Happy Memorial Day weekend! We won’t be posting on Monday, but will probably be back in full force on Tuesday. I know we have a handful of guest posts coming up on really interesting topics and I’m certain Keith and Les have some insightful things to add following ABA.
In the week of May the 1st, we welcomed first time guest poster, Marilyn Ames, who wrote on NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. IRS and disclosure of return information.
Here are the other procedure items from that week:
- A recent Tax Court decision brought back the analysis used by the Supreme Court almost 20 years ago on a similar but slightly distinct fact pattern. The situation can be tough to follow at first because it plays out at the intersection of Sections 6511 and 6512. It also involves reliance on the earlier Supreme Court decision which caused a change to Section 6512 after it was decided. In Butts v. Comm’r, the Tax Court denied taxpayers’ request for refund as being untimely. The taxpayers failed to file in ’07 and ’08. In 2011 (and 2012), SNODs were issued for 2007 and 2008, and later that year the taxpayer filed for review in the Tax Court. In 2013, taxpayers filed joint returns, claiming overpayment due to employer withholdings. The Court stated SCOTUS reviewed an almost identical case in Lundy v. Comm’r. The issue in both cases was if the refund amount was allowed under Section 6512(b)(3), which allows refunds of any amount paid:
(A) after the mailing of the notice of deficiency;
(B) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment; or
(C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
Based on the facts in Butts and Lundy, (A) and (C) do not apply. In Lundy, SCOTUS stated it considered:
the look-back period for obtaining a refund of overpaid taxes in the…Tax Court under 26 USC 6512(b)(3)(B), and decide[d] whether the Tax Court can awarded a refund of taxes paid more than two years prior to the date on which the [IRS] mailed the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, when, on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed, the taxpayer had not yet filed a return. We hold that in these circumstances the 2-year look-back period in 6513(b)(3)(B) applies, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund.
One difference in Butts and Lundy is that in Lundy the taxpayer made its request within three years of the filing date, whereas in Butts the request was made more than three years after the filing date. Based on a prior version of the statute, Lundy was precluded from obtaining a refund because it was outside of two years and there was not a reference to the three year statute applicable. Section 6512(b)(3) was modified in 1997 by Congress, and now the minimum statute of limitations would be the three years from the filing date.
In Butts, under Section 6512(b)(3)(B), the Court stated it must look to the mailing date of the SNOD as a hypothetical claim date and determine if a timely claim could have been made then based on Section 6511. This requires a review of the two year statute from the date of taxes paid, and three years from the due date of the return. The withholdings for 2007 were treated as having been paid on April 15, 2008, while the initial SNOD was issued in June of 2011. Since both statutes had passed, no claim for refund could be allowed. There was a similar issue with the 2008 return.
- Peter Hardy and Carolyn Kendall, attorneys from Post & Schell, and prior guest bloggers here at PT, have posted on Jack Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes blog (two-timers!) on the Microsoft appeal in In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account. The guest post can be found here, and Jack’s summary of related materials on the Stored Communications Act can be found here. Although the post deals with a drug case, the impact could be far reaching regarding subpoena power over electronic communications in the cloud (including datacenters outside of the US). Peter and Carolyn tie in the Service’s review of foreign accounts nicely.
- It’s like speed dating, but it might cost more and you only get lucky if you don’t get picked. The NY Times has an op-ed on the IRS speed audit, with agency cut backs causing reduced response time for taxpayers, which if not promptly responded to could result in important collection due process rights being forfeited. The op-ed indicates that the IRS may be sending out follow up letters the same day as the initial letter, which the author argues is in violation of the updated taxpayer bill of rights issued last year. When you are on the op-ed, check out the comments the NY Times has picked as important. Carl Smith was highlighted for indicating a few other ways the tax system is failing taxpayers. This practice may save time for the Examination Division of the IRS but pushes more cases into the collection stream which also impacts the IRS resources.
- On April 20th, the Tax Court issued a decision in Yuska v. Comm’r, holding the automatic stay invalidated a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions regarding a tax lien that was issued after the bankruptcy petition. Importantly, the Court declined to follow the IRS’s suggestion that the Court distinguish this case from Smith v. Comm’r, which had similar facts but pertained to a levy. The timing of events were very important in following Smith, and the Service also argued that the Court should instead follow Prevo v. Comm’r, which was a lien case where the collection action occurred before the BR petition. In Smith, the Serviced began collection actions, and then the taxpayer filed a bankruptcy petition, followed by the Service issuing a notice of determination concerning the levy, and then the taxpayer petitioning the Tax Court for review of the levy action. The Court held the continuance of the collection action violated the stay under 11 USC 362(a)(1). In Prevo, the sustaining of the lien occurred before the BR petition. As to differentiating between a lien and levy case, the Court found the administrative review of a lien was clearly part of the administrative collection process and subject to the ruling in Smith, even if future administrative review was possible. Although the Court declined to differentiate between the two in this case, Keith noted that if the stay stopped the CDP case there can be important differences. In a lien case, the NFTL remains valid (if not enforceable) until after the stay is lifted. In a levy case, the stay prevents the IRS from moving forward with the levy completely. Keith didn’t read the case, and still came up with something much more insightful and helpful to add.
- This is becoming a little like an advertisement for Jack Townsend’s Criminal Tax Crimes Blog. Jack posted on the recent 7th Circuit case, US v. Michaud, which reviewed whether or not the IRS had authority to issue a summons in a criminal matter prior to a DOJ referral. The statute in question is Section 7602(b) & (d), which was modified after US v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank to make it clear the IRS did have this authority. The 7th Circuit had some additional thoughts on when the IRS couldn’t issue the summons. Check out the post for a discussion of that point, and Jack’s always helpful thoughts on the matter.
- Context is always important. For instance, being suspended can be very good (we took our daughters rock climbing this weekend, and being suspended by the rope was really helpful), but it can also be pretty bad in the school, professional or corporate context. Such was the case in Leodis C. Matthews, APC, a CA Corp. v. Comm’r, where the Tax Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over a deficiency petition brought be a corporation (law firm) that California had suspended its corporate privileges for due to failure to pay state taxes. Interesting point of law. Can someone bring the petition on behalf of the corporation so it does not lose its ability to contest the tax? Timing is also interesting. Corp is suspended May 1, 2013, and 90 day letter is issued June 30, 2014. Taxpayer petitions court Oct. 1, 2014 (presumably timely), and had its corporation reinstated November 26, 2014. You would guess he was trying to deal with his state tax issue during the 90 day period. I also wonder if there is a way to get limited rights reinstated, so that the corporation could have petitioned the Tax Court.
- We all hear the scare tactics on the radio about how if you owe more than $10,000, the IRS is going to come and take your assets, steal your children, put you in jail, shoot your dog, etc. We are lucky enough to know this is BS, and an effort to garner business. Sometimes, however, the IRS can show up at your premises (probably armed), and take your stuff. You have to owe a bit more than $10k, and the Service has to jump through a lot of hoops. In re: The Tax Indebtedness of Voulgarelis is one such writ of entry case. In Voulgarelis, the taxpayer apparently owed around $300k, possibly more, and ignored six notices of intent to levy. The Service sought an order authorizing it to enter the premises and levy the tangible property, which was granted in accordance with GM Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 US 338 (1977).
- The Service has updated its list of private delivery services that count for the timely mailing is timely filing rules under Section 7502. The update can be found in Notice 2015-38. As we’ve discussed before, failure to file these rules can result in harsh results. These results can be seemingly arbitrary when a taxpayer selects a quicker FedEx/UPS delivery method that isn’t approved, and cannot rely on the rule.
- In information notice 2015-74, the IRS has reminded businesses of the temporary pilot penalty relief program for small businesses that have failed to properly comply with administrative and reporting requirements for retirement plans. That program ends June 2nd.