Use Of Wrong Form Costs A Tax Refund

Let’s talk about the following Regulation:

26 CFR § 301.6402-2

Claims for credit or refund

(b) Grounds set forth in claim.

(1) No refund or credit will be allowed after the expiration of the statutory period of limitation applicable to the filing of a claim therefor except upon one or more of the grounds set forth in a claim filed before the expiration of such period. The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof. The statement of the grounds and facts must be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury. A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

That last sentence is critical and – potentially – punishing.

I suspect the most common “claim for refund” is an amended return. There are other ways to claim, however, depending on the tax at issue. For example, businesses requested refunds of federal payroll taxes under the employee retention credit (“ERC”) program by filing Form 941-X. You or I would (more likely) file our claim for refund on Form 1040-X. 

File a 1040-X and the tax “variance doctrine” comes into play. This means that the filing must substantially inform the IRS of the grounds and reasons that one is requesting a refund. Both parties have responsibilities in tax administration. A taxpayer must adequately apprise so the IRS can consider the request without further investigation or the time and expense of litigation.

Here is a Court on this point in Charter Co v United States:

The law requires a taxpayer “to do more than give the government a good lead based on the government’s ability to infer interconnectedness.”

Another way to say this is that the IRS is not required to go all Sherlock Holmes to figure out what you are talking about. 

Let’s look at the Shleifer case.

Scott Shleifer was a partner in an investment firm. He travelled domestically and abroad to investigate new and existing investment opportunities. Scott was not a fan of commercial airfare, so he used his personal plane. He waived off reimbursement from the partnership for his air travel.

COMMENT: Scott is different from you or me.

The Shleifers filed their 2014 joint individual tax return. Whereas it is not stated in the case, we can assume that their 2014 return was extended to October 15, 2015.

In October 2018 they filed an amended return requesting a refund of almost $1.9 million.

COMMENT: And there you have your claim. In addition, notice that the two Octobers were three years apart. Remember that the statute of limitations for amending a return is three years. Coincidence? No, no coincidence.

What drove the amended return was depreciation on the plane. The accountant put the depreciation on Schedule C. It was – in fact – the only number on the Schedule C.

In July 2020 the IRS selected the amended return for audit.

COMMENT: A refund of almost $1.9 million will do that.

The Shleifer’s accountant represented them throughout the audit.

In March 2022 the IRS denied the refund.

Why?

Look at the Schedule C header above. It refers to a profit or loss “from business.” Scott was not “in business” with his plane. It instead was his personal plane. He did not sell tickets for flights on his plane. He did not rent or lease the plane for other pilots to use. It was a personal asset, a toy if you will, and perhaps comparable to a very high-end car. Granted, he sometimes used the plane for business purposes, but it did not cease being his toy. What it wasn’t was a business.

The accountant put the depreciation on the wrong form.

As a partner, Scott would have received a Schedule K-1 from the investment partnership. The business income thereon would have been reported on his Schedule E. While the letters C and E are close together in the alphabet, these forms represent different things. For example:

·       There must be a trade or business to file a Schedule C. Lack of said trade or business is a common denominator in the “hobby loss” cases that populate tax literature.

·       A partnership must be in a trade or business to file Schedule E. A partner himself/herself does not need to be active or participating. The testing of trade or business is done at the partnership - not the partner - level.

·       A partner can and might incur expenses on behalf of a partnership. White there are requirements (it’s tax: there are always requirements), a partner might be able to show those expenses along with the Schedule K-1 numbers on his/her Schedule E. This does have the elegance of keeping the partnership numbers close together on the same form.   

After the audit went south, the accountant explained to the IRS examiner that he was now preparing, and Scott was now reporting the airplane expenses as unreimbursed partner expenses. He further commented that the arithmetic was the same whether the airplane expenses were reported on Schedule C or on Schedule E. The examiner seemed to agree, as he noted in his report that the depreciation might have been valid for 2014 if only the accountant had put the number on the correct form.

You know the matter went to litigation.

The Shleifers had several arguments, including the conversation the accountant had with the examiner (doesn’t that count for something?); that they met the substantive requirements for a depreciation deduction; and that the IRS was well aware that their claim for refund was due to depreciation on a plane.

The Court nonetheless decided in favor of the IRS.

Why?

Go back to the last sentence of Reg 301.6402-2(b)(1):

A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

The Shleifers did not file a valid refund claim that the Court could review.

Here is the Court:

Although the mistake was costly and the result is harsh …”

Yes, it was.

What do I think?

You see here the ongoing tension between complying with the technical requirements of the Code and substantially complying with its spirit and intent.

I find it hard to believe that the IRS – at some point – did not realize that the depreciation deduction related to a business in which Scott was a partner. However, did the IRS have the authority to “move” the depreciation from one form to another? Then again, they did not have to. The accountant was right: the arithmetic worked out the same. All the IRS had to do was close the file and … move on.

But the IRS also had a point. The audit of Schedule C is different from that of Schedule E. For example, we mentioned earlier that there are requirements for claiming partnership expenses paid directly by a partner. Had the examiner known this, he likely would have wanted partnership documents, such as any reimbursement policy for these expenses. Granted, the examiner may have realized this as the audit went along, but the IRS did not know this when it selected the return for audit. I personally suspect the IRS would not have audited the return had the depreciation been reported correctly as a partner expense. 

And there you have the reason for the variance doctrine: the IRS has the right to rely on taxpayer representations in performing its tax administration. The IRS would have relied on these representations when it issued a $1.9 million refund – or selected the return for audit.

What a taxpayer cannot do is play bait and switch.

Our case this time was Shleifer v United States, U.S. District Court, So District Fla, Case #24-CV-80713-Rosenberg.

The IRS Meets An Actuary

I think it was November or December of last year that I met with a client. He was “behind” on his taxes, and he now wanted to do the right thing and catch up.  He passed me a Form 1099, which he described as bogus. It had his name and social security number, but he swore he did not know the payor or provide any services for them.

Could be. Mistakes happen all the time.

I am reviewing the Tax Court summary opinion in Furnish v Commissioner. It is not a technically difficult case – the “summary” part tells you that – but it made me think of my client.

Furnish is an actuary.

QUESTION: Do you know what an actuary does? These guys/gals bring math, statistics and financial modeling to bear in measuring and predicting uncertain outcomes. They may work for insurance companies, for pension plans, for banks and investment firms. Think of them as the Sheldon Coopers of the business world.

Furnish had bought life insurance policies back when. He used policy dividends to buy additional coverage over the years, and he thereafter used policy loans to pay premiums on some or all of the policies. If you use loans to pay premiums for long enough, the policy will eventually burnout. This means it runs out of money. The insurance company will then shut down the policy. It happens with some frequency.

This happened to Furnish. The insurance company then sent him a Form 1099 saying that he had $49,255 as taxable income from the burnout.

         QUESTION: How can you have income from a burnout?

ANSWER: There are three pieces to the answer: (1) you have written checks for the policy over the years. The total amount of checks is your “basis” in the policy; (2) you have loans on the policy; (3) the policy has built-up “cash value” over the years. When the policy burns out, the cash value is used to pay off the loans. If that cash value exceeds your basis, you have income. “Phantom” income perhaps, but still income.

Furnish doesn’t buy into the $49,255 at all. He contacts the insurance company and requests files and records back to the beginning of time. The insurance company had a problem, as those old files were nonelectronic and not easily retrieved.

The insurance company wants nothing to do with this guy. Their letters to him went something like “We are right. Why do you keep bothering us?”

Ah, but they were dealing with an actuary.

Furnish sends the IRS two tax returns: one reporting the $49,255 and one not reporting and explanations for each. I presume he did not have professional advice to handle it in this manner, but so be it. The IRS of course accepts the one with the $49,255 reported in income.

PAUSE: I’ll give you a moment to get over your shock.

The IRS wanted their money. Furnish tells the IRS that the insurance company was full of bunkum and the 1099 was incorrect. The IRS tells Furnish to have the insurance company correct their paperwork. Until then, the IRS wanted their money. Eventually Furnish took the matter to the Taxpayer Advocate.

No dice with the Advocate and the matter went before a Tax Court judge. At play is Code Section 6201(d), which reads:

           

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return field with the Secretary *** by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary),  the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.”

Furnish argued that he met the requirements of Section 6201(d). The IRS argued that he had not; that he raised the issue too late in the proceedings; that he showed only minor calculation issues; and that Furnish had bad breath. The only evidence the IRS presented was a declaration by an insurance company employee, agreeing that Furnish did in fact have bad breath.

The Court decided that Furnish had raised enough doubt whether the Form 1099 income could be materially incorrect, and that Furnish had interacted reasonably in providing information and otherwise responding to the IRS. Furnish had met the requirements of Section 6201(d), and the burden of proof shifted to the IRS.

The IRS, having presenting no additional evidence beyond a Form 1099 and a letter from the insurance company, lost. They did not meet the burden of proof.

CONCLUSION: Some commentators consider this decision an outlier, and the judge has taken criticism in the literature. My experience is for the IRS to require the taxpayer to have the issuer either void or amend the disputed information form. Makes sense, in truth. Many times the issuer will, but then there are those hard-luck cases. Furnish gives practitioners an option to consider.