Statute of Limitations on Refunds­

Posted on by katemley

Statute of Limitations on Refunds­—IRC 6511


The Tax Court in the case of Applegarth v. Comm’r, filed December 10, 2024 at T.C. Memo 2024-107, does a good job of exploring the various statutes associated with entitlement to refunds and whether or not equitable tolling has any effect on those statutes. The IRS issued Notices of Deficiencies on two periods – 2014 and 2015, causing the Taxpayer to petition the Court.  Seems the taxpayer in this case did nearly everything correctly, except file his return timely.  For both years, he filed extensions.  And, for both years, he paid significant sums of money towards his tax debt before the due date of the extended return.  He just didn’t file his returns and ultimately the IRS sent him notices of deficiencies based on estimated taxes.  For 2014, the IRS determined there was a $4,465 deficiency, but his return reflected an overpayment of $78,472.  For 2015 the IRS determined there was a deficiency of $25,576 and the return showed an overpayment of $9,603.  While the Court explored many statutes, it is worth highlighting this one in part: 6511(a): “[c]laim for refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer within 2 years from the time the tax was paid.”  All payments of tax were beyond the statutory time frames of this provision.  The taxpayer conceded that if these rules applied, he was out of luck. However, he attempted to argue that equitable tolling should apply. The common law concept that allows a statute to stop running for equitable reasons. The opinion is short on explanation of the taxpayer’s rationale, but through its analysis of the statutes concludes that: “in our view neither statutory provision permits equitable tolling.” 

Penalty Abatement—Preparer Reliance

Posted on by katemley

IRC 6662

The Tax Court held in Lucell Trammer, III & Sharonda M. Trammer v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 6615-22, issued March 14, 2023 that the taxpayers had met the reasonable cause exception of IRC Section 6664(c)(1) that provides relief from the accuracy related penalties assessed against them under IRC Section 6662.  The taxpayers filed returns for 2019 and 2020 – taking their receipts to a return preparer who decided how and where to report items on their returns.  As it turned out, some personal expenses, like mortgage interest, were reported multiple times.  Some personal expenses were claimed as business expenses. Ultimately, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency assessing tax and accuracy related penalties under IRC 6662(a). The Court indicated that relief from an accuracy-related penalty only applies if the taxpayers’ reliance on the return preparer meets Treasury Regulation Section 1.6664-4(b), as follows: (1) the advisor was a competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the advisor, and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the advisor’s judgment.  Though the taxpayer was held liable for the tax adjustment, the Court ruled that the accuracy related penalties would not apply to the years at issue. 

Liability Review by IRS

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 6330

The Tax Court ruled in Edgerton Mighty and Eulalee Mighty v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2022-44, filed on May 4, 2022 that a taxpayer may dispute his underlying liability in a Collection Due Process case only if he did not receive a valid notice of deficiency or otherwise have a prior opportunity to contest his liability.  This is a common ruling by the Tax Court and illustrates the fact that there are limited opportunities for liability review.  It is highly advised that the taxpayer take advantage of the Appeals process post IRS Exam. Alternatively, this practitioner has found that the Offer in Compromise – Doubt as to Liability works very well to work through the issues if an opportunity to review liability has been missed. In the instant case, the taxpayers were examined and under exam the IRS made three changes to their return: 1) adjusted taxpayers’ itemized deductions by $35,923, 2) adjusted deductions on schedule C by $12,605 and 3) adjusted income to account for $28,296 of other income from cancellation of debt.  The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for $17,304 plus penalties and interest.  Shortly after, the taxpayers filed an amendment of the return and substantiated that Chase Bank had issued duplicate 1099-C documents – one to their daughter and one to them as guarantors, for the cancellation of debt.  The IRS agreed and removed this item of income from their assessment. The IRS then filed a notice of federal tax lien on the remaining debt and the taxpayers filed a request for Collection Due Process hearing in response to that notice.  The taxpayers never seemed to understand why they owed the government.  In spite of discussions with IRS Appeals and proceeding to Tax Court, they continued to argue that the cancellation of debt was not appropriate.  Both IRS Appeals and the Court explained that they owed for other reasons.  Ultimately, the ruling was going to be the same no matter what.  The underlying liability could not be addressed in Appeals because they had had an opportunity to review the liability at the time the notice of deficiency was issued.  The Tax Court ruled that Appeals had not abused its discretion.

Notice of Deficiency

Posted on by katemley

I.R.C. section 6213

The United States Tax Court in Jeffrey D. Gregory v. Comm’r, Docket No. 1090-16L, filed November 20, 2018, held that a “reprint” of a notice of deficiency is evidence of the creation of the notice before assessment, even though the reprint was prepared more than two years after the alleged mailing of the original notice and omitted or misstated information that would have appeared on any notice actually mailed. Further, the Court ruled, that the omission from a notice of deficiency of the last day to timely file a petition for re-determination does not invalidate the notice. This case was before the Tax Court for review of a determination by IRS Appeals Office to sustain the filing of a notice of Federal Tax Lien for unpaid income tax liabilities. The Petitioner conceded all aspects of the case except the validity of the notice of deficiency issued by the IRS. The IRS asserted that they issued the petitioner a notice of deficiency for the relevant tax period but admitted there was no copy of the original notice that could be reproduced. The Court ultimately ruled that it did not see why the reprints couldn’t serve as evidence that the IRS prepared the notice of deficiency, even if they were not deemed duplicates. The Court inferred from the inclusion in the IRS database of the information about the taxpayer on the reprint that it had created the notice of deficiency in accordance with its “customary practice.” As for the lack of a date to file the Petition in Tax Court, the reprint would not reflect that information as the IRS had explained this information is entered by hand when the original is issued.

Proper Notice of Deficiency Proceedings

Posted on by katemley

I.R.C. 6212

In Daniel Sadek v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2018-174, Filed October 16, 2018, the Tax Court takes up the issue of what is deemed to be an appropriate address for the issuance of a notice of deficiency. The rule is set out in I.R.C. section 6212(b)(1): a deficiency notice sent to the taxpayer’s last known address, shall be sufficient. Treasury Regulation section 301.6212-2(a) elaborates: “A taxpayer’s last known address is the address that appears on the taxpayer’s most recently filed and properly processed Federal tax return, unless the IRS is given clear and concise notification of a different address.” In this case, taxpayer’s most recently filed tax return was for 2005, which was filed October 19, 2009. The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for 2005 and 2006 in excess of $25 million dollars, to his address in both California and Nevada. This notice was issued August 25, 2011. Petitioner filed his petition with the Tax Court on January 4, 2017. From September 2010 through May 2014 Petitioner lived in Beirut, Lebanon. Despite the seemingly straightforward notification provision, Petitioner made a couple of arguments that the IRS should have known where he was living. First, the Petitioner argued that the IRS had used his bankruptcy filings to determine that he also had a home in Nevada. The Petitioner argued that the IRS should have known better as the automatic stay had been lifted during the bankruptcy proceedings to allow both lenders to foreclose – thus he no longer could have lived there. There was no evidence the foreclosure actually took place, and no other address was referenced in any bankruptcy filing. Next, while residing in Beirut, Lebanon, the Petitioner was the subject of an investigation by the FBI relating to his former mortgage business. Petitioner had several communications from Beirut with the FBI during this time. The testifying agent indicated that the FBI never had Petitioner’s address, and even if they did, they would not share the details of an ongoing criminal investigation with non-law enforcement agents of the IRS. The Court declined to “impute to the [IRS] the knowledge of the entire Federal Government.” That simply is not the requirement of the statute referenced above. The Court explained that even if the FBI had the address, and even if the Petitioner had provided the State Department with an address while in Lebanon, “change of address information that a taxpayer provides to another government agency, is not clear and concise notification of a different address,” per Treasury regulation section 301.6212-2(b)(1). Petitioner’s petition was deemed untimely and the deficiency stood.