An Ugly Case Over An Ugly Penalty

 

You know that the IRS pays especial attention to foreign transactions of U.S. citizens. We are to report foreign bank accounts, for example, should they exceed a certain balance.

Did you know that you may also have to report gifts made to you by individuals (and entities) overseas and exceeding certain threshold amounts?

That may come as a surprise, as we anticipate gifts to be tax free (and unreported) by the recipient. To the extent we pay attention to this area of tax, it is the donor - not the donee - who reports a gift. It is even possible to have a tax (the gift tax) if one cumulatively gifts “too much” over a lifetime.

Let’s be candid here: this is not a risk you or I have to sweat.

What got me thinking about it is a recent case coming out of California. Ms. Huang litigated over IRS penalties for her failure to timely report gifts from her overseas parents. She used TurboTax to prepare her taxes, and TurboTax advised her incorrectly about the gifts. She believes she has reasonable cause for abatement of those penalties.

I agree with her.

I also think this area of tax law is a mess.

Let’s go over this – briefly.

First, there are two considerations with foreign gifts:

·       Disclosure

·       Taxation

It is unlikely that there will be a tax, but it is likely that you must report the gift. There is even a specialized form for this – Form 3520: 

Trust me, one can have a long career in public accounting and never see this form.

The filing threshold varies depending on the donor:

Gifts From Foreign Individuals

·       The threshold is $100,000. Not surprisingly, multiple gifts from the same person (say mom) must be added together.

o   BTW, if mom gets creative and arranges to transfer more than $100 grand via various family members, there is a related party rule that will combine all those donors into one person – and put you over the $100,000 threshold.

o   Once required to file, each gift of $5 thousand or more is to be separately identified and described.

o   There may be excellent reasons for the multiple gifts. There are numerous countries which impose restrictions on outbound currency transfers. South Korea, for example, places a limit of $50,000 (USD).

Gifts From Foreign Corporations or Partnerships

·       The reporting threshold is greatly reduced if a business entity is involved – to $19,570.

·       In addition to the usual gift information, one is also to provide the name, address, and tax identification number (if such exists) for the entity.

Inheritances

The IRS takes the position that an inheritance is comparable to a gift. If one inherits from a nonresident, the inheritance might be reportable on Form 3520.

EXAMPLE: Carlos is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. His uncle – a nonresident alien - passes away, leaving Carlos a house in a foreign country. While the residence is outside the U.S., Carlos is a U.S. permanent resident and should file a Form 3520.

Let’s change the example a little bit:

EXAMPLE: Carlos’ uncle was also a lawful permanent resident of the United States, even though he lived for substantial periods outside the U.S. The inheritance now is from one “US person for tax purposes” to another, and there is no need to file Form 3520.

  The penalties for not filing a 3520 can be onerous.

·       5% of the gift amount for each month a failure to file exists. In the spirit of not bayoneting the dead, the IRS will (fortunately) stop counting once you get to 25%.

·       If the IRS contacts you before you contact them, the penalty changes. It then becomes $10,000 for each month you fail to file Form 3520 after request.

·       Penalties will apply even if you filed a 3520, if the IRS believes that the return is incomplete or incorrect.

·       BTW this penalty can chase you unto death – and beyond. There are cases where the IRS has demanded penalties from the estates of deceased individuals.

So, what happened to Ms. Huang?

Her name is Jiaxing Huang, and in 2015 and 2016 her parents gifted substantial sums to help her relocate to the U.S. and purchase a home. Ms. Huang, like millions of others, used TurboTax to prepare her taxes for those years. She asked - and TurboTax informed her - that donors, not donees, are required to report gifts. Based on that feedback, she did not file Form 3520 for those years.

COMMENT: TurboTax was correct, IF one was talking about gifts from a U.S citizen or lawful permanent resident to another. It was not correct in specialized circumstances – such as that of Ms. Huang’s.

A couple of years later she learned of her filing obligations. Trying to play by the rules, she immediately filed Form 3520 for 2015 and 2016. She was late, of course, but she filed before the IRS ever contacted her – or had any reason to suspect that she was even required to file.

The IRS responded – here is a (too) common reason people hate the IRS – with penalties exceeding $91 grand.

COMMENT: The IRS churns these letters automatically. They do not go by human eyes. I propose – as a small improvement – that the someone at the IRS review these letters and related files before sending out such onerous penalties. I understand workforce limitations, but let’s be blunt: HOW MANY NOTICES CAN THERE BE?

Ms. Huang submitted an abatement request based on reasonable cause.

The IRS denied the request. They then withheld her 2019 ($280) and 2022 ($7,859) tax refunds.

Of course.

She appealed the denial of abatement within the IRS itself.

COMMENT: She was trying.

She instead learned that her penalty had jumped to over $153 grand. With interest she was topping $190 grand.

This was so egregious that even the IRS backed down. Appeals reduced the penalty to slightly over $36 grand.

Ms. Huang paid it.

COMMENT: No!!!!!

Two weeks later she filed a Claim for Refund.

COMMENT: Yes!!!!!

Her grounds? Abatement of the penalties – as well as the 2019 and 2022 tax refunds the IRS intercepted.

Let’s take a moment to explain why Ms. Huang paid the penalty.

In many if not most areas of tax law, one can bring suit without paying the tax (or penalty or whatever). That is one of the attractions of the Tax Court: you can get a hearing before sending the IRS a nickel. Not all areas of tax law are like this, however. An area that is not? You guessed it: Form 3520 penalties.

COMMENT: If you think about it, this is one way to keep people from bringing suit. How many can afford to pay the tax (or penalty or whatever) AND pay a tax attorney to litigate? It’s a nice scam you have there, Agent Smith.

The government did its usual: an immediate motion to dismiss the complaint. They even offered four reasons why the Court should dismiss.

The Court agreed with the government on three of the reasons.

It did not agree with the fourth: whether Ms. Huang’s reliance on tax software such as TurboTax under these circumstances could constitute reasonable cause.

Ms. Huang will have her day in Court.

But at what cost to her.

And why – when the IRS is hemorrhaging employees and losing budget allocations it likely should not have received in the first place – are they wasting their time here? The facts are unattractive. Ms. Huang is not a protestor or scofflaw. She tried. She got it wrong, but she tried. There is no win condition here for the government.

Our case this time was Jiaxing Huang v United States, Case No 24-cv-06298-RS, No District California.

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.

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.

An Accounting Firm Gets Sued

I just saw that Baker Tilly has acquired Seiler LLP, a CPA firm located in San Francisco and practicing for well over half a century.

There is nothing unusual here. Many older CPAs are looking to retire. In some cases, the firm may have planned for transition and brought in, developed, and retained a pipeline of ownership-interested younger CPAs.  The older CPAs retire, the younger CPAs step up and the firm continues.

In other cases, there is no such pipeline, and the older CPA’s exit plan is a sale to another firm.

The matter caught my eye because a client is suing Seiler for negligence. The matter is still in court. I thought the grounds for negligence was … different.

It is not our usual brew of java, but let’s talk about it.

It starts with a married couple: Eric Freidenrich and Amy Macartney. They hired Seiler to prepare their 2019 joint tax return. The return was filed in December 2020.

COMMENT: You may be thinking that the return was filed late (that is, after October 15) and penalties and interest would be due. That is not true here, as the return showed an overpayment of almost $450 grand. There normally will be no interest and penalties on refund-due returns, as penalties and refunds normally apply only when balances are due the IRS. The risk to a refund return is waiting too long to file a return. Remember, the statute of limitations on filing is three years. Wait past those three years and you will lose your refund.

For some reason, Eric and Amy did not use a home address on their return. They instead used their financial advisor’s address, a practice they had followed for years.

Now, a couple of things happened after 2019 and during 2020 before Seiler filed the return:

·       Eric and Amy divorced.

·       The financial advisor moved.

On first blush, I would be concerned about the divorce. A CPA (or his/her firm) should think long and hard about representing a divorcing couple. The reason is simple: which one of the two is the client? Representing both can create a conflict of interest, and a CPA is supposed to maintain independence and avoid such conflicts. Failure to do so can result in a hearing before a State Board of Accountancy.

The refund arrived in April 2022.

The two had signed their separation agreement in June 2021.

The separation agreement included language that Eric would be responsible for additional taxes due during the term of marriage, but - to be fair - he would also be entitled to any refunds.

Amy did not know that the IRS refund got held up. The couple’s routine was to deposit in the couple’s Fidelity account, and the separation agreement had Amy receiving 60% of the Fidelity account.

The refund was almost $450 grand, and 60% of that – approximately $270 grand – would have gone to Amy.

She was not amused.

I would not be either.

She sued Seiler for negligence.

Notice that she did not sue her ex-husband.

Where is the negligence?

Seiler – as a firm – knew that that advisor had moved. It should have used the new address.

Did the tax team – a subset of Seiler – also know that the advisor had moved? Information moves well enough in a CPA firm, but it would be false to say that it moves flawlessly. It is possible that the tax department did not know, but Amy is suing Seiler, not the tax department.

Seiler (or rather, their attorney) tried to get the motion dismissed.

And there is a quick lesson here about torts. Torts are civil law. Think of torts as suing someone. You bring suit, not the government. It is conduct between private parties.

The idea behind a tort is to restore the injured party (as much as possible in the circumstance) to where he/she would have been had the other party not acted or failed to act. A goal of tort law is to see the world as it could have been, not as the world is now.

Well, under that description Amy would have received 60% of the IRS refund. Seiler injured her. Her ex did not injure her, as he stated in the divorce decree that he would keep any tax refunds relating to the marriage term.

The Court therefore saw reason for tort action and would not grant summary motion for dismissal.

What does this mean? It means that the Court will hear the case against Seiler for negligence.

As a tax CPA, it bothers me that I could get my firm sued for something I did not even know. That said, I get it. The firm knew. However, Eric and Amy saw the address on the return. Their attorneys would also have seen the address. Do we know if the financial advisor timely filed a change of address with the IRS? Seiler might not be the only party with some measure of fault. 

Filing A Zero-Income Tax Return

Here’s a question:

Would you file a tax return if you have no income – or minimal income - to report?

I would if there was a refund.

I also lean to filing if one has a history of tax filings.

The former is obvious, unless the incremental cost of filing the return is more than the refund.

The latter is because of my skepticism. I do not want a letter from the IRS stating they have not received a tax return for name-a-year. Granted, the issue should be easily resolved, but I have lost track of how many should-be’s have turned out to not-be.

Another reason is a rerun of Congress’ decision to automatically send advance payments back in 2021 – specifically, the child tax credit.       

You were ahead of the game by having filed a prior year return.

Ruben Varela filed a 1040EZ for 2017. It showed a refund of $1,373.

OK.

Ruben attached four Forms 4852 Substitute for Form W-2.

This form is used when an employer fails to send a W-2, among other situations. It happens and I see one every few years. But four …? That is odd.

The 4852’s that Ruben prepared showed zero wages.

And the $1,373 included Social Security and Medicare taxes., taxes which are not refundable.

Ruben, stop that yesterday. This is common tax protestor nonsense.

Let’s read on. There was third party reporting (think computer matching) for wages of $11,311 and cancellation of indebtedness income of $1,436.

Not surprisingly, the IRS considered it a protest filing and assessed a Section 6702(a) penalty.

§ 6702 Frivolous tax submissions.

(a)  Civil penalty for frivolous tax returns.

A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if-

(1)  such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which-

(A)  does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or

(B)  contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and

(2)  the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) -

(A)  is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c) , or

(B)  reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws. 

That caught Ruben’s attention, and he disputed the penalty. On to Tax Court they went.

How can I owe a penalty if there was NO TAX, argued Ruben.

On first impression, it seems a reasonable argument.

But this is tax. Let’s look at that Code section again. 

              Such person files ….                                                      OK

              What purports to be a tax return …                                OK

      Does not contain information on

   which the substantial correctness …                             ?

 

Let’s talk about this last one. The Tax Court has a history of characterizing “zero” W-2s as both substantially incorrect and not containing sufficient information allowing one to judge the self-assessment of tax.

We have a third “OK.”

Back to Section 6702.

Is there any reference in Section 6702 to whether the return did or did not show tax due?

I am not seeing it.

The Court did not see it either.

They upheld the Section 6702 penalty.

The IRS wanted more, of course. They also wanted the Section 6673 penalty.

§ 6673 Sanctions and costs awarded by court

This penalty can be imposed when somebody clogs the Court in order to impede tax administration. The penalty can be harsh.

How harsh?

Up to $25 grand of fresh-brewed harsh.

The Court noted they had not seen Ruben Varela before nor was it aware of him previously pursuing similar arguments. They declined to impose the Section 6673 penalty, but …

We caution petitioner that a penalty may be imposed in future cases before this Court should he continue to pursue these misguided positions.”

The Court was warning him in the strongest legalese it could muster.

Our case this time was Ruben Varela v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-92.

 

An Erroneous Tax Refund Check In The Mail

 

Let’s start with the Code section:

§ 6532 Periods of limitation on suits.

(b)  Suits by United States for recovery of erroneous refunds.

 

Recovery of an erroneous refund by suit under section 7405 shall be allowed only if such suit is begun within 2 years after the making of such refund, except that such suit may be brought at any time within 5 years from the making of the refund if it appears that any part of the refund was induced by fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact.

 

I have not lost sleep trying to understand that sentence.

But someone has.

Let’s introduce Jeffrey Page. He filed a 2016 tax return showing a $3,463 refund. In early May 2017, he received a refund check of $491,104. We are told that the IRS made a clerical error.

COMMENT: Stay tuned for more observations from Captain Obvious.

Page held the check for almost a year, finally cashing it on April 5, 2018.

The IRS – having seen the check cash – wanted the excess refund repaid.

Page wanted to enjoy the spoils.

Enter back and forth. Eventually Page returned $210,000 and kept the rest.

On March 31, 2020, Treasury sued Page in district court.

Page blew it off.

Treasury saw an easy victory and asked the district court for default judgement.

The court said no.

Why?

The court started with March 31, 2020. It subtracted two years to arrive at March 31, 2018. The court said that it did not know when Page received the check, but it most likely was before that date. If so, more than two years had passed, and Treasury could not pass Section 6532(b). They would not grant default. Treasury would have to prove its case.

Treasury argued that it was not the check issuance date being tested but rather the check clearance date. If one used the clearance date, the suit was timely.

The district court was having none of that. It pointed to precedence – from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - and dismissed the case.

The government appealed.

To the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ironically.

The Ninth wanted to know when a refund was “made.”

“within 2 years after the making of such refund …”

Is this when the refund is allowed or permitted or is it when the check clears or funds otherwise change hands?

The Ninth reasoned that merely holding the check does not rise to the threshold of “making” a refund.

Why, we ask?

Because Treasury could cancel the check.

OK. Score one for the government.

The Ninth further reasoned that the statute of limitations cannot start until the government is able to sue.

Why, we again ask?

Had Page shredded the check, could the government sue for nearly half a million dollars? Of course not. Well then, that indicates that a refund was not “made” when Page merely received a check.

Score two for the government.

The Ninth continued its reasoning, but we will fast forward to the conclusion:

… we hold that a refund is made when the check clears the Federal Reserve.”

Under that analysis, Treasury was timely in bring suit. The Ninth reversed the district court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What do I think?

I see common sense, although I admit the Ninth has many times previously eluded common sense. Decide otherwise, however, and Treasury could be negatively impacted by factors as uncontrollable as poor mail delivery.

Or by Page’s curious delay in depositing the check.

Then again, maybe a non-professional was researching the matter, and it took a while to navigate to Section 6532 and its two years.

Our case this time was U.S. v Page, No 21-17083 (9th Cir. June 26, 2024).