convinced it to agree with Bank of America’s argument. Section 7422(a) includes a qualifying header: “No suit prior to filing claim for refund.” And § 1346(a)(1) has no header. I’m not sure how much should be read into that; Chapter 85 of Title 28 appears to have no headers or titles at the paragraph level, and few at the subsection level, as opposed to the section level.

These issues might be reviewed by the Fourth Circuit on appeal at some point, but not soon. The WDNC’s opinion just denied the motion to dismiss; now the parties will need to proceed to the merits of the case. The case has more complex facts and legal issues (including the “same taxpayer” issue) than Bank of America’s CFC case, so a final determination might take a long time.

Conclusion

Now we have three recent cases that addressed the issue but with somewhat inconsistent results. Pfizer and Bank of America concluded that district courts’ “tax refund jurisdiction” encompasses claims for overpayment interest. Paresky did not address the jurisdictional statute, because the case was originally filed in the CFC, but may now with the post-transfer motion before the SDF. The CFC and Federal Circuit might view the issue differently than Pfizer and Bank of America did, but their jurisdictional statute doesn’t differentiate as the district court jurisdictional statute does and they will never rule on the district court statute.

Pfizer concluded that the Code statute of limitations applies. Paresky concluded that the general federal 6-year statute of limitations applies, but that may change in the SDF. Bank of America didn’t directly address the statute of limitations, as the government did not assert untimely filing as a basis for the motion to dismiss, but the court certainly suggested that it would not apply the Code statute of limitations.

These issues potentially could be addressed on appeal by three different Circuits – the Second (Pfizer), the Eleventh (Paresky), and the Fourth (Bank of America). So far, only the Sixth Circuit has ruled on whether district court jurisdiction for these cases fits under § 1346(a)(1). It will be interesting to see if a circuit split develops that would give the government an opportunity to overturn Scripps. And we might even see a decision in Bank of America that would create a circuit split on the “same taxpayer” issue and allow taxpayers an opportunity to overturn that part of the Wells Fargo result.

Another Court Rules on Jurisdiction for Overpayment Interest Suits – Part One

We welcome back guest blogger Bob Probasco of Texas A&M University School of Law for an update on taxpayer suits to recover overpayment interest. Today, Part One sets the stage and recaps the status of the ongoing Pfizer and Paresky cases. Christine

Last year, I wrote about the Pfizer and Paresky cases, which involved questions about jurisdiction and statutes of limitations for taxpayer suits seeking interest payable to them by the government for overpayments. Recently, the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued its opinion in Bank of America Corp. v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109238 (W.D.N.C. June 30, 2019) addressing the issue.

Setting the stage

There are two district court jurisdictional statutes at issue in these cases. This first is 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). It has no dollar limitation. That’s the statute we rely on when filing tax refund suits, so I will refer to it as “tax refund jurisdiction.” But I will keep that term in quotes; taxpayers sometimes argue successfully that this covers suits for overpayment interest, although technically those are not refund suits.

The second is § 1346(a)(2), which provides jurisdiction for any claim against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department . . . .” This is commonly referred to as “Tucker Act jurisdiction” and for district courts is limited to claims of $10,000 or less. The comparable jurisdictional statute for the Court of Federal Claims, § 1491(a)(1), has no such limitation.

read more...

There are also two different statutes of limitation potentially applicable. The general federal statute of limitations, § 2401 (for district courts or § 2501 for the Court of Federal Claims), requires that complaints be filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. In the Code, section 6532(a)(1) requires the taxpayer to file a refund suit no later than two years after the claim is disallowed.

As a result of all this, not to mention different precedents in different circuits, taxpayers who file suits for overpayment interest may sometimes want to file in district court and other times prefer the Court of Federal Claims. The government’s position is that these claims fit under Tucker Act jurisdiction only, not “tax refund jurisdiction.” And the government may disagree about whether the taxpayer’s preferred venue is available. There may also be a secondary dispute, concerning which statute of limitations applies and whether the suit was filed timely.

Brief recap and current status of Pfizer

The underlying issue in the Pfizer case was straightforward: whether overpayment interest is due when the IRS mails a refund check within the 45-day safe harbor of section 6611(e) but the check is not received by the taxpayer and must be replaced. Pfizer filed suit in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), asserting “tax refund jurisdiction,” to take advantage of a favorable precedent in the Second Circuit. Tucker Act jurisdiction would be available in the SDNY, but is limited to $10,000, and therefore inadequate for this case. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that standalone suits for overpayment interest do not fall within the scope of “tax refund jurisdiction.” The court agreed with Pfizer and denied that motion to dismiss.

But the government filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the refund statute of limitations in the Code had expired and the suit was not filed timely. Pfizer argued that the general six-year statute of limitations in § 2401 applied even though Pfizer was relying on “tax refund jurisdiction” rather than Tucker Act jurisdiction. The court disagreed with Pfizer, applied the two-year statute of limitations from the Code, and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case.

The case is currently on appeal. Pfizer asked the court, if it affirms the decision below, to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). That would allow the case to proceed, as suit was filed within the six-year general statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims, although the Second Circuit precedent Pfizer wanted to rely on would not be binding in the CFC. Keith and Carl filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the filing deadline in section 6532(a) applies, it is not jurisdictional and is subject to estoppel or equitable tolling arguments. At oral arguments on February 13, 2018, the Second Circuit panel asked the parties whether it could assume without deciding that claims for overpayment interest fell within the terms of § 1346(a)(1) and proceed to the statute of limitations issue. Roughly 18 months later, we’re still waiting for an answer.

Brief recap and current status of Paresky

The Pareskys have been trying to resolve these tax issues since 2009, first to claim substantial losses that generated refunds and then to get interest on the refunded amounts. It has been a very long, complicated struggle and makes you wonder what would have happened if they hadn’t been represented by very competent tax advisors. In the course of the attempted resolution, the IRS advised them to file a refund claim and, when the claim was denied in 2015, advised that they had two years to file suit. Relying on those statements, the Pareskys filed suit in 2017 in the CFC. The government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations applied and had expired in 2016. The plaintiffs argued that the two-year statute of limitations applied; alternatively, they argued that that the six-year statute of limitations didn’t start in 2010, as the government asserted, or was suspended due to government misconduct.

The first step in the court’s decision was relatively easy, because there are numerous precedents in the Federal Circuit that the six-year statute of limitations applies to claims for overpayment interest. It took more effort to analyze when the claims accrued. The normal documentary evidence was not available because it had been destroyed in the normal course of business, during the very long period this dispute had lasted. The court was left with “complicated factual issues” that it resolved in the government’s favor. Finally, the court concluded that the taxpayers had not met the burden of proof to apply the accrual suspension rule. But the CFC denied as moot the government’s motion to dismiss because it granted the taxpayers’ motion to transfer the case to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida (SDF). That would allow the Pareskys to try to persuade the SDF that “tax refund jurisdiction” covers claims for overpayment interest and that the Code statute of limitations applies.

In Pfizer, the taxpayer appealed to the Second Circuit and the question of whether to transfer to another jurisdiction if that was unsuccessful was deferred. In Paresky, the case was transferred immediately rather than giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to convince the appellate court to rule in their favor on the jurisdictional issue. I don’t know if the plaintiffs’ desires were a deciding factor in that difference between the two cases. But Pfizer clearly wanted to remain in the SDNY if possible, while the Pareskys seemed caught by surprise at the jurisdictional challenge, given the advice they received from the IRS, and were open to immediate transfer. They filed a motion to transfer very soon after the government’s motion to dismiss.

In the SDF case, the Pareskys filed an amended complaint, asserting jurisdiction under §§ 1346 and 1491. (This phrasing provides for alternative theories, as “§ 1346” does not distinguish between “tax refund jurisdiction,” § 1346(a)(1), and Tucker Act jurisdiction, § 1346(a)(2). But § 1491 does not apply in district court.) The government quickly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the parties repeated their arguments over which statute of limitations applied. The parties’ submissions on the motion to dismiss were completed on February 26, 2019. We’re still waiting for the district court’s decision, and possibly an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.