IRS Appeals
Subscribe to IRS Appeals's Posts

Late CDP Petitions May Still Be Entitled to Tax Court Review

In a unanimous decision in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner issued on April 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s ruling (which affirmed the US Tax Court) and held that the 30-day time limit to file a petition with the Tax Court in a collection due process (CDP) case is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether the taxpayer is entitled to equitable tolling.

The one-day-late showdown started in 2015, when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified Boechler, P.C. (Boechler), a North Dakota law firm, of a tax discrepancy. Boechler did not respond, which triggered the assessment of an “intentional disregard” penalty along with a notice that the IRS intended to seize Boechler’s property to satisfy the penalty. Boechler requested a CDP hearing before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals), arguing that: (1) there was no discrepancy in its tax filings and (2) the penalty was excessive. IRS Appeals rejected these arguments and sustained the proposed levy. Boechler then had 30 days to file its Tax Court petition but missed the deadline by one day. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The US government argued that the deadline was jurisdictional and the Tax Court lacks the power to accept a tardy filing by applying the doctrine of equitable tolling. Boechler argued that equitable tolling applied, and the Tax Court had jurisdiction over its case. The Supreme Court, continuing a trend of distinguishing between claim processing rules and jurisdictional rules, agreed with Boechler.

Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6330(d)(1) states, “[t]he person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter).” The Supreme Court explained that a procedural requirement is treated as jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515 (2006), although US Congress need not “incant magic words.” Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. 145, 153 (2013).

The Supreme Court clarified that the question was whether the statutory language limits the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to petitions filed within that timeframe. That answer turned on the meaning of the phrase “such matters.” The first independent clause explains what a taxpayer may do, (“The person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination.”) However, the phrase “such matters” does not clearly mandate the jurisdictional reading and lacks clear antecedent. In addition, the Supreme Court also explained that Code Section 6330(d)(1) lacked in comparable clarity as to other tax provisions enacted around the same time. Finally, the Supreme [...]

Continue Reading




Extending the Statute of Limitations for Assessing Federal Tax

We previously provided an overview of the time limits imposed on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for assessing federal tax. The general rule is that the IRS must assess tax within three years from the later of the due date of the original tax return or the date it was filed. If the IRS does not assess tax during this period, it is foreclosed from doing so in the future. Note that the filing of an amended return does not restart or extend the limitations period. There are numerous exceptions to this rule, including if there is a substantial omission of income, fraud, failure to file a return, extension by agreement and failure to provide certain information regarding foreign transactions. We discussed many of these exceptions in Seeking Closure on Tax Positions: A Look at Tax Statutes of Limitation and Omitted Subpart F and GILTI Income May Be a Statute of Limitations Trap for the Unwary. Below, we discuss the rules and considerations for consenting to extending the time to assess federal tax.

Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6501(c)(4) provides that, except in the case of estate taxes, taxpayers (or their duly authorized representative) and the IRS may consent in writing to an extension of the limitations period for assessment. Importantly, such an agreement must be executed before the limitations period expires. In other words, assuming no other exception applies to the general three-year rule, an agreement to extend the limitations must be executed within the later of three years from the date the tax return was due or filed. If executed after that date, the consent is invalid. Thus, a late-filed consent cannot revive an otherwise closed limitations period. Under Code Section 6511(c), extending the statute of limitations on assessment also extends the period for filing a claim for credit or refund to six months after the expiration of the extended assessment period.

Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, is generally used to effectuate an agreed extension to a certain date, however, other versions of the form may be used for different types of taxpayers or issues (e.g., Form 872-M, Consent to Extend the Time to Make Partnership Adjustments, is used for partners subject to the centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015). Form 872-A, Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, may be used to extend the limitations period for an indefinite period (referred to as an Open-Ended Consent). An Open-Ended Consent ends 90 days after the mailing by the IRS of written notification of termination or receipt by the IRS of written notification of termination from the taxpayer (both actions are accomplished through the use of Form 872-T, Notice of Termination of Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax), or the mailing of a notice of deficiency. The IRS’s views on Open-Ended Consents are summarized in
Continue Reading




Weekly IRS Roundup December 6 – December 10, 2021

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of December 6, 2021 – December 10, 2021. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

December 6, 2021: The IRS published updated guidance on requesting estate tax closing letters and transcript request procedures.

December 6, 2021: The US Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a semiannual report to US Congress, summarizing the accomplishments of the TIGTA from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. The TIGTA’s Office of Audit completed 52 audits, and its Office of Investigations completed 1,430 investigations. Its combined audit and investigative efforts resulted in the recovery, protection and identification of monetary benefits totaling more than $9 billion.

December 6, 2021: The IRS issued guidance for employers regarding the retroactive termination of the Employee Retention Credit. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was enacted on November 15, 2021, amended the law so that the Employee Retention Credit applies only to wages paid before October 1, 2021 (unless the employer is a recovery startup business).

December 7, 2021: The IRS published a news release encouraging taxpayers to take important actions this month to help them file their federal tax returns in 2022, including special steps related to Economic Impact Payments and advance Child Tax Credit payments. A special page, updated and available on IRS.gov, outlines the steps taxpayers can take now to make tax filing easier next year.

December 7, 2021: The IRS published frequently asked questions (FAQs), providing guidance on what certain pass-through businesses should do in the absence of updated forms for the 2021 tax year. The tax year 2021 forms, to which Schedules K-2 and K-3 must be attached, have not yet been finalized. The FAQs address questions concerning whether Schedules K-2 and K-3 must be attached to tax year 2020 forms for partnerships or S corporations with 2021 short tax years or, in the case of Form 8865, filers of Form 8865 with 2021 short tax years.

December 7, 2021: The IRS published a memorandum providing interim guidance for in-person conference procedures. The guidance provides that the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals) will use its best efforts to schedule the in-person conference at a location that is reasonably convenient for both the taxpayer and the IRS Appeals. This guidance does not modify any temporary procedures in place due to COVID-19.

December 8, 2021: The IRS released guidance for IRS Appeals employees working Tax-Exempt/Government Entities (TE/GE)-sourced cases. For TE/GE-sourced cases in which a taxpayer or representative raises a new issue, provides new information or advances a new theory or an alternative legal argument to the IRS Appeals, the IRS Appeals employee is required to follow the instructions provided by the IRS.

December 10, 2021: The [...]

Continue Reading




IRS Provides Guidance to LB&I Examiners on Requesting Participation in Appeals Conferences

We recently covered the Appeals Team Case Leader Conferencing Initiative: Summary of Findings and Next Steps (Appeals Summary) in relation to the participation of Large Business & International (LB&I) exam teams and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Counsel attorneys in conferences before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals). As discussed, the Appeals Summary concluded that IRS Appeals would be given discretion to invite exam teams and Chief Counsel attorneys to attend IRS Appeals conferences in the future. In determining whether such discretion should be exercised in a case, the Appeals Summary states that both the taxpayers’ and the exam teams’s views should be solicited and considered.

In a November 8, 2021, memorandum (LB&I Memorandum), the Acting Assistance Deputy Compliance Integration for the LB&I Division Theodore D. Setzer provided guidance to LB&I employees on requesting participation. The LB&I Memorandum reflects the LB&I Divisons’s view that participation in certain IRS Appeals conferences is important for fostering effective tax administration and assisting IRS Appeals in resolving tax controversy on a basis which is fair and impartial to taxpayers and the government. Thus, LB&I employees “should continue to request to be invited where LB&I participation would help improve understanding of factual and legal differences in a case.” The LB&I Memorandum directs LB&I employees to consider the following nonexclusive list of factors before making a request to attend an IRS Appeals conference:

  • The case is factually complex;
  • History has shown lack of meeting of the minds regarding the underlying facts or legal positions;
  • The taxpayer’s characterization of LB&I’s position in the formal written protest is not accurately stated and participation by both the taxpayer and LB&I at the Appeals conference will assist Appeals in both bridging the lack of understanding and better understanding the case;
  • The taxpayer has presented multiple legal arguments or authorities that it relies on to support its position;
  • The case involves outside experts or expert opinions;
  • The case involves an issue of importance to tax administration, such as a case of first impression; one involving the interpretation of a new statute or regulation when there are no reported opinions or when published guidance is pending or where precedent is otherwise absent or conflicting; one affecting large numbers of taxpayers or an industry; or one falling within an operating division’s major strategic goal;
  • The case involves an issue in which the Government seeks to distinguish a position set forth in published guidance;
  • The case involves an issue coordinated under strategic compliance/coordination initiative such as LB&I campaigns or
  • A tax shelter case involving a “Listed Transaction” or substantially similar transaction within the meaning of Treas. Reg. 1.6001-4(b)(2), or a “Transaction of Interest” under Treas. Reg. 1.6011-4(b)(6).

The LB&I Memorandum states that a participation request must be made in one of two ways. The first is by indicating the request on Form 4665, Report Transmittal. According to Internal Revenue Manual Section 4.10.8.12.6 (03-25-2021), Form 4665 is used to [...]

Continue Reading




The Results are in: IRS Appeals Retains Discretion to Continue to Allow Exam Teams and Chief Counsel to Attend Conferences

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals, Appeals) has seen many changes over the past several years. One of the more controversial and publicized change related to the 2017 pilot program to test whether inviting Large Business & International (LB&I) exam teams and Chief Counsel attorneys to engage with taxpayers and their representatives at the IRS Appeals conference would improve Appeals’ ability to work large, complex cases. The pilot program technically applied only to IRS Appeals’ largest and most complex cases, however, the IRS also revised the Internal Revenue Manual to provide IRS Appeals with discretion to invite exam teams and Chief Counsel attorneys to any conference. The pilot program ended on May 1, 2020, and the IRS has been gathering feedback and data from multiple sources (both within and outside the IRS) to determine the effectiveness of the program.

The results are in, as reflected in the recently released Appeals Team Case Leader Conferencing Initiative: Summary of Findings and Next Steps (IRS Appeals Summary). Generally, IRS Appeals Officers found that the exam team’s participation improved their understanding of the dispute and helped them identify, narrow and resolve factual and legal differences between the parties before engaging in settlement negotiations with taxpayers. On the other hand, some taxpayers expressed concerns over the presence of exam teams and Chief Counsel attorneys because they found it hindered the ability to resolve cases without litigation and required more concrete ground rules before the start of the conference.

The IRS Appeals Summary concluded that the process was generally helpful and that IRS Appeals would be given discretion to invite exam teams and Chief Counsel attorneys to attend the IRS Appeals conference in the future. In exercising such discretion, the Appeals Officer must consider several factors and solicit and consider both the taxpayers’ and the exam team’s views as to whether joint participation would be helpful.

Practice Point: Our experiences with the exam team and Chief Counsel attorneys attending the IRS Appeals conference has been mixed. Similar to concerns raised by other taxpayers, we have seen certain IRS personnel repeatedly interrupt the taxpayer during the presentation of their case and offer the exam team’s views of an acceptable settlement. However, we have also seen situations where the IRS Appeals Officer has been able to hold IRS personnel accountable by questioning factual and legal positions. In any event, exam team participation is here to stay and LB&I taxpayers and their representatives need to be aware of the new ground rules in this area.

Prior coverage of changes within the IRS Appeals can be accessed below.




Tax Court Holds IRS Chief Counsel Attorneys May Make Initial Penalty Determination

In general, section 6751 requires that a supervisor give written approval before penalties can be asserted against a taxpayer. In Koh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-77, authored by the US Tax Court’s (Tax Court) most recent addition—Judge Travis Greaves—the Tax Court affirmed that an attorney from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Counsel may be authorized to assert such penalties in an answer to a Tax Court petition.

In Koh, the IRS sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency that included a determination related to penalties under section 6662(j). The taxpayer filed a petition with the Tax Court contesting the IRS’s determination. In its answer, the IRS Chief Counsel attorney asserted that the taxpayer was liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(b)(1) or (2), in the alternative to the section 6662(j) penalties assessed in the original deficiency notice.

The taxpayer sought partial judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that IRS Chief Counsel attorneys are not authorized to assert penalties in the answer. Under section 6751(b)(1), a penalty may not be assessed unless the “the initial determination of such assessment” was “personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination.”

The Tax Court reasoned that as the IRS’s representative, the Chief Counsel attorney (or a delegate) may assert additional penalties in an answer to a Tax Court petition. Moreover, the Tax Court ruled that Chief Counsel attorneys had authority to assert penalties in an answer in Roth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-248, aff’d, 922 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2019). That opinion was based on numerous cases holding that the IRS may assert penalties in an answer. However, Roth pre-dated the Tax Court’s opinion in Clay v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 223 (2019), which cited US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit authority for the proposition that “written approval is required no later than the issuance of the notice of deficiency rather than the assessment of the tax.”

Practice Point: Taxpayers continue to face risk from penalties being asserted for the first time in an answer in a Tax Court Proceeding. We believe that there is a strong likelihood that Koh will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We will continue to follow new developments related to penalties and the supervisory approval requirement.




Taxpayer First Act: Changes to the IRS Appeals Process

The enactment of the Taxpayer First Act, H.R. 3151 (116th Cong.) (TFA) brings with it several changes to the procedures and operations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The TFA touches on the following subjects:

  • Establishing the IRS Independent Office of Appeals
  • Improving customer service
  • Changes to enforcement
  • Modernization of the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS
  • Cybersecurity and identity protection, technological changes, and expanded use of electronic systems
  • IRS hiring and disclosure changes
  • Provisions relating to exempt organizations
  • Changes to the penalty for failure to file
  • Determination of budgetary effects
  • Other miscellaneous provisions

This post does not discuss each subject, but rather focuses on changes to the IRS Appeals process. (more…)




Is an Increase in LB&I Assertion of Penalties on the Horizon?

On May 31, 2019, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report indicating that changes may be in the works regarding assertion of accuracy-related penalties in examinations handled by the IRS Large Business & International (LB&I) Division.

The TIGTA report reviewed the results of closed LB&I examinations for the fiscal years 2015 through 2017 and concluded that the IRS assessed accuracy-related penalties upon only 6% of the 4,600 examined returns with additional tax assessments of $10,000 or more. In comparison, the IRS Small Business / Self Employed (SB/SE) Division assessed accuracy-related penalties upon 25% of its examined returns with additional tax assessments of $10,000 or more. (more…)




Sacked in Tax Court! Procedural Missteps by the IRS Leave the Government’s Blindside Exposed

In Kearse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-53, the Tax Court held the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) abused its discretion as part of the taxpayer’s Collection Due Process hearing (CDP hearing) because the Appeals officer failed to properly verify that the assessment of the taxpayer’s unpaid 2010 liability was preceded by a duly mailed notice of deficiency.

The taxpayer, well-known to sports fans, was Jevon Kearse. Mr. Kearse, nicknamed “The Freak” for his athletic ability, played for 11 seasons in the National Football League and tallied 74 career sacks as a dominating defensive end. Based on the description of events by the Tax Court, Mr. Kearse’s attorneys outmaneuvered the IRS similar to the way Mr. Kearse had offensive tackles tripping over their shoestrings. (more…)




Facebook Goes to District Court to Enforce Access to IRS Appeals

On November 8, 2017, Facebook, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Facebook) filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California asserting that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had improperly denied Facebook access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals. Facebook’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the IRS unlawfully issued Revenue Procedure 2016-22, 2016-15 I.R.B. 1, and unlawfully denied Facebook its statutory right to access an independent administrative forum. Facebook also requests injunctive relief from the IRS’s unlawful position, or action in the nature of mandamus to compel the IRS to provide Facebook access to an independent administrative forum. (more…)




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES