Losing A Refund: Revisiting The Statute(s) of Limitations

 

I am thinking she got hosed.

I am looking at a district court decision. It involves Michelle Moy, and it remarkably bridges 2011 to the 2020 COVID year.

Let’s talk about it.

In May 2011 Moy was assessed $32,507 by the IRS because she failed to file a 2008 tax return. In this situation, the IRS may prepare a return for you (called a substitute for return) and proceed accordingly with collections activity.

COMMENT: It is rare that a substitute for return (SFR) will be to your advantage. The IRS will throw in all the positive numbers it can find, but it will not include negative numbers with the same zeal. It is almost always to your advantage to file a return rather than accept an SFR.

QUESTION: Here is an obscure practice question: when you file the 2008 return with an SFR already on file, is it considered an amended return? The answer is below.

Turns out that Moy had $20,447 in 2008 U.K. foreign taxes available for credit. Assuming that the foreign tax credit was available dollar-for-dollar, Moy owed $12 grand rather than the $32 grand the IRS wanted.

Seems easy enough. File the return. Pay the $12 grand plus interest and penalties and move on.

It appears Moy instead paid the $32 grand. She did not realize and overpaid.

I say that because she filed a claim for refund in April 2018. I presume the claim was for the $20 grand of foreign taxes.

In August 2018, the IRS bounced the claim as being outside the statute of limitations.

COMMENT: The statute for a refund claim is generally the latter of (a) three years from assessment date or (b) two years from the date of payment. Assessment here was in 2011, so the first period would have expired in 2014. Assuming she paid the $32 grand before April 2016, the second period would have also expired before she filed in April 2018.

Moy filed a protest with Appeals.

Appeals stalled, responding three times (in December 2019, February 2020, and March 2020), each time asking for another 60 days.

I think we all remember what happened in March 2020, so I withhold blame.

The IRS dismissed her appeal in January 2021, arguing that the statute of limitations for refund had expired.

In June 2023, Moy filed a lawsuit against the United States.

Confused yet?

Let’s sort this out.

What is happening is that there are two statutes of limitations coming into play here. In fact, it would be more accurate to say two and a half.

The first is the standard 3 years/2 years. This is the statute for filing a refund claim. In this context, Moy filing a 2008 return showing that foreign tax credit counts as a refund claim.

NOTE: In answer to our question above, Moy would file an original – not a an amended – 2008 return. The SFR is not considered a return for this purpose, so the first filing by the taxpayer would be considered the original filing.

Mind you, her 2008 filing was likely outside the 3/2 combo, so how did Moy argue that the statute for refund was still open?

Look at this pearl:

        § 6511 Limitations on credit or refund.

(d)  Special rules applicable to income taxes.

(3)  Special rules relating to foreign tax credit.

(A)  Special period of limitation with respect to foreign taxes paid or accrued. If the claim for credit or refund relates to an overpayment attributable to any taxes paid or accrued to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States for which credit is allowed against the tax imposed by subtitle A in accordance with the provisions of section 901 or the provisions of any treaty to which the United States is a party, in lieu of the 3-year period of limitation prescribed in subsection (a) , the period shall be 10 years from the date prescribed by law for filing the return for the year in which such taxes were actually paid or accrued.

 

Yep, the foreign tax credit gets its own 10 year statute of limitations. Let’s see, the 2008 return was due April 2009. Add ten years and we get April 2019. She filed a refund claim in April 2018. She appears to be within the statute period for filing a refund claim.

So why did the Court say she was out of statute?

There is one more statute of limitations to consider.

        § 6532 Periods of limitation on suits.

(a)  Suits by taxpayers for refund.

(1)  General rule.

No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.

 What does this mishmash mean?

This statute applies to the IRS and authorizes the IRS to pay a refund up to two years after disallowing a claim for refund.

When did the IRS disallow Moy’s refund claim?

In August 2018.

Add two years and you have August 2020.

When did Moy file suit?

In 2023.

The IRS is prohibited from issuing a refund.

To recap, the familiar 3/2 statute of limitations applies to a taxpayer filing a refund claim.

The second statute (2 years, no more, no less) applies to the IRS paying the refund claim.

Moy cleared the first.

She did not clear the second.    

Are there administrative options?

None that excites me.

Could she have done something differently?

While a long shot, she could have asked to extend the refund statute. The difficulty is that both sides must sign, and it can be difficult to find someone at the IRS with authority to sign.

Realistically, her best option was filing a refund suit with the district court or U.S. Court of Claims. I would much rather go to Tax Court – as that court has procedures for pro se taxpayers – but the Tax Court does not accept refund suits. You must owe the IRS to get your ticket punched on the Tax Court Express.

Moy was hosed. She went into COVID with a two year window to get her refund. Little could she anticipate IRS employees being sent home - meaning no access to correspondence mailed to IRS addresses, unprocessed returns and mail accumulating in trailers, the later shredding of such returns and mail, and the agency becoming near unreachable for extended periods “due to a high volume of calls.”

And those IRS letters asking for “another 60 days”?

You would have to get a court to allow equitable tolling. Notice that the IRS did not do so on its own power. They were quick to ask for another six months while processing Moy’s appeal, but they did not toll a single minute on the Section 6532 limitation on her refund.

Looking back, IRS Appeals should have included Form 907 with any refund claims assigned during the COVID era. Unfortunately, the IRS still has no policy or practice of doing this, so any responsibility for this tax obscurity falls fully on the taxpayer (and his/her tax representative). 

Our case this time was Moy v United States, Case No 23-cv-03151-PP (Northern District of California 2024).

You Must Give The IRS Time

I understand the court’s decision, but I suspect the most interesting part is how this case even got to court.

The issue is almost prosaic:

Somona Lofton filed a 2021 Form 1040X (that is, an amended individual tax return) on May 18, 2022. She requested a refund of $5,362.

The dates strike me as odd. The 2021 return was due April 18, 2022. Lofton filed an amended return one month later. Does it happen? Sure and usually because someone left something out – maybe a W-2 or a broker’s account. That would normally increase tax though, so I am expecting a story.

The IRS did not immediately process the return.

I am not surprised. This was IRSCOVID202020212022, and you were lucky to get someone over there to even answer the phone.

Lofton filed a refund case against the IRS on September 14, 2022.

That was a waste.

Let’s talk about it.

Like any large organization, the IRS has policies and procedures to follow. I would argue that sometimes the rules approximate self-inflicted wounds, but I understand that coordinating that many people and processing that much data requires standardization.

And right there is a reason that many practitioners got upset during IRSCOVID202020212022. The system broke down. One side of the IRS was inadequately processing returns, correspondence, penalty appeals or whatnot, while the Collections side continued undeterred and unhindered.

Why was it broken? Because much of the Collections side is automated. Those notices go out without passing human eyes. If the IRS fails to match a 1099-whatever to your return, bank on receiving a CP2000 notice. Ignore it – or submit a response and then have the IRS ignore it - and you have entered automated hell. A tax practitioner can usually obtain time, allowing a break for response and processing, but the practitioner likely needs to speak with someone to obtain that time.

Yeah, no. Didn’t work when the IRS wasn’t answering the phone.

Back to Lofton.

May, September. I would have advised her to chill.

She however was not using a tax practitioner. She filed the case pro se, meaning she was representing herself. I am – frankly – impressed. Filing pro se with the Tax Court is one thing (and bad enough), but she filed pro se with the US Court of Claims. At first, I thought a tax clinic may have helped, but – no - that couldn’t be. A tax clinic would have told her to wait.

Why?

Look at this Code section:

§ 6532 Periods of limitation on suits.

(a)  Suits by taxpayers for refund.

(1)  General rule.

No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.

The IRS has six months to respond to your request for refund. Six months should be sufficient time for the IRS to adequately review a refund claim (at least in normal times). The flip side is that Congress did not want the IRS parking on a refund claim, effectively denying a refund by never processing it.  

Lofton filed suit within six months.

The Court immediately dismissed the suit. Easiest decision they made that week.

I find the rest of her story more interesting.

For example, she complained that the California Department of Social Services harassed her and withheld her benefits.

She was swinging hard.

… Civil damages for Certain Unauthorized collection action 1,000,000”

… Emotional distress $250,000”

I am not certain how that involves the Federal Court of Claims. The Court noted the same and dismissed her allegations.

Then we learn that she initially filed her 2021 federal tax return claiming a refund of $6,668. The IRS adjusted it for one of the refundable credits, reducing her refund to $3,918.

OK. She already received some of her refund as the IRS sent those monthly child tax payments.

Still, let’s do math. $3,918 plus $5,362 from the amended totals refunds of $9,280. Her original refund request was $6,668.

The woman is a tax Houdini.

Our case this time was Lofton V United States. U.S. Court of Claims, No 1:22-cv-01335.

Not Cracking The Code

We have picked up two or three nonfiler clients this season. By itself, this does not overly concern me, although there are nasty tax traps concerning refunds and overpayments for nonfiled years. Did you know, for example, that – if you go long enough without filing – the IRS will not refund your overpayment? Nonetheless, one files, pays tax due with the IRS and carries on.

Then there is a subcategory of nonfilers that could be referred to as protestors. I have little patience for those. I recently picked up a corporate tax audit client, and it is proving to be a very difficult examination. There are several reasons, but I believe a key reason is that one of the owners may be walking this line.

I am looking at a Tax Court case decided last month: Waltner v Commissioner. This is a protestor case, and it is a bit unusual. In general, courts have given protestors short patience. This time the court took the time to go through the arguments and address them one by one.

Have you hear about Peter Hendrickson? He is a protestor himself, and he wrote a book titled Cracking the Code. It appears that Waltner studied Hendrickson closely, as the techniques he used follow the book’s recommendations.

The case concerns Mr. Waltner’s 2008 individual tax return, in which he reported zero wages, an IRA distribution, a student loan interest deduction and home mortgage interest. All in all, it came down to zero tax liability, which is understandable when you report zero wages.

Mind you, he received three W-2s, but Waltner submitted Forms 4852 (Substitute for Form W-2), reporting zero wages but showing income tax withheld. He also received a Form 1099-B (Proceeds from Broker), but crossed-out proceeds of $5,000 and inserted zero. He then wrote the following text:

This correcting Form 1099-B is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as “Payer” and “Broker” which erroneously alleged a payment to the party identified above as …. of “gross proceeds” in connection with a “trade or business.” Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.”

The IRS was having none of this and sent a letter requesting a corrected return. The IRS otherwise was going to assess a frivolous submission penalty of $5,000.

He didn’t. They did. Then they issued a notice of intent to levy.

Waltner requested a Collection Due Process hearing, submitting a 49-page brief.

COMMENT: Trust me, 49 pages is impressive.

So the Appeals officer got to read the following:

·       Waltner was not “an officer, employee or elected official of the United States”

·       He was “never an officer of a corporation”

·       He “did not receive Wages from any source”

·       He "did not work for or receive any pay from an Employer or American employer”

·       He “was not engaged in Employment”

·       He “was not an Employee”

·       He “was not engaged in Self-employment”

·       He “was not a citizen or resident of the District of Columbia or any territory or possession of the United States”

·       He “was never incorporated in Washington, D.C. or worked for any company who incorporated in Washington, D.C.”

·       He “was not a governmental unit or agency or instrumentality thereof, or a United States Person”

In addition to not understanding the rules for capitalization in the English language, he appears to be flying the tax protestor flag.

The Appeals officer warned him about frivolous arguments. Waltner did not back down. The IRS assessed him. Waltner then filed with the Tax Court.

It took months to go before the Court, during which time the two parties filed 24 motions, resulting in the Court issuing 22 orders. The maneuverings defy belief:

·       The IRS moved for admissions, meaning they wanted to know Waltner’s reasoning for the substitute W-2s. The Court, being a good sport, issued a 39-page order reviewing 44 requests for admissions and 83 supplemental requests.

·       Waltner responded with boilerplate language but not otherwise addressing the issues under discovery.

·       The IRS responded with a 993-page request for admissions.

·       Waltner filed a motion for protective order delaying discovery.

·       The IRS filed an objection. The Court accepted some and dismissed some.

·       Less than a month later Waltner filed a motion to compel stipulation. The motion was filed under an arcane procedure known as Rule 9(f).

·       The IRS responded, so the motion was discharged.

·       The IRS filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, which the Court granted.

·       Waltner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied.

·       Waltner sought an extension to respond to the interrogatories, which the Court granted.

·       Waltner never responded to the interrogatories. Instead he paid the $5,000 fine.

·       Waltner filed to have the IRS answer interrogatories, to which the IRS filed objection.

·       The IRS responded to the interrogatories. The Court found some acceptable and others not.

·       The IRS filed for supplemental information from Waltner.

·       Waltner filed a motion for reconsideration.

Do you see the game being played here? Rather than provide arguments, Waltner is neck-deep in Tax Court procedural minutiae. No wonder the Courts hate protest cases.

When all is said and done, Waltner lost and the IRS requested the Court to apply a $25,000 Section 6673 penalty.

The Court instead went on the discuss Cracking the Code, noting how Waltner’s arguments and techniques mirror the book. Here are some gems, for example: 

·       The federal government has legislative authority over only the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

·       The Revenue Act of 1862 imposed a 3% tax only on federal employees.

·       Federal direct taxes which affect citizens of the several states must be apportioned (a position which predates the 16^th Amendmnet).

·       Remuneration for work is not profit and is therefore not taxable.

You get the idea.

The court could have assessed a $25,000 penalty for wasting its time, but it decided instead to impose a $2,500 penalty, adding:

Mr. Waltner has other matters pending in this Court in which he is asserting arguments similar to those presented in this case, and he has now been cautioned in both an order and this opinion. We hope that he will heed the warning.”

The Court is allowing Waltner to back down, although I am not optimistic that he will.

There are any number of reasons for not filing. There can be illness, death, emotional collapse, for example. The IRS will mitigate if not abate penalties in many cases. Protest is not one of them. This is a bad street late on a dark night, and nothing good will be found there.