Whose Intent to Evade Tax Is It?

0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×

The BASR v US case involving whether a third party’s fraud can extend the taxpayer’s statute of  of limitations has been one of the more anticipated cases of 2015. Today’s post on last week’s BASR case is from Robin Greenhouse, a partner in McDermott Will & Emery’s tax practice.  Robin is a former Chair of the Court Procedure and Practice Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Tax Section, a former DOJ Tax Division attorney and nationally-recognized expert in tax controversy.

In one of our earlier posts, I wrote about BASR when the lower court opinion came out; in a 2008 Tax Notes article Bryan Camp discussed the issue here. Jack Townsend, who has written extensively on this, covers many angles in last week’s opinion here.

The issue BASR considers is an interesting one, sweeping in differing canons of statutory interpretation and clashing policy considerations. As Jack has pointed out, the government’s efforts to look to a third-party’s fraud has a connection to the government’s loss in cases like Home Concrete, where the Supreme Court held that the 6-year sol does not apply when a taxpayer overstates its basis in property it has sold. Last week President Obama signed into law HR 3236, which legislatively overrules Home Concrete and provides that “[a]n understatement of gross income by reason of an overstatement of unrecovered cost or other basis is an omission from gross income.” That legislation is effective for returns filed after July 31, 2015, as well as returns that were still open as of that date. Les

On July 29, 2015, the Federal Circuit, rejecting the Tax Court’s decision in Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), held in BASR Partnership v. United States, No. 2014-5037, that section 6501(c)’s suspension of the three year period of limitations for assessment for fraud or false returns applies only when the taxpayer – and not a third party – acts with the requisite “intent to evade tax.”

In BASR Partnership v. United States, Erwin Mayer, of the now defunct Jenkens & Gilchrest, proposed a tax advantaged transaction to a family that was about to realize a large capital gain from the sale of their printing business and provided a tax opinion.  The family’s accountant had no prior relationship with Mayer or Jenkins & Gilchrist.  The accountant prepared the partnership and individual tax returns based on the legal opinion.  After Mayer was convicted, he provided an affidavit stating that he acted with the intent to fraudulently evade the federal income tax that the family would otherwise owe on the capital gains from the sale of their business.  The IRS issued an FPAA ten years after the partnership return was filed but claimed that Mayer’s intent to evade tax suspended the limitations period for the assessment for the partnership items.


Statute of Limitations for Assessment

Ordinarily, the IRS must assess tax three years after the tax return is filed. Section 6501(a) provides as a general rule that “the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed (whether or not such return was filed on or after the date prescribed) . . . “

Section 6501(c)(1) provides,

In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

Additionally, section 6501(n)(2) provides a cross-reference to section 6229 for extensions of period in the case of partnership items. Section 6229(c)(1) provides a special rule for the period of assessment for partnership items in the case of a false return. If any partner has, with the intent to evade tax, signed or participated directly or indirectly in the preparation of a partnership returns which includes a false or fraudulent item, the partner so signing or participating in the preparation of the return may be assessed the tax attributable to the partnership item or affected item at any time, and in the case of all other partners, the general three year statute is extended to six years.

Federal Circuit Rejects Allen v. Commissioner

The majority opinion rejects the limitations period in section 6229(c) of the TEFRA rules as the controlling provision and then construes section 6501(c)(1) as requiring the taxpayer have the “intent to evade tax.”

The majority opinion reviewed the evolution of section 6501 from its origin as section 250(d) of the Revenue Act of 1918, and concluded that the context provided by the predecessor statute confirms that Congress intended that only the taxpayer’s intent to evade tax could trigger the unlimited limitations period that now appears in section 6501(c)(1). In this regard, the majority points out that the fraud penalty predecessor to section 6663 and the fraud suspension of the statute of limitations predecessor to section 6501(c)(1) appeared together in section 250 and it was clear that these provisions referred to the intent of the taxpayer. Thus, when these provisions were separated and recodified into separate statutory provisions there was nothing in the recodification to alter the meaning of “intent” and “fraudulent” as used in this predecessor statute.

Moreover the majority was perturbed by the government’s disparate interpretations of these provisions. The government submitted that the section 6663 fraud penalty applies only when the taxpayer, not a third party commits fraud but the fraud exception in section 6501 applies when a third parties has an intent to evade tax. The majority found nothing in the statute or legislative history supporting a result by the IRS to interpret the fraud penalty as allowing the imposition of a fraud penalty only for the taxpayer’s own fraud but on the other hand prolonging indefinitely the IRS’ ability to assess against the taxpayer for fraud committed by others.

The concurring opinion agrees with the majority’s interpretation of Section 6501(c)(1), but holds that section 6229(c) is the controlling authority, and section 6229(c) clearly limits the assessment period to six years for a partner who has not “with an intent to evade tax, signed or participated directly or indirectly in the preparation of a partnership return which includes a false or fraudulent item.

The dissent agrees with the Tax Court’s decision in Allen v. Commissioner, and contends that the pro-government rule of construction for limitations period requires a broad interpretation of the “intent to evade tax” provision.

Parting Thoughts

I would not be surprised if the government files a motion for rehearing en banc, considering the lack of unanimity.

The majority opinion may have correctly determined that the limitations period in section 6501(c) was controlling and not Section 6229(c), but the fact that the government’s construction of section 6501(c) would render section 6229(c) superfluous is another powerful reason for finding that the taxpayer’s intent to evade tax is required in section 6501(c).

Under the government’s rationale, the fraudulent intent of one partner can suspend the period of limitations for assessment under section 6501(c) for each of the partners and thus, this construction of section 6501(c) renders superfluous section 6229(c)(1)(B) which gives the IRS six years, instead of three years, to assess tax attributable to a partnership items for all other partners.


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

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

Speak Your Mind