Taxpayer Wins Refund Despite Using Wrong Form

Let’s look at a case that comes out of Cincinnati.

E. John Rewwer (Rewwer) had a professional practice which he reported on Schedule C (proprietorship/disregarded entity) of his personal return.

He got audited for years 2007 through 2009.

The IRS disallowed expenses and assessed the following in taxes, interest and penalties:

           2007            $  15,041

           2008            $137,718

           2009            $ 55,299

Rewwer paid the assessments.

He then filed a claim for refund for those years. More specifically his attorney filed and signed the refund claims, including the following explanation:

The IRS did not properly consider documentation of my expenses during my income tax audit. I would ask that the IRS reopen the audit, reconsider my documentation, and refund the amounts paid as a result of the erroneous audit adjustments, including any penalty and interest that may have accrued.”

I am not certain which expense categories the IRS denied, but I get it. I have a similar (enough) client who got audited for 2016. IRS Holtsville disallowed virtually every significant expense despite being provided a phonebook of Excel schedules, receipts and other documentation.  We took the matter to Appeals and then to Tax Court. I could see some expenses being disallowed (for example, travel and entertainment expenses are notoriously difficult to document), but not entire categories of expenses. That told me loud and clear that someone at IRS Holtsville could care less about doing their job properly.

Wouldn’t you know that our client is being examined again for 2018? Despite taking the better part of a day faxing audit documentation to IRS Holtsville, we are back in Tax Court.  And I feel the same way about 2018 as I did about 2016: someone at the IRS has been assigned work above their skill level.

Back to Rewwer.

The attorney:

(1)  Sent in claims for refund on Form 843, and

(2)  Signed the claims for refunds.

Let’s take these points in reverse order.

An attorney or CPA cannot sign a return for you without having a power of attorney accompanying the claim. Our standard powers here at Galactic Command, for example, do not authorize me/us to sign returns for a client. We would have to customize the power to permit such authority, and I will rarely agree to do so. The last time I remember doing this was for nonresident clients with U.S. filing requirements. Mail time to and from could approach the ridiculous, and some of the international forms are not cleared for electronic filing.

Rewwer’s claims were not valid until the signature and/or power of attorney matter was resolved.

Look at this Code section for the second point:

§ 301.6402-3 Special rules applicable to income tax.

(a) The following rules apply to a claim for credit or refund of income tax: -

(1) In general, in the case of an overpayment of income taxes, a claim for credit or refund of such overpayment shall be made on the appropriate income tax return.

(2) In the case of an overpayment of income taxes for a taxable year of an individual for which a Form 1040 or 1040A has been filed, a claim for refund shall be made on Form 1040X (“Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”).

Yep, there is actually a Code section for which form one is supposed to use. The attorney used the wrong form.

For some reason, the IRS allowed 2008 but denied the other two years.

The IRS delayed for a couple of years. The attorney, realizing that the statute of limitations was about to expire, filed suit.

This presented a window to correct the signature/power of attorney issue as part of the trial process.

To which the IRS cried foul: the taxpayer had not filed a valid refund claim (i.e., wrong form), so the claim was invalid and could not be later perfected. Without a valid claim, the IRS claimed sovereign immunity (the king cannot be sued without agreement and the king did not so agree).

The IRS had a point.

But the taxpayer argued that he had met the “informal claim” requirements and should be allowed to perfect his claim.

The Supreme Court has allowed imperfect claims to be treated as informal claims when:

(1) The claim is written

(2)  The claim adequately tells the IRS why a refund is sought, and

(3)  The claim adequately tells the IRS for what year(s) the claim is sought.

The point to an informal claim is that technical deficiencies with the claim can be remedied – even after the normal statute of limitations - as long as the informal claim is filed before the statute expires.

As part of the litigation, Rewwer refiled years 2007 and 2009 on Forms 1040X, as the Regulations require. This also provided opportunity to sign the returns (and power of attorney, for that matter), thereby perfecting the earlier-filed claims.

Question: did the Court accept Rewwer’s informal claim argument?

Answer: the Court did.

OBSERVATION: How did the Court skip over the fact that the claims – informal or not – were not properly signed? The IRS did that to itself. At no time did the IRS deny the claims for of lack of signatures or an incomplete power of attorney. The Court refused to allow the IRS to raise this argument after-the-fact to the taxpayer’s disadvantage: a legal principle referred to as “estoppel.”  

Look however at the work it took to get the IRS to consider/reconsider Rewwer’s exam documentation for 2007 and 2009. Seems excessive, I think.

Our case this time was E. John Rewwer v United States, U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio. 

COMMENT: If you are wondering why the “United States” rather than the usual “Commissioner, IRS,” the reason is that tax refund litigation in federal district courts is handled by the Tax Division of the Department of Justice.

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.