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.

The Nick Saban Tax

Have you heard about the “Nick Saban” tax?

Let’s set it up.

There has been a longstanding tax provision limiting the deduction for public company executive compensation to $1 million. Mind you, this is not a restriction on how much you can pay an executive; the restriction only applies to how much you can deduct on a tax return. The restriction does not apply to all executives, either; it applies to the CEO, CFO and three other most-highly-paids.

But there was an exception large enough for the Fortune 500 to drive through. The exception was for “performance.” Magically and almost overnight, virtually all executive compensation packages became based on “performance.” Options were considered performance-based, and eventually options came to be passed around like candy. Realistically, one had to refuse to do any tax planning for this provision to actually apply.

This changed with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December, 2017. Congress tightened up this code Section (162(m)) by taking away the performance exception. The $1 million cap now has a real bite.

But Congress was still looking for money.

Congress decided to put the same $1 million compensation limit on nonprofits.

This creates a quandary, as nonprofits (generally) do not pay tax. If I were a nonprofit executive and Congress threatened to disallow my deduction, I would not be feeling the tremulous fear of my for-profit peers.

Congress thought of that. They decided that the nonprofit would pay a 21% tax on my behalf.

Whoa. Now you have my attention. Granted, the tax is not on me, but we all know how this works in the real world. Only small children and Congress believes in free. The rest of us have to pay.

Congress passed a tax provision applying the $1 million cap to the five highest- paid employees of a 501(a), which includes a 501(c)(3). Think nonprofits, certain hospitals, colleges and universities and the like.

BTW medical professors were excluded from this, so it appears clear that Congress was trying to reach the athletics programs and their coaches.

But there is a problem.

Here is Code section 4960 imposing the tax:

       (c)  Definitions and special rules.

For purposes of this section-

(1)  Applicable tax-exempt organization.

The term "applicable tax-exempt organization" means any organization which for the taxable year-

(A)  is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ,

(B)  is a farmers' cooperative organization described in section 521(b)(1) ,

(C)  has income excluded from taxation under section 115(1) , or

(D)  is a political organization described in section 527(e)(1) .

What is that Section 115(1)?

         § 115 Income of states, municipalities, etc.

Gross income does not include-

(1)  income derived from any public utility or the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or …

What does this mean?

Congress thought that – by extending Section 4960 to reference Section 115(1) – it would reach those entities exempt via Section 115(1).

Entities such as Alabama.

Or the University of Alabama.

Why?

Because the University of Alabama is an instrumentality of the state of Alabama.

And here the tax law goes wonky.

The Courts have looked at the interaction of Sections 115(1) and 511(which is the unrelated business income tax which applies to a nonprofit). Can a state instrumentality (say a university) run a business – say a farm-to-table restaurant chain – and avoid the unrelated business income tax because of Section 115(1)? If that were the case, then Illinois could start a chain called Outfront Steakhouse, make a zillion dollars and never pay tax because of Section 115(1).

The Courts have clarified that is not the case. There is a limit to Section 115(1).

According to that reasoning, it seems to me that Congress should be able to tax those university salaries.

But there is another argument – the doctrine of implied statutory immunity. This arises from our federalist system of government: the federal government has to respect the state government. Under this theory, if the federal government wants to tax a state, it has to say so in an unambiguous manner – that is, it cannot be “implied.”

Continuing our example, if the federal government wanted to tax Illinois for opening a steakhouse chain and locating them adjacent to every Outback Steakhouse location throughout the land, it would have to say something like:

… the [] tax will apply to an entity relying upon Section 115(1) for nontaxability of their [] business activity should that activity be the same or substantially similar to a business activity conducted by a for-profit restaurant chain.”

That is explicit. That breaches implied statutory immunity. The tax would then stick.

Is that what Congress did with the new Section 4960(c) tax?

Nowhere close, it appears.

Under that reasoning the University of Alabama will not pay the Nick Saban tax, as the tax does not reach the University of Alabama.

There are universities clearly affected by this new law: Duke, for example, or Northwestern. They have to pay up. Think of it as the difference between a “public” university and a “tax-exempt” university.

But having the state name in the university’s name, however, does not mean that the university is exempt as “public.” It depends on how the university was organized and chartered. Texas A&M will be affected by the new tax provision, but the University of Texas - Austin will not. It is enough to give one a headache.

What happens next?

The easiest path is for Congress to revise Code section 4960 and clean up the language. Without Congressional action, you can be certain the “public” universities will litigate this matter. They have to.

But the likelihood of the present Congress accomplishing anything seems unlikely, at best.

Now You Say You're Leaving California

I have stumbled into our next story of outrageous state tax behavior.

I was skimming (quickly, trust me) the Supreme Court decision in Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt. It involves a resident of Nevada who sued California. California invoked sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine arising from the era of royalty and asserting that the king can do no wrong and is therefore immune from legal action.

Handy, if you are the king  … or any of California’s countless government agencies.

This case goes back a long way. Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada in the early 1990s. More specifically, he said he moved in September, 1991. California says he moved in April, 1992.

COMMENT: Sounds like a “poe-tae-toe” versus “poe-taw-toe” moment, on first impression.

California said this meant he owed the state $10 million in taxes, interest and penalties from patent income.

            COMMENT: Of course.

Problem is that the California Franchise Tax Board took some … questionable steps in developing their case against Hyatt:

·        They went through his mail

·        They rifled through his garbage

·        They contacted third parties, including estranged family and people who did not have his best interests at heart

He brought suit … in Nevada courts. There was a previous Supreme Court decision (Nevada v Hall) that allowed a private citizen to bring legal action against a second state, without the second state's consent.

The jury verdict was almost $500 million in damages and fees.

Then California appealed, arguing that Nevada's law limited damages in similar suits against its own agencies to $50,000.  

California got the Nevada Supreme Court to reduce the verdict to $1 million. The Court reasoned that California went a bit further than Nevada would allow, so the $50,000 cap did not apply.

COMMENT: Folks, we need our own state. We could do whatever we want and then hide behind sovereign immunity, hakuna matata or whatever other multi-syllabic nonsense springs to mind.

California was still not happy, arguing that Nevada was exhibiting a “policy of hostility.”      

California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution applied. The Supreme Court agreed, using words such as "comity" to reduce the damages to $50,000.

My thoughts?

I allow that there may have been a legitimate disagreement at the very beginning of this whole matter. Let’s say that you move most, but not all, of your possessions to another state. You leave some furniture there, as the realtor said that it would help to show and sell the house. You then have a California tell you that you had not really moved until the last chair and framed art had left the state. What are you going to do: sue? You are not moving back to California just to sue. That means that you are suing from another state and California is going to invoke the doctrine of the king’s pantaloons or whatever.

Still, doesn’t it feel … wrong … to have California going through your mail and trash, peering through your windows and contacting estranged relatives? This is behavior beyond the pale. We are not talking about homeland security, where some argument might possibly be made to excuse the king’s overreach. 

We are only talking about taxes.