Juneteenth And Section 7503: A New Federal Holiday Give a New “Last Chance” For Some

Today guest blogger Bryan Camp discuses the implications for tax procedure of the new federal holiday celebrating Juneteenth. National recognition of Juneteenth resulted from a years-long campaign by many including the incredible 94-year old activist and survivor of white supremacist violence Opal Lee. Christine

Yesterday, President Biden signed legislation that made June 19th a federal holiday. It’s the first new federal holiday since President Reagan signed on to the creation of Martin Luther King Day back in 1983.

The new holiday means paid time off for some. Certainly all federal workers will get it, and other workers, too, to the extent one’s employer automatically pegs paid holidays to the federal calendar.

But the first thought for tax procedure nerds is, of course, IRC §7503. That statute provides that when any deadline for performing “any act” required under “this title” falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a “legal holiday,” why then “the performance of such act shall be considered timely if it is performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.” The Tax Court piggybacks off of this rule, saying that §7503 also applies to deadlines for Tax Court petitions. TC Rule 22.

read more...

Section 7503 will apply to the new holiday just like it applies to others. This year, for example, June 19th falls on a Saturday. The enacting legislation says that when that happens, the holiday will be celebrated on the preceding Friday, June 18th. And THAT means that June 18th is now a legal holiday, so §7503 acts to defer any act due today until Monday, June 21st. I have not read the legislation, but I am guessing that when June 19th falls on a Sunday, the holiday will be celebrated on the next day, Monday. After all, we cannot let holidays go to waste.

Let’s call that the 3-day weekend rule!

This is also a good moment to review a couple of other quirks about §7503 associated with the statute’s definition of “legal holiday.” Surprisingly, the term is not defined to mean a federal holiday, at least not directly. Let me explain.

The term encompasses two types of holidays. First, the term means any federal holiday. Technically, the statute actually says that the term just refers to “a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.” However, since DC is currently under federal jurisdiction that statutory definition means that any federal holiday is a “legal holiday.”

One quirk involving this definition is that DC celebrates a holiday called “Emancipation Day.” That day is supposed to fall on April 16th but the enacting legislation also contains a 3-day weekend rule. The result is that when April 15th falls on a Saturday, that means that Monday April 17th is a legal holiday in DC, which means that §7503 kicks in and pushes the April 15th filing date to April 18th. That is what happened in 2017 for tax year 2016 returns.

The second type of holiday that triggers operation of §7503 is trickier to figure out. It provides that when any act is required “to be performed, at any office of the Secretary or at any other office of the United States or any agency thereof, located outside the District of Columbia but within an internal revenue district” then the term “legal holiday” also means “a Statewide legal holiday in the State where such office is located.”

One example of a statewide legal holiday that sometimes affects the April 15th filing deadline is the Patriots Day holiday. No, it’s not about the sports team. It is designated to be celebrated on the third Monday in April (so no need for a 3-day weekend rule). Several states have that day as a statewide holiday.

So what happens when the third Monday in April is the 15th, 16th, or 17th (do you see why it matters that it falls on the 16th or 17th?). So far, the IRS has taken the position that only those taxpayers who live in the states that celebrate the holiday can use §7503, to push their filing deadline to Tuesday, even if they are required to file in an IRS Campus that is not in a state celebrating that holiday. See IRS Notice 2006-23. That does not make much sense to me. The statutory language would appear to key the effect of a statewide holiday to whether the IRS office where a document must be filed is in the state, not where the taxpayer required to file happens to live. Thus, because there is a a returns processing center in Andover Massachusetts, a state that observes Patriots Day, then §7503 should apply to all taxpayers required to file in Andover.

Section 7503 is woefully outdated. The reason for the two separate definitions was that in the old days, taxpayers filed their returns in local offices but much of the processing and assessment work was done in Washington D.C. And when I say “the old days” folks, I mean the really old days, before the introduction of the Computing Centers and centralized returns processing in the early 1960’s! That’s how outdated the language is.

Further, alert readers will also notice that the statute refers to “internal revenue districts.” They no longer exist. They were abolished by the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. But did Congress think to change the language in §7503? Noooooo. So we just stumble along, applying outdated statutory language to new situations as best we can. Thankfully, the creation of a new federal holiday fits very nicely within the definition of “legal holiday” contained in §7503. ….until D.C. achieves statehood.

Supreme Court Reverses the Sixth Circuit in CIC Services – Viewpoint

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in CIC Services.  The Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a suit challenging a IRS notice that requires a non-taxpayer to provide information even though the failure to provide the information could result in a penalty.  Today, we bring an observation about the case from Professor Bryan Camp who has blogged with us several times before.  Professor Camp filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the government’s position that the AIA did bar this action.  Soon, depending on how grading exams goes, we will publish a counterpoint to Professor Camp’s post by Les.  Les joined the tax clinic at Harvard Law School in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Taxpayer Rights supporting the plaintiff in this case.  Here is a copy of the amicus brief filed by Professor Camp and here is a copy of the amicus brief filed by the Center for Taxpayer Rights.  We have previously blogged this case many times.  A sample of prior posts can be found here (in a post by authors of another amicus brief in support of the government whom we hope might have more to say here in coming days), here and here.

read more...

Here’s what it got wrong.  Justice Kagan rests her opinion on a distinction between “information gathering” on the one hand and “assessment/collection” on the other hand.  The Anti Injunction Act, 26 USC §7421, prohibits suits to restrain the latter, she says, not the former.  All CIC Services was doing was seeking to restrain the IRS from collecting information from it.  

Here’s why that’s wrong.  Assessment is a process, not an event.  And the process starts with reporting information to the IRS!  Heck, lots of folks are doing that today.  The wrinkle in this case is that it was not a taxpayer reporting information to the IRS; it was a third party (CIC Services).  So the Court says hey, information reporting by taxpayers may be part of assessment (because the IRS, after all, assesses tax in large part based on the information taxpayers self-report).   You see this most explicitly in Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence.   But information reporting by third parties, says the Court, is not part of assessment or collection tax.

The heck it isn’t!  

Saying that information reporting by third parties is different than information reporting by taxpayers reflects a deep confusion about tax administration.  Congress created third-party information reporting requirements in the first place as an integral part of the tax assessment and collection process.  When Congress re-started the income tax in 1913 it experimented with what we are now very used to: third party withholding of taxes.  That’s what employers now routinely do for employees.  But Congress got lots of blow-back for that.  So it quickly abandoned the requirement for third parties to withhold actual dollars.  Instead, Congress substituted third-party information reporting for withholding.  This was in the War Revenue Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 300.  The Senate Finance Committee explained that third-party information reporting was a “substitute for the previous collection strategy of tax withholding.”  It was “conducive to a more effective administration of the law in that it will enable the Government to locate more effectively all individuals subject to the income tax and to determine more accurately their tax liability. This is of prime importance from a viewpoint of collections.” Sen. Rpt. 65-103 (August 6, 1917) at 20 (emphasis added).  

Since 1917 Congress has added dozens and dozens of third-party information reporting requirements to the Tax Code.  And always for the same reason: such reporting is integral, is vital, to the proper assessment and collection of tax.  When the IRS did its tax gap studies it found that taxpayers are far more likely to properly self-report transactions (and the income from such transactions) when they know a third party is reporting as well.  No duh!  So that is why a suit attempting to restrain a third-party information reporting requirement is well within the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act’s prohibition against suits to restrain the “assessment or collection” of “any tax” regardless of whether the person suing “is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”  That’s the language in §7421.

Here’s what getting it wrong means.  As Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, this decision creates a new exception to the Anti Injunction Act.  It will require litigation for courts to figure out just how big or small that exception is.  For example, when Justice Kavanaugh was on the D.C. Circuit he authored an opinion in Florida Bankers Association holding for the IRS on a very, very, very similar issue.  This CIC Services opinion nukes Florida Bankers.  …or DOES it??  Hello litigation!  

The bigger picture here is the Court is revisiting what it thinks should be the proper relationship of courts and the IRS.  This decision allows courts to give greater and closer supervision of how the IRS administers the tax system.  It has the potential to greatly slow down the IRS’s ability to detect tax cheats, such as the micro-captive insurance arrangements that CIC was promoting.  That will lead to significant losses in tax revenue while companies like CIC will continue to be able to create and promote new ways for wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.  

But there are two silver linings.  First, the decision might spur Congress to actually revise the Anti-Injunction Act to bring it into the 21st Century.  Congress wrote the AIA in 1867, after all and the basic operative language is unchanged.  For example, there was no third party reporting in 1867 the way there is now.   Second, even without the AIA, this ruling does not mean that courts will suddenly stop all third-party information reporting.  A court will not enjoin the IRS from enforcing a contested reporting requirement unless the party seeking the injunction can meet the traditional requirements to obtain an injunction: (1) the party is likely to win on the merits; and (2) the party will suffer irreparable harm if the court does not enjoin. 

Can The IRS Even Implement Payroll Deferral?

Guest blogger Professor Bryan Camp provides an analysis of the President’s recent Executive Order on payroll taxes, which suggests that the IRS may lack the authority to implement the EO. Christine

Carl’s post yesterday inspired me to look at §7508A and the regulations more closely.  It is not clear to me how the IRS will be able to implement Executive Order (“EO”) “Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations.”   

Section 7508A gives the IRS broad discretion.  Subsection (a) provides that “the Secretary may specify a period of up to 1 year that may be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer.” 

When a tax statute gives the IRS broad discretion to do something, you need to look to regulations to see how the Treasury Department has limited or cabined that discretion.  It is no different here.  Treas. Reg. 301.7508A-1(a) explicitly says “This section provides rules by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may postpone deadlines for performing certain acts with respect to taxes….” 

So what are those rules?  Well, subsection (b) sets out the rules for what periods of time will be postponed.  Subsection (c) then explains the rules for which acts are eligible for postponement.   Subsection (d) defines which taxpayers are eligible to be covered by any postponements the IRS gives out. 

read more...

It’s subsection (c) which creates the problem here for the IRS to implement the EO.  Specifically, Treas. Reg. 301.7508A-1(c)(1) provides that any postponement “applies to the following acts performed by affected taxpayers” and then lists several acts.  Paragraph (c)(1)(i) says this:

Paying any income tax, estate tax, gift tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, excise tax (other than firearms tax (chapter 32, section 4181); harbor maintenance tax (chapter 36, section 4461); and alcohol and tobacco taxes (subtitle E)), employment tax (including income tax withheld at source and income tax imposed by subtitle C or any law superseded thereby), any installment of those taxes (including payment under section 6159 relating to installment agreements), or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof, but not including deposits of taxes pursuant to section 6302 and the regulations under section 6302;

You see the emphasized language?  It limits the IRS discretion under §7508A.  It says the IRS cannot postpone the time for making “deposits of taxes pursuant to section 6302.”

So let’s go look at §6302.  Subsection (a) says what the purpose of this statute is: “If the mode or time for collecting any tax is not provided for by this title, the Secretary may establish the same by regulations.”

Remember that the taxes the EO directs the IRS to postpone are the taxes imposed by §3101(a) (and the equivalent portion of employment taxes imposed under the Railroad Retirement Act at section 3201).  Section 3101(a) imposes a 6.2 % Social Security tax on employees, which is withheld from their wages under the rules in §3102.  But §3102 says nothing about timing.  Therefore, you have to look at the rules under §6302 and its regulation to find the rules for timing.

You find the timing rules in Treas. Reg. 31.6302-1.  Subsection (a) gives the basic timing rules and subsection (e) explicitly ties those rules to the employment taxes imposed by §3101.

Do you see the problem for the IRS?  The EO says “postpone withholding of employee’s share of employment taxes.”  But §7508A, as implemented by the regulations, does not permit the IRS to postpone the deposits required by §6302 which, under it’s regulations, include all the amounts withheld from employee’s paychecks under §3102 to satisfy the tax imposed by §3101.

Alert readers will notice that the blockage occurs in a regulation.  That means that Treasury could modify that regulation.  But the IRS certainly cannot do this on its own via a Notice or any other guidance document.  It would have to go through Treasury and, most likely, go out as a Temp. Reg. 

Whoever wrote that EO should have checked with a tax advisor.   As usual, it may be me who is missing something, so I would love to hear others’ thinking on this.

Of Mountains and Molehills: A Further Analysis of EIP To Dead People

Earlier today Nina Olson discussed EIP being issued to deceased taxpayers. Professor Bryan Camp responds to that post below. Les

I agree with much of Nina Olson’s thoughtful post this morning on PT.  However, I also think both Nina’s analysis and the IRS FAQ may be wrong to make no distinction between people who died before or after January 1, 2020.  

This post will first explain why date of death may be an important distinction.  It will then argue that concerns about the IRS making erroneous EIP payments to dead people is making a mountain out of a molehill.

read more...

(1) It May Matter When Death Occurred

Section 6428(a) creates an entitlement to a refundable credit for tax years starting in 2020.  My take is to start with the entitlement.  The question of who is entitled to what amount of refundable credit is covered by (a).  It allows an “eligible individual” a “credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2020.”  

I do not read §6428(f) as creating an entitlement separate from subsection (a). Its purpose is to authorize the advance payment of that to which an “eligible individual” is entitled.  It both authorizes the IRS to send out a payment of the 2020 refundable credit in advance of taxpayers claiming the credit and it requires the IRS to figure to whom it should send the advance credit based on 2019 or 2018 returns.    

Supporting my reading of how these two subsections work together is the true-up language in subsection (e).  It creates a one-way ratchet that directs taxpayers to offset their claimed 2020 credits against the advanced payments they actually received.  Thus advanced payments will reduce the amount of credit taxpayers can claim on the 2020 returns.  Importantly, however, the amount offset cannot reduce their 2020 credit below zero.  That permits taxpayers to keep excess advance payments while being able to claim underpaid credits. 

The true up provisions are the reasons why taxpayers whose 2018 or 2019 returns show the existence of a dependent do not have to return the $500 they receive if the dependent has ceased being a dependent in 2020, for whatever reason (including death of the dependent).  The $500 will have turned out to have been erroneous because—again go to (a)—the basic entitlement is that this is a refundable credit for tax year 2020.  

I think it important to note that the true-up (and consequent forgiveness of erroneous advance payment) occurs only when determining the tax obligations for 2020, which for most people will happen on a 2020 return.

Folks who died before January 1, 2020, are not entitled to the refundable credit authorized by subsection (a).  Perhaps obviously, neither will such folks be able to file a return for 2020 on which to have errors forgiven by the subsection (f) true up provisions.  

Ms. Olson references the definition of “eligible individual” in §6428(d)(1).  That provision says that an “eligible individual” must actually be an individual.  It seems to me pretty plain that taxpayers who died before 2020 are no longer individuals in 2020.  Therefore, they cannot be “eligible” individuals.   

In short, I do not agree that (f) creates a separate entitlement to an amount.  It creates an entitlement to timing of an amount.  But that is just my reading.  I think Ms. Olson and others have a reasonable position that taxpayers who died in 2018 or 2019 are indeed eligible to receive the advance payment of the 2020 refundable credit.  You get there by reading subsection (f) as creating an entirely separate entitlement from subsection (a).  The strongest support for doing that is the language in subsection (f)(1) and (f)(2) that seems to create a counter-factual that pretends the credit allowed by (a) “would have been allowed as a credit under this section for such taxable year.”  

I disagree with that interpretation but for purposes of keeping this post short let’s just leave it that this: I think everyone agrees (or should agree) that EIP payments sent to taxpayers who died after January 1, 2020 are proper but there is disagreement about the legality of payments made to taxpayers who died before January 1, 2020.  Given that, the more important question is perhaps, what should be done?

Here’s my answer.

(2) Chill

Assuming some payments to dead people are erroneous, what should the IRS or Congress do about it and what should taxpayers do about it?

(A) IRS and Congress

The IRS does an amazing and fantastic job in determining and collection the correct tax for taxpayers.   But when you are dealing with over 150 million individual taxpayers and trillions of tax dollars, a small percentage of error looks like a really big number.  That is the political game that Congress and others repeatedly and disingenuously play with the IRS.  Various so-called “oversight” functions repeatedly express horror! horror! that the IRS either erroneously over-collects or erroneously under-collects billions of dollars per year. 

Get a grip.  Chill out.  If you want perfection, die and go to Heaven.  Otherwise, you have to evaluate the nature of the errors and what it costs to fix them.  

So it is here.  In 2018 this CDC report said about 2.8 million people died.  Let’s say 2.5 million of them were taxpayers.  And let’s say another 2.5 million died in 2019.  So that’s 5 million erroneous payments of $1,200 each.  Looking at the back of my envelope that adds up to $6 billion in erroneous refunds.  Max.  Heck, I bet that’s just a drop compared to the money Congress wastes in spending each year. 

The IRS has more important matters to deal with than to go chasing some theoretical 5 million payments made to taxpayers who died in 2018 or 2019.    

Also, the IRS has extremely limited tools to collect back those amounts.  That is because these erroneous EIP payments are very much like non-rebate erroneous refunds.  When the IRS sends an erroneous refund because of some error in determining a taxpayer’s correct tax (such as mistakenly allowing a deduction or exclusion that should not have been allowed) such refunds create a deficiency that the IRS can get back by either acting with the appropriate limitation period to re-assess the tax (and then collect administratively by offset or lien or levy) or by filing suit to recover the erroneous refund under §7422 within the time permitted by §6532.  

In contrast, erroneous refunds that result from some action that is not connected to a determination of liability (such as a clerical error in inputting a $100 as $1,000 and sending $900 back to the taxpayer) are called non-rebate erroneous refunds and those may only be collected by filing suit. United States v. O’Bryant, 49 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 1995)(“The money the O’Bryants have now is not the money that the IRS’ original assessment contemplated, since that amount was already paid.  Rather, it is a payment the IRS accidentally sent them. They owe it to the government because they have been unjustly enriched by it, not because they have not paid their taxes.”).

I think the EIPs sent to folks who died before 2020 would be, technically, rebate refunds because they would be connected to a substantive determination that they were entitled to the refund, based on their 2018 or 2019 filed returns.  The determination would be erroneous.  But they would be, functionally, like non-rebate refunds because a TP who died before Jan 2020 cannot, by definition, have a deficiency of tax for 2020.  So forget re-assessment. Also, fun fact: that also means there is no transferee liability for the heir or family member who cashed the EIP check and used the erroneous EIP payment.

So if my reading is correct, there is no opportunity to re-assess and the only action the IRS can take is to beg the Department of Justice Tax Division to file suit.

Good luck with that.  The DOJ is unlikely to file suit.  It’s a busy place and filing a suit for $1,200 is just not worth their time and effort.  

So to the IRS I would say: Chill out.  Let it go.  To Congress I say: move on.  Go do some actual oversight on the huge opportunities you have created for graft and corruption in the distribution of various relief funds you created.  Leave the dead alone.  

(B) Taxpayers 

Just because the IRS may not have the proper tools to collect an erroneous refund, however, does not mean a taxpayer has no legal duty to return it.  

I would advise a client who received an EIP check or direct deposit for a taxpayer who died before January 1, 2020 to contact the Service for instructions on how to return the EIP.  My reading of the law is that the client has a legal duty to return the money.  The notion that there is no legal duty to return a payment made to you in error by the federal government is not only a dangerous notion, it is flat out wrong.  Taking something that is not yours and to which you have no right to is generally called stealing.  The notion that you cannot steal from the federal government denigrates the rule of law by suggesting legal rules do not apply as between a citizen and the government.  

More importantly the notion is also belied by 18 USC §641.  That statute makes it a felony to steal more than $1,000 from the federal government.  

This type of scenario is not limited to EIP.  The IRS sends out billions of non-rebate erroneous refunds each year.  I tell my students that they need to advise their clients who receive a non-rebate erroneous refund to contact the Service for instructions on how to return the money.  They should explain 18 USC 641 to their clients.  There is, in fact, a legal duty to return that to which you are not entitled.  

So yes, taxpayers who got EIP payments for folks who died in 2018 or 2019 do, IMHO, have a legal duty to return the money. However, the IRS is unlikely to be able to enforce it.  That is why the FAQ uses the word “should” which is similar to the language that the Service uses in letters to TPs asking them to return non-rebate erroneous refunds.  

But to say that a taxpayer has no legal duty just because the IRS cannot easily enforce the duty is not good.  It undermines the rule of law to say one need not comply with the law just because one is unlikely to get caught or punished.  We already have a HUUUGE problem with the guy currently stinking up the White House undermining the rule of law in this country.  Just because he is corrupt does not mean we have to be.  

After The Shutdown: Dealing with Time Limitations, Part IV — Equity

In Part IV of the series “After the Shutdown,” Professor Bryan Camp examines the role of equity in addressing time limitations that have become tangled by the shutdown. Christine

It is unconscionable to enforce against taxpayers a statutory time limitation when Congress itself denied taxpayers the ability to protect their rights during all or part of that time period by forcing the closure of the IRS and the Tax Court.  That is, Congress failed to fund either the Tax Court or the IRS, causing both to shut down for between 31 (Tax Court) and 35 (IRS) days.  This failure caused both the agency and the Court to be closed to taxpayer’s attempts to resolve disputes about either the determination or collection of tax.  This failure is an act of Congress just as much as the statutory limitations periods are acts of Congress.  And Congress should not be able to demand that a taxpayer act within a certain time period while at the same time denying the taxpayer any ability to act during all or part of that time period.  Equity should, and I believe can, prevent that result.

The above proposition is the basis for this, my last Post in the “After the Shutdown” series.  Part I discussed how a reopened Tax Court might apply the Guralnik case to ostensibly late-filed petitions.  Part II explained the new thinking about how jurisdictional time periods differ from non-jurisdictional.  Part III explained why the time period to petition the Tax Court in §6213 should no longer be viewed as a jurisdictional limitation.  I invite those readers interested in how the new thinking would apply to the time periods in §6330(d) and §6015(e) to look at my paper posted on SSRN, which I am trying to get published in a Law Review.  Legal academics must publish or perish and, apparently, blogging does not count.

Today’s post explores why the Tax Court should be able to apply equitable principles to evaluate the timeliness of taxpayer petitions filed after the shutdown, regardless of whether any of the applicable limitations periods are jurisdictional or not.

Before diving in to equity, I wanted to point out that Congress itself could actually save a lot of litigation here by passing a very simple off-Code statute that says something like: “For purposes of computing  time limitations imposed in Title 26 on taxpayers to petition the Tax Court, the days between December 22, 2018 and January 28, 2019 shall be disregarded.”  Congress could do that.  Congress should do that (for the reasons I explain below).  But you can bet you sweet bippy that Congress won’t do that.  It made this mess.  But it is unlikely to clean it up.  So it will fall to the Tax Court to sort through cases.  When it does so, I believe the circumstances of the shutdown strongly support the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling.

read more...

The Tax Court is truly a unique court. It is neither fish nor fowl, as Prof. Brant Hellwig so nicely explains in his article “The Constitutional Nature of the U.S. Tax Court,” 35 Va. Tax Rev. 269 (2015). That is, all efforts to type the Tax Court as part of the Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, or Executive Branch of the federal government are flawed, both as a matter of theory and as a matter of practice. Channeling Felix Cohen and other Legal Realists, Brant sensibly concludes that we don’t really need to worry about “where” the Tax Court belongs in the Constitutional structure. It’s indeterminate position poses no threat to the structural integrity of the federal government, and its useful work in resolving taxpayer disputes with the IRS does not depend on its precise location in any branch.

But there is no doubt that the Tax Court exercises the “judicial power” of the United States. The Supreme Court said so in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991). And part of that “judicial power” is the power to apply equitable principles and doctrines to the disputes that are properly brought before the Court for resolution. Prof. Leandra Lederman has a lovely article on this subject: “Equity and the Article I Court: Is the Tax Court’s. Exercise of Equitable Powers Constitutional?” 5 Fla. Tax Rev. 357 (2001).

It is important to remember that equitable doctrines are not simply free-floating grants of power. Equitable doctrines are linked to, and bounded by, a set of principles. But what distinguishes equitable principles from legal rules is that the application of equity is highly contingent on the facts before the court. The great legal historian F. W. Maitland put it this way in his 1910 Lectures On Equity: “I do not think that any one has expounded or ever will expound equity as a single, consistent system, an articulate body of law. It is a collection of appendixes between which there is no very close connection.” (p. 19) And in this 1913 law review article, Professor Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld discussed the difficulty of teaching equity as a system of rules separate from legal rules. I think it this way: equity fixes problems that legal rules cannot fix.

One equitable doctrine that might apply here is equitable tolling. When litigants show that, despite diligent efforts, some extraordinary circumstance prevented them from protecting their rights by timely filing within a period of limitations, a court will equitably toll the limitation period. See e.g. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). The idea of “tolling” means that the limitations period is suspended for the tolling period. That is, it stops running and then starts running again when the tolling period ends, picking up where it left off. Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018).

Remember, this is equity, not a hard and fast legal rule or doctrine. So how much diligence a litigant must show varies with circumstances. Similarly, how extraordinary the barrier had to be also varies with circumstance. If the Tax Court applies that doctrine, it could decide—consistent with the logic of my very first paragraph—that the days in which Congress’s failure to fund the Court forced it to shut its doors should stop the running of any applicable limitation period. The Court may decline to apply equitable tolling, however, for two reasons.

First, the Tax Court has repeatedly said it cannot equitably toll jurisdictional time periods and it believes that the relevant time periods in the Tax Code are jurisdictional. I believe the Tax Court is simply wrong that the deficiency and CDP time periods are jurisdictional. That’s what I explained in the prior blog posts and in my SSRN paper.

Even if the time periods are jurisdictional, however, I believe there is good authority to toll them nonetheless. The authority is from the Supreme Court. In Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967), 4,100 plaintiffs of Japanese descent whose assets had been seized by the U.S. during World War II sued for recovery years after the applicable limitation period had ended. The district court dismissed the cases “on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions because they were not commenced within the time set forth in section 34(f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act.” 356 F.2d 351, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Both the district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed their suit for the standard reason: equitable principles did not apply to when limitation periods were a waiver of sovereign immunity. The D.C. Circuit gave the standard analysis: “All conditions of the sovereign’s consent to be sued must be complied with, and the failure to satisfy any such condition is fatal to the court’s jurisdiction.” 356 F.2d at 356.

The Supreme Court disagreed. While noting the general rule, it characterized the rule as a presumption and said that one needed to look at the particular statutory scheme at issue to discern purpose. Whether or not the time period was jurisdictional was totally absent from the Court’s approach to applying equitable tolling. The Court concluded it was “much more consistent with the overall congressional purpose to apply a traditional equitable tolling principle, aptly suited to the particular facts of this case and nowhere eschewed by Congress, to preserve petitioners’ cause of action.” 386 U.S. at 501.

The Supreme Court’s focus in Honda (and later in other cases, as I explain in my paper) was on the relationship between Congress and the limitation period. When you approach the limitation periods in §6213 and §6330(d) in that way, I believe the approach used by the Supreme Court in Honda strongly support application of equitable tolling, in two ways.

First, as I have argued here, the Tax Court itself has relied upon the great remedial purposes of §6213 and §6330 to in fact enlarge what it believes are jurisdictional time periods under certain circumstances. A careful reading of its cases shows that what animates its decisions is the remedial purpose of the statutory scheme that allows taxpayers a day in court before either (1) being forced face a tax assessment and its consequences or (2) being forced to pay an assessed tax. To count the shutdown days as part of a limitations period would run counter to that remedial purpose.

Second, I again restate the idea of my first paragraph. This is not a situation where a taxpayer would seek equitable tolling because of some individual government employee’s bad behavior. This is Congressional bad behavior. Another way to think of the relationship is this: if the time periods are part of Congress’s waiver of Sovereign Immunity, and if only Congress can waive Sovereign Immunity, then one can reasonably find that Congress itself has here waived its immunity by ceasing to fund the government.

The second reason that the Tax Court might look askance at applying equitable tolling here is that the doctrine usually applies in a fact pattern where the party seeking tolling has done all it can. Here, there may be instances where that is not true. For example, a taxpayer may not have even attempted to file a petition when the last day ran during the shutdown period. Or the taxpayer may not have even been prepared to file during the shutdown period and only prepares and files once the shutdown period ends. Most importantly, a taxpayer’s period might have been disrupted by the shutdown period but may not have ended during the shutdown period. How is the Tax Court supposed to measure a taxpayer’s diligence in that situation, when no one knew until Friday that the government would reopen on Monday?

I do not know the answer to these questions because equity is a case-by-case determination. The Tax Court can help avoid the time and effort of applying equitable tolling by applying a uniform counting rule that simply disregards the shutdown days, based on the idea underlying FRCP 6, as I will argue in an article I hope to publish in Tax Notes soon. Even there, however, there will be cases that are not covered even by a broad reading of FRCP 6. That will be the cases where the last day of the period came after the shutdown ended. Yet there may be such cases that command the sympathy of the Tax Court. I think the Court has the power to act and to apply equitable tolling in the cases where the circumstances support it.

After The Shutdown: Dealing with Time Limitations, Part III

Today Professor Bryan Camp returns for Part III of the series “After the Shutdown,” in which he examines the time limit for appealing a notice of deficiency. Now that the government has reopened, Professor Camp’s analysis may soon be tested in the Tax Court. The Tax Court’s website advises that the court will resume full operations on Monday, January 28, and that the February 25 trial sessions will proceed as scheduled. Christine

Part I discussed how a reopened Tax Court might apply the Guralnik case to ostensibly late-filed petitions.  The Tax Court is likely to apply Guralnik narrowly which means petitions not filed on the first day the Court reopens will be outside their Statutes of Limitation, putting the SOL in SOL.  Equitable tolling could help cure that problem but the Tax Court takes the position that it cannot apply equitable doctrines to the time periods for taxpayers to petition the Tax Court because, in its view, those time periods are jurisdictional restrictions on its powers.   

Part II explained the new thinking about how jurisdictional time periods differ from non-jurisdictional.  I read the opinions and drew out five indeterminate factors that the Supreme Court instructs lower courts to consider when deciding whether a particular statutory time period is jurisdictional or merely a “claims processing rule.”   

Today’s post applies the rules to the 90/150 day period in §6213.  The most reasonable conclusion under the new thinking is that §6213 is not a jurisdictional time period. That means that the Tax Court can apply equitable principles to decide whether an ostensibly late-filed petition is timely or not.  And when the Tax Court is closed for more than 33 days in a row, that is a big start to an equitable tolling analysis for those cases that cannot fit within a narrow or even a broad application of Guralnik.

read more...

Four of the five factors point to treating §6213 as a claims processing rule.  Again, this is basically a summary of what I have written in this paper posted on SSRN.  As usual, please comment on any errors or omissions that you spot. 

  1. Mandatory Language

As it currently reads, §6213(a) now contains five sentences.  The first sentence contains the limitations period, as follows: “Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed … the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.” 

Notice there is no mandatory language.  Nothing in that sentence tells the reader what happens if the taxpayer misses the 90/150 day deadline.  And nothing in that sentence gives the Tax Court the power to hear or decide matters raised in the petition. 

  1. Magic Words

The word “jurisdiction” does not appear in the first sentence.  One finds the jurisdictional grant to the Tax Court over in §6214, which provides that the Tax Court has “jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of the deficiency even if the amount so redetermined is greater than the amount of the deficiency…and to determine whether any additional amount, or any addition to the tax should be assessed, if claim therefor is asserted by the Secretary at or before the hearing or a rehearing.”  The §6214 power to redetermine a deficiency is simply not hooked into the §6213 timing rule.  

The fourth sentence of §6213 does contain the magic word “jurisdiction.”  But, as I explain in much greater detail in my paper on SSRN, while the word “jurisdiction” does appear in the fourth sentence, it is not there tied to the Court’s power to redetermine a deficiency.  It was added to the Tax Court much, much, later than first sentence and later than the §6214 jurisdictional language.  

  1. Statutory Context

 As I explain in my SSRN paper, Congress first gave the Tax Court jurisdiction to redetermine a proposed deficiency in 1924.  It did that in a statute separate from the 90/150 day limitation period.  The codifiers also put that jurisdictional grant in a separate section of the Tax Code, both in the 1939 Code and the 1954 Code.

Much later, in 1954, Congress added to the Tax Court’s jurisdiction the power to enjoin the IRS from assessing or collecting a tax liability when the taxpayer had filed a timely petition.  The codifiers put that injunctive power in the same statute as the 90/150 limitation period and conditioned that power on a timely petition being filed.  But the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is still in a separate statute.

As applied to the shutdown, that distinction possibly makes a difference.  The IRS computers will automatically set up an assessment if no IRS employee inputs the Transaction Code (TC) indicating that a petition has been filed in the Tax Court.  To account for notification delays, the computers are programmed to wait 110 days after the NOD date before setting up the assessment.  Readers should understand that assessments are made in bulk.  Each week, all the assessments that are ready to be made are aggregated into a single document that is signed, either physically or electronically, by a designated official and, hey presto, all of the taxpayers who were set up for that week are now assessed.

The problem in the shutdown is that the IRS computers keep counting the shutdown days as part of the 110 days.  So if and when the Tax Court decides that a petition ostensibly filed 140 days late is actually timely, whether under a narrow or broad reading of Guralnik or under equitable principles, the question arises as to what to do about that assessment.  The IRS should abate the assessment as §6404 authorizes when an assessment “is erroneously or illegally assessed.” 

  1. Judicial Context

 This is the only factor that supports reading §6213 as jurisdictional.  But it’s not especially strong because it consists only of lower court precedent that relies on other lower court precedent.  As I explained in Part II, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to scrub even long-standing lower court precedent when it believes the new thinking requires a different result.  The only judicial context that counts for the Supremes is their own former opinions!      

Still, there is plenty of lower court precedent holding that §6213 is jurisdictional.  First, the most recent Tax Court case to express an opinion about §6213 was—you guessed it— Guralnik.  That was in 2016.  But the Court in Gurlanik chose to look exclusively at only this factor and gave no analysis on the other four factors, saying:

In cases too numerous to mention, dating back to 1924, we have held that the statutorily-prescribed filing period in deficiency cases is jurisdictional. See, e.g., Satovsky v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 22, 24 (1924); Block v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 761, 762 (1943). Even if the “equitable tolling” argument advanced by petitioner and amicus curiae were otherwise persuasive, which it is not, we would decline to adopt that argument solely on grounds of stare decisis.

The error here is in relying on old thinking.  As I explained in Part II and also in my paper, the Supreme Court keeps emphasizing that courts should not rely solely on precedent developed under the old thinking.  In particular, my paper looks at both the cases cited by Guralnik here and not only shows how neither is particularly useful but also discovers that the Tax Court itself no longer follows Block’s rationale on how to count jurisdictional time periods!   

The most recent Circuit Court opinion of note is Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2017).  There, Judge Easterbrook gave two reasons for holding that §6213 was jurisdictional.  First, he swooned over the magic word “jurisdiction” in §6213 and totally ignored how it related, or did not relate, to the 90/150 time period.  Second, he relied on—wait for it—wait for it—Guralnik!

For many decades the Tax Court and multiple courts of appeals have deemed § 6213(a) as a whole to be a jurisdictional limit on the Tax Court’s adjudicatory competence. [String cite omitted]. We think that it would be imprudent to reject that body of precedent, which places the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims, two Article I tribunals, on an equal footing. So we accept Guralnik’s conclusion and treat the statutory filing deadline as a jurisdictional one.

What is especially sad here is that the string cite that I omitted from the quote does not contain a single case after 1995.  Nor could it.  There is not a single court case—much less one from the Supreme Court—that actually analyzes §6213 under the Supreme Court’s new thinking and applies all the factors.   

  1. Legislative Context

The legislative context of §6213(a) also supports reading the provision as a claims-processing rule and not as a jurisdictional requirement.  The legislative context is very similar to that which the Supreme Court found so important in Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) discussed in Part II.  In brief, Congress created the original Board of Tax Appeals to give taxpayers a theretofore unavailable judicial remedy.  The legislation creating the BTA was manifestly remedial.   

The remedial nature of deficiency proceedings has been long recognized by the Supreme Court.  I think Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935) is particularly instructive.  There, the taxpayers proved that the Notice of Deficiency contained significant error.  The government argued that taxpayers had to not just show the NOD was wrong but also had to prove up their correct tax.  The Supreme Court responded this way: “The rule for which the Commissioner here contends is not consonant with the great remedial purposes of the legislation creating the Board of Tax Appeals.”

The Tax Court itself has used the remedial nature of deficiency proceedings to soften the effect of its continued holding that §6213 is jurisdictional.  In effect, the Tax Court “cheats” on applying §6213 by choosing from among multiple starting dates to help taxpayers meet the 90 day requirement.  It does so because it recognizes the legislative context of the deadline.  I explain this in my article Equitable Principles and Jurisdictional Time Periods, Part II, 159 Tax Notes 1581 (free download here).

It would be no stretch at all for the Tax Court to apply that precedent to an analysis of whether §6213 is jurisdictional in the first place.  

Under the new thinking, then, four of the five factors point towards reading §6213 as a claims processing rule and not a jurisdictional rule.

After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part II

In the second post of the series “After the Shutdown” Professor Bryan Camp connects the shutdown with the thorny issue of when a time limit is jurisdictional. Les

Part I discussed how a reopened Tax Court might apply the Guralnik case to ostensibly late-filed petitions.  I explained how it might apply the case narrowly or broadly.  This post moves beyond Guralnikand starts exploring the correctness of the Court’s underlying assumption: that time limits in the Tax Code for taxpayers to petition the Tax Court to hear their disputes with the IRS are jurisdictional.  A possible silver lining to the shutdown may be that it gives the Court an opportunity to revisit that assumption.

Guralnik is essentially a work-around to equitable tolling.  The Tax Court says it cannot apply equitable principles to most statutes of limitation in the Tax Code because those statutes are, in its view, part and parcel of the Congressional grant of subject matter jurisdiction to the Tax Court.  I believe that view is based on an outdated understanding of the law.  I have posted a paper on SSRN that goes into great detail on what the current law is and how it should apply to three limitation periods in the Code: §6213, §6330(d), and §6015(e).  Today’s post is a summary of what I call the “new thinking” about jurisdictional time periods that the Supreme Court has been wrestling with for the past 10-15 years. For fuller treatment, please see my paper on SSRN.  For the Cliff Notes version, read on.

read more...

Starting in Kondrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), the Supreme Court became obsessed with distinguishing between jurisdictional time periods and “mere” claims processing rules.  At that time, courts routinely presumed that all time limits were jurisdictional in nature. By 2013, however, the Court had totally flipped the traditional presumption.  The new thinking is that time limits are presumed non-jurisdictional unless Congress had done something special to indicate otherwise.  Here is how the Court summed it up in Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (2013).  Be sure to empty your mouth of liquid before you read on.

To ward off profligate use of the term jurisdiction, we have adopted a readily administrable bright line for determining whether to classify a statutory limitation as jurisdictional. We inquire whether Congress has clearly stated that the rule is jurisdictional; absent such a clear statement, we have cautioned, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character. This is not to say that Congress must incant magic words in order to speak clearly. We consider context, including this Court’s interpretations of similar provisions in many years past, as probative of whether Congress intended a particular provision to rank as jurisdictional. 568 U.S. at 153.

The spit-take is on the phrase “readily administrable bright line.”  It makes you wonder what planet the Justices had just visited.  Folks, there is no bright line.  There are, by my count, five indeterminate factors that the Court instructs lower courts to consider.  But fear not!  The task is not hopeless; it is merely very difficult.

Please note that all my case cites are to Supreme Court cases after 2000.  I’ve read what I think are all the relevant ones in order to synthesize these factors.  Note further that you simply cannot trust any court case before then.  And you cannot really trust many lower court cases before the Supreme Court’s “we-really-mean-it” decisions in 2013 (Auburn Regional) and 2015 (Kwai Fun Wong).  If someone cites a case to you, go look at the date to see if it is even attempting to reflect the Supreme Court’s new thinking.  Here is my summary of that thinking, divided into five factors.

  1. Mandatory Language

 The first factor any court will consider is the text of the relevant statute.  If  the text expressly refers to subject-matter jurisdiction or speaks in jurisdictional terms, then that will generally be the end of the analysis.  Under the old presumption, a statute that used mandatory language was presumed jurisdictional and mandatory language made it difficult to overcome the presumption.  Under the new thinking, however, while mandatory language is still one factor to consider, it is no longer very important.  Words like “shall” or “must” just don’t cut it anymore.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that mandatory language alone—even really emphatic language—makes a time period jurisdictional. Musacchio v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 709 (2016)(defendant in criminal prosecution not allowed to raise statute of limitations for first time on appeal because the limitation period was not jurisdictional despite its mandatory language); United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S.Ct. 1625 (2015)(limitations period which said a claim brought after the deadline date “shall be forever barred” was not jurisdictional).

  1. Magic Words

A second factor is the presence or absence of the term “jurisdiction.”  It turns out that while the word “jurisdiction” is important, it is not determinative.  The Supreme Court has found a statute jurisdictional even without the word “jurisdiction” in it. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)(finding that the statutory context of 28 U.S.C. §2253 made it jurisdictional even though it did not contain the magic word “jurisdiction”).  And on the flip side, the Court has also found a statute of limitations to be non-jurisdictional even though the statute contained the word “jurisdiction” in it! SeeReed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010)(overruling widespread agreement among Circuit Courts to hold that the term “jurisdiction” in 17 U.S.C. §441(a) was not a clear enough statement because it just described a court’s ability to hear a particular issue in a larger copyright infringement suit and not the courts ability to hear the rest of the suit).

  1. Statutory Context

A third important factor to consider is the relationship of the limitation period to the surrounding statutory scheme.  That is statutory context.  The Supreme Court has focused on this factor to explain its reluctance to label a limitation period as “jurisdictional” when the limitation period is present in the same statutory section as a concededly jurisdictional grant.  SeeGonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012)(even though 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1) was a jurisdictional provision, the neighboring limitation in §2253(c)(3) was not);Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (2013)(rejecting argument that proximity of 42 U.S.C. §1395oo(a)(3) to concededly jurisdictional requirements in §1395oo(a)(1) and §1395oo(a)(2) made the (a)(3) time requirements also jurisdictional).

  1. Judicial Context

This is just another word for “precedent.”  The Court has not been reluctant to reverse long-standing precedent…when the precedent is from lower courts.  See e.g.Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010).  But it’s a different story when the long-standing precedent is of the Supreme Court’s own making.  SeeBowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)(deciding that the time limits in 28 U.S.C. §2107 were jurisdictional simply because of “our longstanding treatment of statutory time limits for taking an appeal”); J.R. Sand and Gravel v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008)(holding that time limits in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 were jurisdictional because of four prior Supreme Court cases said so and “petitioner can succeed only by convincing us that this Court has overturned, or that it should now overturn, its earlier precedent.”).

  1. Legislative Context

The final type of context that the Supreme Court has factored into its jurisdictional analysis is what I call the legislative context.  Others might call it legislative purpose.  Whatever you call it, the Court has sometimes looked to see whether finding a limitation period jurisdictional would further or hinder the policy goals of the underlying statutory scheme.   I would not put a whole lotta faith in this factor right now because the current composition of the Supreme Court seems to me (and to this USA Today article) to tilt towards textualists. And textualists don’t seem to like looking to purpose unless they get really desperate.

But there is hope.  I think the clearest example of where the Court found legislative context to be the deciding factor is Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011).  And that opinion was authored by Justice Alito.  There the Court held that the limitation period in 38 U.S.C. §7266(a) for a veteran to obtain court review from an adverse Veterans Administration agency decision was not jurisdictional.  After first finding that neither the factors of text nor precedent pointed clearly in one direction or another, Justice Alito turned to the legislative context.  “While the terms and placement of §7266 provide some indication of Congress’ intent, what is most telling here are the singular characteristics of the review scheme that Congress created for the adjudication of veterans’ benefits.” Focusing then on the Congressional intent, Justice Alito found that Congress meant for the entire statutory scheme for veterans benefits to be highly remedial.

The reason I go into some detail on the Henderson case is because I think it is pretty relevant to how a court might approach interpreting the limitation provisions in the Tax Code.  After all, the whole point of the U.S. Tax Court’s existence is to give taxpayers a pre-payment remedy.  It’s a big-time remedial scheme.  That is, I think, particularly important when considering the limitation periods in §6213, §6330(d), and §6015(e).  More on that in Part III, coming soon.

After The Shutdown:  Dealing with Time Limitations, Part I

Professor Bryan Camp offers the first of a series of posts discussing the shutdown and its impact on taxpayers receiving IRS stat notices and notices of determinations. This is a particularly timely post as we heard at the ABA Tax Section meeting that IRS and Tax Court staff and practitioners are meeting today to discuss the shutdown. Bryan offers some suggestions to minimize the impact of the shutdown on taxpayers with Tax Court filing deadlines. Les

The Tax Court officially closed its doors on December 28, 2018.  During one of the panels at the ABA Tax Section Pro Bono and Tax Clinics Committee meeting this past weekend in New Orleans, the question arose of how the shutdown affected the various administrative and judicial time periods for taxpayers to take various actions.  For example, if the 90 day period in § 6213 for filing a petition expired during the shutdown, would the taxpayer still be able to file a timely petition on the day the Tax Court reopens?

Like Winter, litigation is coming.  The point of this series of posts is to help readers prepare.

The Tax Court may actually have already given us one answer to the question of how the shutdown affects various time periods.  In Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (2016), the Court held that a day the Tax Court was physically closed would not count as part of the §6330(d) time period to protest a CDP Notice of Determination.

Keith Fogg and I have slightly different takes on how Guralnik might apply and he kindly invited me to post my thoughts on the matter.  Today’s post will explain why I believe that Guralnik is strong support for the proposition that none of the shutdown days are days that count for jurisdictional time periods.

In future posts I will explain how taxpayers and the Tax Court might actually make some lemonade from this lemon of a shutdown.  The Tax Court currently holds that the following time periods are jurisdictional: the 90/150 day period in §6213; the 30 day period in §6330(d); and the 90 day period in §6015(e).  That means that the IRS Office of Chief Counsel cannot simply stipulate away the problem.  The looming litigation gives the Tax Court a wonderful opportunity to revisit its thinking about the jurisdictional nature of these statutes.  So in the next series of posts I will summarize a paper I posted on SSRN that explains: (1) the current Supreme Court doctrine for evaluating whether a statutory time period is truly a limitation on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) how that doctrine applies to the time periods in §6213, §6330 and §6015(f).

read more...

Facts and Holding in Guralnik

In Guralnik, the taxpayer (TP) was trying to file a collection due process (CDP) petition.  On the day before the 30thday, the TP sent his petition using Fed Ex “First Overnight” service.  Fed Ex was unable to physically deliver the petition the next day (the last day of the 30 days) because the Tax Court was officially closed that day due to a snowstorm. Fed Ex successfully delivered the petition the next day, one day late.  The question was whether the petition was timely.

The TP first asked for equitable tolling.  Keith Fogg and Carl Smith filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing the Court could do that because the 30 day period was not jurisdictional.  The Tax Court rejected the argument because, it said, §6330(d) made the timely filing of the CDP petition part of the jurisdictional grant. The Tax Court reasoned that while it could apply equitable tolling to what it called “claim-processing rules” it could “not apply equitable tolling to a jurisdictional filing requirement.”

The TP next argued for the §7502 statutory mailbox rule.  The Tax Court rejected that argument because the particular Fed Ex service used (“First Overnight”) was not listed as an approved private delivery service.  If the TP had just used “Standard Overnight” that would have been fine.  But the “First Overnight” was a new service and the IRS had not updated the list of approved private delivery services to include it. And you wonder why people hate lawyers.

The TP next argued that the snow day was a “legal holiday” within the meaning of §7503.  The Tax Court said “nope.”

But the Tax Court then latched onto a really nifty idea.  It decided that Tax Court Rule 1(b) allowed it to adopt the rules for counting days contained in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 6.  Included in FRCP 6 is a rule for dealing with days when a court is inaccessible.  FRCP 6(a)(3)(A) says that

 Unless the court orders otherwise, if the clerk’s office is inaccessible…on the last day for filing…then the time for filing is extended to the first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

The Tax Court happily reasoned that

procedural rules for computing time are fully applicable where the time period in question embodies a jurisdictional requirement. Rather than expanding a court’s jurisdiction, Civil Rule 6 simply supplies the tools for counting days to determine the precise due date. (Internal quotes and cites omitted).

The Tax Court then applied FRCP 6(a)(3) to the facts of the case and did not count the snow day as part of the 30 day time period set out in §6330(d).  Wrote Judge Lauber:

We conclude that Civil Rule 6(a)(3) is “suitably adaptable” to specify the principle for computing time when our Clerk’s Office is inaccessible because of inclement weather, government closings, or other reasons. Civil Rule 6(a)(3) provides that the time for filing is then “extended to the first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Because the petition was filed on February 18, 2015, the first accessible day after the Court reopened for business, the petition was timely filed and we have jurisdiction to hear this case.

Application of Guralnik to Shutdown Cases:  The Good, the Bad, and the Different.

One could read Guralnik as a supersized mailbox rule.  It would apply to taxpayers faced with a time period that expired during the shutdown.  Such taxpayers could still successfully file a timely petition so long as they did so on “the first accessible day after the Court reopen[s] for business.” I think this is how Keith and most folks read the case and I admit it’s the most solid reading.  Let’s call it the narrow reading.

The Good

The narrow reading of Guralnik has the advantage of letting the Court avoid messy equitable inquiries.  It’s a bright-line counting rule and could really help process a bunch of cases into the system and get them to a quicker resolution on the merits.  That’s good.  And it will probably give relief to a large number of taxpayers who are actually able to quick-like-a-bunny file on the day the Tax Court reopens.  It will also give relief to taxpayers who have attempted to file but whose petitions were undeliverable because of the shutdown and are being held for re-delivery by their chosen delivery service.  That’s also good.

The Bad

The first downside of the narrow reading is that it would only help those taxpayers whose deadline hit during the shutdown.  While that is likely the largest group of affected taxpayers, there may be some who received their Ticket to the Tax Court (be it a Notice of Determination or Notice of Deficiency or other ticket) at some point during the shutdown but at a time where their deadline comes after the shutdown ends.

For example, let’s say a taxpayer received an NOD 40 days ago, when the shutdown had not begun.  There are still 30 days left to petition the Tax Court, but the shutdown has prevented the taxpayer from dealing with the NOD, either by filing a petition or by going to Appeals.  Or perhaps a taxpayer receives an AUR NOD during the shutdown.  I have heard of taxpayers still receiving automated notices of intent to levy during the shutdown (and having no one to call), but I welcome comments on whether some IRS automated processes are still spitting out NODs.

For these types of taxpayers, the narrow reading of Guralnik means they must ignore the shutdown and plan on the Tax Court reopening in time for them to make a timely filing without having the usual opportunity to resolve the matter with Appeals or other IRS office.

The second downside to the narrow reading is that it requires taxpayers to assiduously monitor the shutdown situation and the Tax Court’s status.  They cannot plan.  They, or their representative must carefully monitor the Tax Court’s status because the shutdown has essentially reduced their limitations period to one day.  Especially if the Tax Court reopens with no warning, very few taxpayers would be able to meet the  “the first accessible day after the Court reopen[s] for business.”  So the cautious use of Guralnik would help only those taxpayers who filed their petition on the FIRST day the Court reopens (hereinafter “the Magic Day”).

One way the Court could ameliorate this second downside is to delay its reopening after the Shutdown Ends.  For example, the Court could post an order that says it will remain closed for the first 10 business days after the President signs an appropriation bill funding the Court.  That would not only allow taxpayers time to get their acts (and petitions) together to file on the Magic Day, it will also allow Tax Court personnel to clear the decks of accumulated work, re-calendar cases, and prepare for the Magic Day snowstorm of filings.  This idea was floated at the ABA Tax Section Meeting last week.  I think Keith came up with it, but cannot recall for sure.

A Different Understanding of Guralnik?

The narrow reading of Guralnik limits its application to only those situations where the last day of the applicable deadline falls on an inaccessible day.  But the Court could also apply Guralnik more broadly, in a way that would ameliorate both downsides.  I take this idea from Judge Lauber’s reasoning: “Rather than expanding a court’s jurisdiction, Civil Rule 6 simply supplies the tools for counting days to determine the precise due date.”  The idea here is to read FRCP 6 as a tolling provision and not just as a bulked-up mailbox rule.

Judge Lauber’s reasoning recognizes the underlying concern of FRCP 6’s counting rule:  unpredictable events should not count against limitation periods.  The idea of unpredictability was central to the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Litig., 880 F.2d 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1989), a case the Tax Court relied on in Guralnik.  The Swine Flu court used Civil Rule 6(a) “as a guide to interpreting the `jurisdictional’ statute establishing the time for filing with the agency,”  (emphasis supplied). The court there  applied the idea of FRCP 6 to an administrative deadline, excluding both the final Sunday and the following day when government offices were closed on account of a snowstorm.  Notice that, by its plain language, FRCP 6 deals only with counting dates relating to court filings.  But the idea of unpredictability is larger than the words.  Put another way, the words of FRCP 6 embody an idea.  The idea of unpredictability.  The D.C. court explained: “we find it inconceivable that Congress would have wished to bar plaintiffs who fail to anticipate on Friday that the Government will decide to close a filing office the following Monday due to a snowstorm.”

Both Judge Lauber’s reasoning and the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning allow for a more generous reading of Guralnik.   If the principle underlying FRCP 6(a)(3) is truly that we do not count inaccessible days that arise because of unpredictable or extraordinary circumstances—whether they be snowstorms or shutdowns—then such days should not count, period.  No logic limits the counting rule to only the situations where the last day of the deadline falls on an inaccessible day.

This broader reading of Guralnik would not be decision that forces the Court to apply equitable principles to each case.  It would be a decision simply about whether the days when the Court is inaccessible were predictable or not.  Saturdays and Sundays and federal holidays are predictable.  They are on the calendar.  But snowstorms and shutdowns are not predictable.  So those days should not “count” for limitation periods.

One obvious barrier to this broader reading of Guralnik is that the text of FRCP 6 talks only about situations where the last day falls on an inaccessible day.  But, again, just as the D.C. Circuit applied FRCP 6 to a situation that was not covered by its plain language, so can the Tax Court here apply the idea of FRCP 6—the purpose of FRCP 6—to the shutdown situation.  Again, in the words of the D.C. Circuit: “Statutory provisions laying down time periods for taking appeals, like any other enactments, must be interpreted and applied by courts; in so doing, we use the federal rules as guides. Surely, the jurisdiction of the federal courts to construe the jurisdictional provisions of a statute cannot be a matter of serious dispute.” (citations and internal quotes omitted).

The insight of the D.C. Circuit, adopted by the Tax Court in Guralnik is that taxpayers should not be held accountable for situations which they cannot neither predict or control.  The unpredictability of the shutdown mirrors the unpredictability of snowstorms.  Nay, it magnifies that unpredictability.  No one can predict precisely when the shutdown will end.  This inability makes it impossible for taxpayers and their representatives to plan their filings.  They simply cannot determine the precise due date.  Every day the shutdown continues is another day that some deadlines have run and is another penultimate day for other deadlines.  Will the shutdown continue the next day?  Will the shutdown continue for three more days?  Who the heck knows!  Similarly, taxpayers subject to a 90 day deadline who received their Tax Court ticket before the shutdown will have unexpectedly lost all the days of the shutdown to resolve their case in the Office of Appeals.

Remember, the FRCP is just a standardized rule of procedure, promulgated by the Supreme Court.  The courts can, and do, regularly interpret the FRCPs using a common law case-by-case approach.  Recent opinions on the meaning and application of FRCP 8(a)(2) are good examples.  So if the D.C. Circuit can apply FRCP 6 to an agency deadline by using the idea that it was “inconceivable” that Congress intended the limitation period to include inaccessible days, the Tax Court can do the same here and for the same reason: it is inconceivable that Congress intended the 30 and 90 day periods within which to petition the Tax Court for relief to be swallowed up by a government shutdown that is now over 30 days in length.  Those shutdown days simply should not count towards the applicable limitation period.

An alternative approach to applying this broader reading of Guralnik to the shutdown situation would also treat FRCP 6 more as a tolling provision, but in a more limited way than allowing any and all inaccessible days to not count towards the applicable limitation period.  Again, keep in mind we are not talking about equitable tolling.  The question is about finding an administrable bright-line counting rule to deal with the cases filed after the shutdown ends, both those cases filed on the Magic Day, and those cases that miss the Magic Day but are still filed timely….if you don’t count the shutdown days.

The alternative approach would recognize that a single inaccessible day in the middle of a 90 day period or 2 year period would be little more than a Saturday or Sunday or holiday in terms of impact.  It would not interfere with planning nor with the ability of the taxpayer to determine the precise due date for the Tax Court petition the way that this interminable shutdown does.  But when, as here, the inaccessible days keep piling up and their end point is unknowable, the FRCP 6(a)(3) could be applied to acknowledge that difference.  One bright line interpretation would stop counting inaccessible days when they reach some percentage of the applicable limitations period, perhaps over a third.  Another bright line would be to say inaccessible days do not count when they are in excess of four in a row (longer than any three day weekend).

Next Posts

The Court could also take an equitable tolling approach by apply FRCP 6 to the Magic Day filings but then evaluating all other filings on a case by case basis.  That would require the Court to depart from its long-standing view that sections 6213, 6330(d) and 6015(e) are jurisdictional statutes.  I think there is a very good case to be made why the first two are not jurisdictional and a very weak case for the third.  That is the subject of future posts in this series.