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.

Loan Warehousing And The Claim of Right

 

Tax returns are generally filed in one-year increments.

That raises an accounting question: what if the transaction being accounted for stretches over more than one year?

A variation is:

Set aside whether the whether the transaction resolved in the same period. Was there doubt as to a material fact affecting the transaction? If one were to redo the accounting knowing what one knows now, would there be a different answer?

This is the backdrop for the claim of right doctrine. Judge Brandeis referred to it in North American Oil Consolidated v Burnet (1932):

If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.”

You can immediately see a couple of requirements:

(1) The taxpayer is later required to return the money.

(2) The taxpayer, however, initially received the money without restriction upon its use.

If you are preparing a tax return and learn of the above, what do you do?

(1)  Amend the original tax return?

(2)  Deduct the repayment in the year of repayment?

It might not seem significant upon first hearing, but it can be. Here are two common ways it can be significant:

(1) The original year (that is, the year the income was reported) is closed under the statute of limitations.

(2) Tax rates have changed substantially between the years.

Congress finally passed a Code section codifying the claim of right doctrine in 1954:

26 U.S. Code § 1341 - Computation of tax where taxpayer restores substantial amount held under claim of right

(a) General rule If—

(1) an item was included in gross income for a prior taxable year (or years) because it appeared that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item;

(2) a deduction is allowable for the taxable year because it was established after the close of such prior taxable year (or years) that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to such item or to a portion of such item; and

(3) the amount of such deduction exceeds $3,000,

then the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be the lesser of the following:

(4) the tax for the taxable year computed with such deduction; or

(5) an amount equal to—

(A) the tax for the taxable year computed without such deduction, minus

(B) the decrease in tax under this chapter (or the corresponding provisions of prior revenue laws) for the prior taxable year (or years) which would result solely from the exclusion of such item (or portion thereof) from gross income for such prior taxable year (or years).

This is a rare find in the tax Code, as Congress actually expanded the claim of right to make it more taxpayer friendly. The Code still allows a deduction in the year of repayment, but it also allows a recalculation using the original year’s tax rates. If tax rates have decreased (overall or yours personally), the recalculation of the original year may be the better way to go.

Let’s look at Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner.

Here is the first sentence of the decision:

P overreported more than $7 million in income on its 2007 through 2013 federal income tax returns."

Big number. It caught my attention.

Norwich was a residential mortgage loan originator. It engaged in warehouse lending, a term that may sound mysterious but is really not. Here is what warehousing means in a lending context: 

• Norwich (call it the warehouse) borrows money, likely on a line of credit, to start the transaction. 
• The warehouse lends the money to a customer (in this case, a home buyer) in exchange for a promissory note. 
• The warehouse sells the promissory note to an investor. The money received from the sale is (almost certainly) deposited with the lender the warehouse itself borrowed the money from. 
• The lender does its calculations: how much is owed, how much interest is due and other charges, if any. It subtracts this amount from the amount deposited. Whatever is leftover is returned to the warehouse as gross profit (in this context called: mortgage fee income).

If you think about it, this is an inventory accounting of sorts, except that the inventory is money lent.

So, Norwich was a warehouse.

Liberty was Norwich’s primary lender. There were others, but let’s sidestep as they are not necessary to understand the tax issue at play.

Norwich had to design an accounting procedure for its mortgage fee income. It did the following: 

• First, all mortgage deposits were posted to Mortgage Fee Income.
• Second, the amounts kept by Liberty reduced Mortgage Fee Income.
• Third, Norwich would adjust Mortgage Fee Income to whatever Liberty said it was.
• Fourth, the difference was assumed to be Unsold Mortgages.

I get it, but Norwich should backstop its critical accounts.

Let’s see:

(1)  Cash

a.     Well, that is easy to backstop with a bank statement.

(2)  Loan payable to Liberty.

a.     Again: easy. Liberty should be able to tell them that number.

(3)  Unsold Mortgages.

a.     Liberty cannot help Norwich here, as these have not entered Liberty’s accounting system. They are off the radar as far as Liberty is concerned.

We have identified the weak spot in the accounting, as Unsold Mortgages are just a subtraction. Best practice would involve keeping detail – more or less, as required – to have a reality check on the running balance.

In 2014 Norwich started using new accounting software.

It could not reconcile certain accounts.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

Norwich contacted Liberty, who in turn provided detail and balances to help with reconciliations. One of those numbers was collateral held by Liberty to secure the line of credit. The collateral included everything, including loans in process or otherwise but not yet sold by Norwich.

If that sounds a lot like Norwich’s Unsold Mortgages account, that is because it is.

Liberty’s number was significantly less than Norwich’s – by over $7 million. Mind you, all this stuff was collateral for the line of credit. If the actual Unsold Mortgages balance was substantially less than previously reported, Norwich might be undercollateralized. The term for this is “out of trust,” and it could also cause problems for Liberty on the regulator side.

BTW Liberty did not initially believe that Norwich was correct or that the situation was urgent. Norwich tried repeatedly to schedule meetings with Liberty. Liberty in turn delayed, expecting nothing to be amiss.

We will fast forward through the banking side of this.

Norwich filed its claim of right refund – for $7.5 million – on its 2014 tax return.

The IRS denied the refund entirely.

You know this went to Court.

And the arguments are easy to predict:

Norwich: We had an unrestricted right to that income in prior years. It was not until 2014 that we discovered otherwise. Under claim of right, 2014 is the proper year for the deduction.

IRS: Everything here is a loan. Norwich issued loans. Norwich borrowed on loans. When originated loans were sold, Norwich in turn paid back its loans. Everything that happened here circles around loans of one type or another. The claim of right has nothing to do with loans.

Both sides had a point.

Here is the Court:

This, the Commissioner focuses on the origin of the funds rather than the origin of the transaction ….”

I agree. The business activity required extensive use of loans, but the intended result of all the loans was to generate a profit, not to maintain a loan into perpetuity.

The Court noted that everybody - including Liberty - thought that Norwich was entitled to the money when Norwich received it.

The repayment was also deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense and was not barred by another Code section.

2014 was also the correct year for the deduction. It was the year Norwich found the error, which discovery was memorialized in paperwork between Norwich and Liberty. Norwich agreed to either (1) provide more collateral or (2) pay down its line of credit with Liberty.

The Court did tweak some numbers, but overall Norwich prevailed in its claim of right refund request.

Our case this time was Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-43.

Is This Reasonable?

 

I have long maintained that the IRS is unreasonable by repeatedly disallowing reasonable cause exception to its numerous penalties. Their standard appears to allow little to no room for real-world variables – someone got sick, someone misunderstood the requirements (wow, how could that happen?), technology broke down, and so on.

Mind you, I say this after contacting the IRS – AGAIN – about returns we filed for two clients. In each case the IRS has misplaced the returns, failing its mission, causing needless (and incorrect) notices, and embarrassing us as practitioners. One of these returns will soon celebrate its one-year anniversary. The IRS has had plenty of time to investigate and resolve the matter. I have, and I am just one guy.

However, have a practitioner send a tax return two minutes after midnight on an extended due date and the IRS will penalize his/her tax practice to near bankruptcy. It may be that there was no electricity in the office until that very moment. No matter: there is no reasonable cause for things not functioning perfectly every time every place all the time.

The hypocrisy is almost suffocating. Let’s make the relationship reciprocal – for example, let me send the IRS an invoice for wasting my time – and see how quickly the IRS recoils in terror.

Let’s talk about RSBCO’s recent shout-out to the Supreme Court.

RSBCO was a wealth management company headquartered in Louisiana. It hired someone (let’s call him Smith) with a background in accounting to spearhead its IRS information reporting.

Smith took RSBCO successfully through one filing season.

Unbeknownst to anyone, however, Smith was fighting some dark demons, and the second filing season did not go as well.

Smith unfortunately waited until the final day to electronically file approximately 20,000 information returns using the IRS FIRE system. FIRE sent an automated e-mail that certain files had errors preventing them from being processed and RSBCO should send replacement files. The e-mail went only to Smith, so no one else at RSBCO knew.

Smith – approximately four months later – was able to resume work. He had been diagnosed with clinical depression, having suicidal ideation, and struggling to focus and complete tasks at work.

COMMENT: I am thinking Reg 301.6724-1(c):

(c) Events beyond the filer's control

(1) In general. In order to establish reasonable cause under this paragraph (c)(1), the filer must satisfy paragraph (d) of this section and must show that the failure was due to events beyond the filer's control. Events which are generally considered beyond the filer's control include but are not limited to—

(iv) Certain actions of an agent (as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section),

Smith saw the e-mails. He corrected the information returns.

QUESTION: What were the errors about? About dashes, that’s what. The IRS wanted dashes added or removed. Approximately 99% of the problem was little more than a spelling bee.

Smith had a successful third filing season.

Except for the $579,198 penalty notice the IRS sent for the information returns from season two.

COMMENT: Methinks that is a bit harsh for not winning a spelling bee.

Smith was still battling his health issues. He hid the penalty notice in his desk.

A few months later RSBCO let Smith go.

The new hire soon found the notice and tried to contact the IRS. The contact number provided was entirely automated, so the hire could never speak with a human being.

COMMENT: Been there, pal.

The IRS – thinking they had been ignored – sent a Final Notice. RSBCO requested a Due Process Hearing.

The Hearing Officer for the CDP hearing mostly waived off RSBCO’s side of the story. After a Solomonic 15-minute reflection, the Officer did offer to abate 25% of the penalty amount.

COMMENT: It’s something.

RSBCO had to decide how to proceed. They decided to pay the IRS $579 grand and pursue the refund administratively.

In December 2018 RSBCO filed a Claim for Refund.

The IRS received it. And then lost it.

Uh huh.

In August 2019 RSBCO filed a lawsuit.

In June 2020 – after irritating the court – the IRS promised RSBCO that it would play fair if they refiled the claim.

RSBCO agreed and withdrew the lawsuit.

In September it filed its Claim for Refund … again.

And the IRS lost it … again.

COMMENT: You see what is going on here, don’t you?

In May 2021 RSBCO filed a second lawsuit in district court.

In September 2022, the jury decided that RSBCO had reasonable cause for penalty abatement.

COMMENT: Will this ever end?

The IRS processed the refund … wait … no, no … that’s wrong. The IRS appealed the district court decision to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit found that jury instructions were flawed. The district court stated that an employee’s mental health - by itself - did not give rise to reasonable cause. The jury was not properly instructed.

QUESTION: I guess the following by the district court judge was unclear to the IRS, which DID NOT object:

Anything else? Anybody want to put your objection [to jury charges] on the record if you’d like objecting to them?”

COMMENT: I can see the confusion. Making out this question is like trying to plumb the metaphysics of James Joyce’s Ulysses. No wonder the IRS failed to object.

In October 2023 RSBCO petitioned the Supreme Court.

Which just declined the petition.

Meaning the Fifth Circuit has the final word.

The Fifth Circuit wants a new trial.

Will this nightmare ever end?

It is … unreasonable.

Our case this time was RSBCO v U.S., US Supreme Court Docket 24-561.

The Old Three And Two

 

You will recognize the issue.

During 2017 Mary deNourie worked at a retail store. She had wages of $11,516 and social security of $7,559. She and her husband did not file an income tax return because the withholding was enough to cover any tax due.

In 2021 the IRS contacted them about not filing a 2017 tax return. The IRS was preparing a substitute for return showing the wages and social security as well as partnership income of $25,065. When you throw the partnership into the mix, they now owed tax of $4,192, plus interest and penalties.

What partnership income, they exclaimed? The partnership had not paid them anything.

COMMENT: That is not the way partnerships are taxed. For example, a 10% partner will generally be taxable on 10% of the partnership’s taxable income. This amount is reported to a partner on Schedule K-1, a copy of which goes to the IRS. Whether the partner has received cash to go with that K-1 does not matter to the IRS. That is a matter for the partner to take up with the partnership.

I then see a court order in April 2023 releasing the husband from the matter.

That is unusual. What happened?

The IRS had not sent out a Notice of Deficiency – the 90-day letter – to the husband. This is a no-no. The IRS also has rules and procedures, and each spouse (on a joint return) must receive his or her own Notice of Deficiency. Mary received hers. He did not.

Now Mary was on her own.

Coincidentally, the partnership income went away.

COMMENT: It appears the husband owned the partnership.

We are back to Mary’s W-2 and social security.

Mary and the IRS worked on an agreement. There was no tax due for 2017. In fact, there was an overpayment of $284.

Mary wanted the $284.

Can’t blame her.

The IRS said no.

Mary in response refused to sign the agreement.

In March 2024 Mary filed a tax return for 2017. She wanted her refund.

What do you think: will Mary receive that refund?

Here is the relevant law:

Sec. 6511 Limitations on credit or refund

Period of limitation on filing claim. Claim for credit or 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. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.

Right or wrong, there is a limit on how long you can wait to file for a refund. If you file a return, for example, you have three years to amend for a refund.

There is a riff on the above rule if you file now and pay later. The Code will then permit a refund until 2 years after the tax is paid if that date is after the three-year date.

Notice what this three-and-two have in common:

          You filed a return.

If you do not file a return, the rule gets grimmer:

          You have until 2 years after the tax was paid.

If you file, you start with three and might move to two – and only if two allows for more time.

Don’t file and you have two – period. You have no choice.

Let’s see what Mary did:

·       Mary’s 2017 tax return was due April 15, 2018.

·       She did not file, so the mandatory two-year rule applies.

·       There is still hope, though. If she files within three years – by April 15, 2021 – she can flip the mandatory two back to the normal three-and-two.

o   She filed 2017 in March 2024.

Nope. Too late all around.

Mary had no tax due for 2017, but she likewise had no refund for 2017.

My thought? If you have withholding, consider filing even if there is no tax due. Why? Because withholding represents tax paid, and not filing triggers the mandatory two-year rule. By filing you move to the three-and-two rule. It may save you; it may not, but it provides more breathing room than the alternative.

Today we discussed Mary deNourie v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket 18182-22.

Not Quite The Informal Claim Doctrine

 

I am looking at a district court opinion from Illinois.

I find the discussion of the numbers a bit confusing. It happens sometimes.

But there something here we should talk about.

We have recently discussed the tax concept of a “claim.” In normal-person-speak, it means you want the government to refund your money. The classic claim is an amended income tax return, but there can be claims for other-than-income taxes. It is its own niche, as using the wrong form can result in having your claim rejected.

Let’s look at the American Guardian Holdings case.

AGH filed its 2015 tax return on September 19, 2016.

Here are the numbers on the original tax return:     

	Original
Revenues	152,092,338
Taxable income	4,880,521
Tax	1,327,806

 The accountant found an error and amended the return on June 6, 2019.

			First
	Original		Original	Amended
Revenues	152,092,338		152,092,338	154,808,792
Taxable income	4,880,521		4,880,521	11,084,397
Tax	1,327,806		1,327,806	148,243
Refund				(1,179,563)

Let me see: The 2015 return would have been extended to October 15, 2016. The amended return was prepared June 6, 2019. Yep, we are within the statute of limitations.

Problem: AGH never sent the amended return.

Answer: AGH hired a new accountant.

The new accountant filed an amended return on September 19, 2019.

COMMENT: Still a few days left on the statute.

For some reason, the accountant incorporated the first amended (even though it had not been filed) into the second amended, resulting in the following hodgepodge:

		First		Second
		Original	Amended	Original	Amended
Revenues		154,808,792	141,773,572	154,808,792	?
Taxable income		11,084,397	7,446,746	11,084,397	?
Tax		1,327,806	148,243	1,327,806	0
Refund			(1,179,563)		(148,243)
Total refund					(1,327,806)

Huh? I would find that second amended confusing. On first impression it appears that AGH is filing a claim for $148,243, but that is incorrect. AGH was stacking the second amended on top of its first. AGH is filing a claim for $1,327,806, which is the entire tax on the original return.

Not surprisingly, the IRS also responded with “huh?” It could not process the second amended return because the “Original” numbers did not match its records.

AGH responded by filing yet another amended return (third amended). Mind you, at this point it was after October 15, 2019, and the statute of limitations was in the rear view mirror.

AGH did the following:

(1)  AGH explained that the new and shiny (third) amended return incorporated the previously (non-filed) first amended return and the second (actually filed) amended return. As a consequence, the “previously-filed amended return for 2015 should be discarded.”

COMMENT: NO! 

(2)  AGH further explained that it was filing Form 1120-PC (a specialized tax form for property and casualty insurance companies) as its third amended return rather than the Form 1120 originally filed because it had received permission to change its method of accounting.

COMMENT: NO!!

I am somewhat shocked at how deep a hole AGH had dug, and more shocked that it kept digging.

Let’s go through the wreckage:

(1)  AGH filed its (second) amended return/claim within the statute of limitations.

(2)  This creates an issue if the claim is imperfect, as one would be perfecting the claim AFTER the statute expires. Fortunately, there is a way (called the informal claim doctrine) that allows one to perfect a claim after the original filing date and still retain the benefit of that original date. 

(3)  The IRS immediately seized on the “previously-filed amended return for 2015 should be discarded” statement to argue that AGH had violated the informal claim doctrine.  If the second amended return was discarded, there was no timely-filed return to which the informal claim doctrine could attach. Fortunately, the Court decided that the use of the word “discard” did not actually mean what it sounded like. AGH dodged a bullet, but it should never have fired.

(4)  That leaves the third amended return, which was filed after the statute expired. AGH of course argued informal claim, but it had committed a fatal act by changing its method of accounting. You see, the informal claim allows one to clarify, document and explain whatever issue is vague or in dispute within the claim at issue. What one is not allowed to do is to change the facts. AGH had changed the facts by changing its method of accounting, meaning its third amended return could not be linked to the second via the informal claim doctrine.

(5)  Standing on its own, the third amended of course failed as it was filed after the statute had expired.    

This case is a nightmare. I am curious whether there was a CPA or law firm involved; if so, a malpractice suit is almost a given. If the work was done in-house, then … AGH needs to tighten up its hiring standards. The case reads like there were no adults in the room.

All is not lost for AGH, however.

Remember that AGH filed its second amended return within the statute of limitations.  The matter then went off the rails and the Court booted the third amended return.

But that leaves the second amended. Can AGH resuscitate it, as technically the Court dismissed the third claim but not necessarily the second?  It would likely require additional litigation and associated legal fees, and I would expect the IRS to fight tooth and nail. AGH would have to weigh the cost-benefit.

Our case this time was American Guardian Holdings, Inc v United States of America, No. 1:2023cv 01482, Northern District of Illinois.