Waiting Too Long For Refund Of Excess Withholdings

It happens when someone fails to file with the IRS. It might be a “sleeping dog” rationalization, but people will allow a string of tax years to go unfiled, even if some of those years have refunds rather than tax due.

This is a trap, and I saw it sprung earlier this year on a widow. It was unfortunate, as she still has kids at home and could use the money.

The trap is that tax refunds are not payable after a period of time. The Code wants closure on tax matters. The IRS has three years to audit you. You in turn have three years to request a refund. These are general rules, and there are relief valves for the unusual situation: the IRS can request you to voluntarily extend the statute, for example, or you can file a protective claim if your three years are running out.

Let’s look at the Golden case.

Michael Golden did not file his 2015 tax return. In fact, he waited so long that the IRS prepared a return for him (called a substitute for return or SFR). The IRS does not spot a taxpayer any breaks when they do this (no itemized deductions or head of household status, for example). The IRS instead is trying to get a taxpayer’s attention, prompting them to file a return and opt back into the system. In April 2021 (five years after the return was actually due) the IRS issued its notice of deficiency (NOD, sometimes referred to as SNOD). The SNOD is the IRS trying to perfect its assessment prior to sending the account to Collections for their tender mercies. The SNOD showed tax due.

A few days after receiving the SNOD, Golden filed his 2015 tax return. It showed a refund.

Of course.

Golden wanted his refund. The IRS said it could not issue a refund.

There is a technical rule.  

Here it is:

         Section 6511(a)  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.

Tax law can be tricky, but there are two rules here:

(1) The default period is three years (to coincide with the statute of limitations). The period starts on April 15 (when the return is due) and ends 3 years later, unless one requested an extension, in which case the default period also includes the extension (normally to October 15).

(2) Refuse to go along with the default rule and you might trigger the second rule: only taxes paid within two years of filing can be refunded.

As a generalization, you do not want the second rule. Why limit yourself to taxes paid within two years when you can have taxes paid within three years (and the extension period, if an extension was requested).

The IRS was also looking at this shiny:

Section 6511(b) Limitation on allowance of credits and refunds.

(1)  Filing of claim within prescribed period.

No credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed in subsection (a) for the filing of a claim for credit or refund, unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within such period.

Notice that Congress included the phrase “shall be allowed.” Another way to say this is that – if you do not fit within the three-year test or the two-year test – your refund claim “shall” not be allowed. This was the IRS position: hey, we do not have much discretion here.

Let’s review the dates for Golden.

We are talking about his 2015 return. The return was due April 15, 2016. Add three years. Let’s be kind and add three years plus the extension. His three years clock-out on October 15, 2019. Three years will not get you to a refund.

The two year rule is even worse.

Golden argued fairness. He was working in the private sector as well as the Navy Reserve, and the demands therefrom made his life “extremely difficult.” In tax terms, this argument is referred to as “equity.” Some courts can consider equitable arguments, but the Tax Court is not one of them.

Here is the Court:

          We sympathize with petitioner’s predicament.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the limitations on refunds of overpayments prescribed in section 6512(b)(3) shall be given effect, consistent with Congress’s intent as expressed in the plain text of the statute, regardless of any perceived harshness to the taxpayer. See Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. at 250–53. Because Congress has not given us authority to award refunds based solely on equitable factors, we are compelled to grant respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

It was not a total loss for Golden, however. Since he did file a return, the IRS reduced his 2015 tax due to zero. He did not owe anything. He could not, however, recover any overpayment. He left that 2015 refund on the table.

What do you do if you are caught in a work situation like Golden? It is not a perfect answer, but file with the information you can readily assemble. Pay someone to prepare the return (within reason, of course). Hey, maybe you missed interest on a small money market account or took the standard deduction when itemized deductions would have given you a smidgeon more. The IRS will let you know about the first one (computer matching), and if there is enough money there you can amend later (the second one). At least you will get your basic refund claim in.

Our case this time was Golden v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 023-103.

A Puff Piece

 

Although we do not condone her inconsistency, we find it is merely puffery in an attempt to obtain new employment and of no significance here.”

There is a word one rarely sees in tax cases: puffery.

Puffery is an exaggeration. It approaches a lie but stops short, and presumably no “reasonable” person would believe what is being said or take it literally. The distinction matters if one’s puffery can be used against them as a statement of fact.

Let’s look at the Robinson case.

Mr Robinson had a lawn care business. Beverly Robinson had a job at Georgia Pacific, but in 2007 she started working at the lawn care business. She did the billing. She was also listed on the business checking account, but she never wrote checks.

She must have been the face of the business through, as for 2007 through 2009 most of the Forms 1099 to the business were sent in her name.

In 2010 the marriage went south. Mr Robinson moved out, and Beverly’s dad chipped-in to pay the mortgage on her house. Needless to say, she was not working at the company with all that going on.

In 2011 they filed a joint tax return for 2010. The return showed tax due of approximately $43 grand. She must have separated hard from the business, as no Forms 1099 were issued to her; all the Forms 1099 were issued to him.

COMMENT: I do not understand filing a joint tax return with someone you are likely to divorce. In Beverly’s defense, though, she did not realize that she had an option. They hired a tax preparer (likely because of the business), but the preparer never explained that the option to file separately existed.

In 2011 she was telling the IRS that they could not pay the 2010 tax debt. She also asked about innocent spouse status.

In 2012 they file a joint 2011 tax return. She was working again at another Georgia Pacific facility and had tax withholdings. The IRS took her withholdings and applied them to the 2010 tax year.

COMMENT: That is how it works.

In 2013 Beverly needed to find a new job. She uploaded her resume on a jobseeker website. She listed her Georgia Pacific gig. She also listed Robinson Lawn Care and embellished her duties, especially glossing over the fact that she no longer worked there.

In 2013 Mr Robinson somehow forced his way back into her house. She called the police and was told that they could not evict him since the two were still married.

In October, 2013 she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

About time. The year before Mr Robinson had fathered a child with another woman. In 2013 he started paying her child support.

The divorce became final in 2014. Mr Robinson agreed to assume the 2010 tax due.

Riiiight.

In 2015 she files for innocent spouse because of that 2010 tax debt and the IRS continuing to take her refunds.

The IRS turned down her request.

One of the requirements is that the tax liability for which the spouse is seeking relief belong to the “nonrequesting” spouse. In this case, the nonrequesting spouse was Mr Robinson.

He testified that he had moved out of the house in 2013. Oh, he also remembered Beverly working in the business in 2010.

Not good.

The IRS looked at certain Florida registrations that showed her name through 2014.

They also pointed out that she was a signatory on the business checking account.

Then they looked at her resume on that jobseeker website.

The Court was having none of it.

As for Mr Robinson:

Throughout the trial Mr. Robinson’s testimony was relatively inconsistent, and we give it little value.”

As for the registrations:

Although petitioner is listed as the registered owner of Robinson Lawn Care from December 1998 to December 2014, we find the reason for her filing the fictitious name--that her former husband worked during the day--is a sufficient explanation for why she is listed instead of Mr. Robinson. Moreover, she did not sign any State filings in 2010 or thereafter.

As for the checking account:

Similarly we find that petitioner’s name on the business account is not persuasive support for respondent’s position as Mr. Robinson had control of that account and she never wrote checks on it.

The Court pointed out that none of the 2010 Forms 1099 were made out to her, in clear contrast to prior tax years.

We saw above the Court’s comment on her puffery.

It was clear who the Court believed – and did not believe.

The Court decided that she was entitled to innocent spouse relief.

She cut it close, though.

Our case this time was Beverly Robinson v Commissioner of Internal Revenue T.C. Memo 2020-134.

The IRS And Bull

One thing with a blog by a practicing tax CPA: you get a feel for whatever is going across my desk at the moment.

Let’s get historical and look at a Supreme Court case from 1935.

The case is Bull v United States. I kid you not.

Mr. Bull died in 1920.

He was a partner in a partnership.

His share of the partnership profits through his date of death was $24,124. His share of the profits for the rest of the year was $212,719.

The executor filed an estate tax return (that is, the tax return on the net assets Mr. Bull died with). That return included both the $24,124 and the $212,719. The executor paid whatever the estate tax was.

The executor then filed an income tax return for the estate.

COMMENT: Mr. Bull would have had a personal income tax return up to the day of his death. His estate would also have an income tax return, starting the day after he died. The estate would pay income tax until the assets were distributed (by will, contract or whatever). Whoever received the assets would pick-up their income tax consequence from that point on.

The executor did not include the $212,719 representing Mr. Bull’s share of the profits after his death.

COMMENT: The quirky detail here is that the partnership agreement allowed Mr. Bull to participate in profits for the year even after he died. I interpret that to mean that his estate would participate, as Mr. Bull could not do so personally. After all, he died.

The IRS threw a conniption, arguing that the estate should have reported the $212,719 on its income tax return. The IRS assessed income taxes.

I think the IRS is right: the partnership income after Mr. Bull’s death is (income) taxable to his estate.

But I think the IRS was wrong to include that same income on the estate (that is, his net assets at death) tax return. Why? Simple: That income could not have been an asset to Mr. Bull at death as it did not exist as of the date of his death.

I say that the executor paid too much estate tax.

The executor agreed and wanted the taxes back.

Problem: too much time had elapsed. The refund was barred under the statute of limitations. The IRS had zero intention of refunding even a penny.

What to do?

There was nothing in the tax law per se for a situation like this. Folks, this was the 1930s.

But we had a tradition of English common law and equity. The Supreme Court acknowledged that what was happening here was unfair.

The Supreme Court reasoned:

·      There is one transaction underlying both tax situations.

·      The IRS claim for a deficiency allows for an argument of recoupment, since the overpayment and deficiency arose from the same transaction.

·      Recoupment as a defense is never barred by the statute of limitations. It cannot, as it is a doctrine of equity.

If the Supreme Court could not get to this result using the tax statutes available, it would get to the result by introducing what has come to be known as “equitable recoupment.”

The IRS had to allow the estate to offset one tax against the other. Allowing two bites at the same apple was inequitable. The key is that one transaction – the same transaction – is triggering two or more taxes

Bull was – from what I understand – the first time we see the equitable recoupment doctrine in tax law. In Bull it mitigated the otherwise severe absolutism of the statute of limitations.

OK, this was not a particularly thrilling day at my desk.

Can You Have A Mortgage Interest Deduction Without A Mortgage?

A new client comes in to meet with you. Let's call him Burley. Burley lives with his girlfriend, Julie, who purchased a house. The deed and mortgage is in her name, as Burley has lousy credit. He would have been no help with a mortgage approval.

Burley and Julie consider themselves domestic partners with equal ownership of the house.

Burley pays Julie $1,000 a month as "interest only" mortgage payments. Burley is not a big fan of bank accounts, preferring to conduct much of his activity in cash. This means he does not have cancelled checks to back-up his claim.

QUESTION: Does Burley have a tax deduction for mortgage interest?

The first problem is that Burley does not own the house.

This may seem fatal, but there is a loophole. Many states recognize the doctrine of equitable ownership, and their courts will enforce express or implied contracts between nonmarital partners. It is possible to have a tax deduction, even if you are not on the deed or mortgage, as long as your nonmarital partner is and you can prove such a contract.

But while a necessary first step, the tax Code goes further. It wants to see that the equitable owner has taken on the burdens of ownership as well as the benefits. Such burdens, for example, would include:

            (1) the right to use the property and enjoy its use

            (2) a duty to maintain the property

            (3) a responsibility to insure the property

            (4) the assumption of risk of loss

            (5) a responsibility to pay taxes and assessments

            (6) the right to improve the property

Burley pays $1,000 a month, which amount would cover his share of the mortgage payment, as well as (supposedly) his share of the insurance, taxes and other expenses of ownership. The amount does not vary for repairs, or for snow removal in the winter or lawn-mowing in the summer.

That sounds a lot like rent.

It would help if the arrangement between Burley and Julie were reduced to writing. After all, real estate is a significant purchase for most people, and it is not be unreasonable to want the agreement documented.

Burley and Julie of course have no such document.

Well, at least Julie could show up in person at the hearing and answer the judge's questions. Considering that Burley has little proof to provide on his own power, her testimony would be important.

Julie doesn't want to do that, however, but she is willing to send a letter instead.

The case is Jackson, and it is a pro se Tax Court case decided in July.

Jackson lost, which is about as surprising as daily summer showers in south Florida.

Here is the Court:

           

Because she held legal title to the residence and was the sole mortgagee, [Julie's] testimony would have been highly relevant to the question whether she and petitioner had agreed (expressly or impliedly) that he would hold an interest in the property.... Despite ample advance notice of the trial date and the Court's considerable flexibility in scheduling the trial in these cases, [Julie] did not appear as a witness."

What happens when you anger the Court?

Under the circumstances, we give no weight to [Julie's] ... letter to respondent's counsel related to petitioner's history of transferring funds to her."                              

This was the Court's polite way of saying "we do not believe you."

Romancing The Income

Let’s discuss Blagaich, an early 2016 decision from the Tax Court. This is a procedural decision within a larger case of whether cash and property transfers represent income. 

Blagaich was the girlfriend and in 2010 was 54 years old.

Burns was the boyfriend and in 2010 was 72 years old.

Their romance lasted from November 2009 until March 2011.

It appears that Burns was fairly well heeled, as he wired her $200,000, bought her a Corvette and wrote her several checks. These added up to $343,819.

He was sweet on her, and she on him. Neither wanted to marry, but Burns wanted some level of commitment. What to do …?

On November 29, 2010 they decided to enter into a written agreement. This would formalize their “respect, appreciation and affection for each other.” They would “respect each other and … continue to spend time with each other consistent with their past practice.” Both would “be faithful to each other and … refrain from engaging in intimate or other romantic relations with any other individual.”

The agreement required Burns to immediately pay Blagaich $400,000, because nothing says love like a check you can immediately take to the bank.

Surprisingly, the relationship went downhill soon after entering into the agreement.

On March 10, 2011 Blagaich moved out of Burn’s house.

The next day Burns sent her a notice of termination of the agreement.

That same month Burns also sued her for nullification of the agreement, as she had been involved with another man throughout the entire relationship. He wanted his Corvette, his diamond ring - all of it - returned.

Somewhere in here Burns must have met with his accountant, as he/she sent Blagaich a Form 1099-MISC for $743,819.

She did not report this amount as income. The IRS of course wanted to know why.

The IRS learned that she was being sued, so they decided to hold up until the Circuit Court heard the case.

The Circuit Court decided that:

·        The Corvette, ring and cash totaling $343,819 were gifts from him to her.

·        The $400,000 was different. She was paid that under a contract. Flubbing the contract, she now had to pay it back.

Burns had passed away by this time, but his estate sent Blagaich a revised Form 1099-MISC for $400,000.

With the Circuit Court case decided, the IRS moved in. They increased her income by $743,819, assessed taxes and a crate-load of penalties. She strongly disagreed, and the two are presently in Tax Court. Blagaich moved for summary adjudication, meaning she wanted the Tax Court to decide her way without going through a full trial.

QUESTION: Do you think she has income and, if so, in what amount?

Let’s begin with the $400,000.

The Circuit Court had decided that $400,000 was not a gift. It was paid pursuant to a contract for the performance of services, and the performance of services usually means income. Additionally, since the payment was set by contract and she violated the contract terms, she had to repay the $400,000.

She argued that she could not have income when she had to pay it back. In legal-speak, this is called “rescission.”

In the tax arena, rescission runs head-on into the “claim of right” doctrine. A claim of right means that you have income when you receive an increase in wealth without a corresponding obligation to repay or a restriction on your being able to spend. If it turns out later that you in fact have to repay, then tax law will allow you a deduction – but at that later date.

Within the claim of right doctrine there is a narrow exception IF you pay the money back by the end of the same year or enter into a binding contract by the end of the same year to repay. In that case you are allowed to exclude the income altogether.

Blagaich did not do this. She clearly did not pay the $400,000 back in the same year. She also did not enter in an agreement in 2010 to pay it back. In fact, she had no intention to pay it back until the Circuit Court told her to.

She did not meet that small exception to the claim-of-right doctrine. She had income. She will also have a deduction upon repayment.

OBSERVATION: This is a problem if one’s future income goes down. Say that she returns to a $40,000/year job. Sure, she can deduct $400,000, but she can only offset $40,000 of income and the taxes thereon. The balance is wasted. Practitioners sometimes see this result with athletes who retire, leaving their sport (and its outsized paychecks) behind. It may never be possible to get back all the taxes one paid in the earlier year.

Let’s go to the $343,819.

She argued that the Circuit Court already decided that the $343,819 was a gift. To go through this again is to relitigate – that is, a double jeopardy to her. In legal-speak this is called “collateral estoppel.”

The Court clarified that collateral estoppel precludes the same parties from relitigating issues previously decided in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It also pointed out that the IRS was not party to the Circuit Court case. The IRS is not relitigating. The IRS never litigated in the first place.

She argued that the IRS knew of the case, requested and received updates, pleadings and discovery documents. The IRS even held up the tax examination until the Circuit Court case was decided.

But that does not mean that the IRS was party to the case. The IRS was an observer, not a litigant. Collateral estoppel applies to the litigants. That said, collateral estoppel did not apply to the IRS.

Blagaich lost her request for summary, meaning that the case will now be heard by the Tax Court.

What does this tax guy think?

She has very much lost the argument on the $400,000. Most likely she will have to pay tax for 2010 and then take a deduction later when she repays the money. The problem – as we pointed out – is that unless she has at least $400,000 in income for that later year, she will never get back as much tax as she is going to pay for 2010. It is a flaw in the tax law, but that flaw has been there a long time.

On the other hand, she has a very good argument with the $343,819. The Court was correct that a technical issue disallowed it from granting summary. That does not however mean that the technical issue will carry the day in full trial. That Circuit Court decision will carry a great deal of evidentiary weight.

We will know the final answer when Blagaich v Commissioner goes to full trial.