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.

Blowing An Estate Tax Deduction

 

Let’s talk about the Estate of Martin W. Griffin.

Martin Griffin (Martin) was married to Maria Creel.

Martin created a revocable trust known as the Martin W. Griffin Trust.

COMMENT: A revocable trust means that the settlor (Martin in this case) can undo the trust. When that happens, the trust is disregarded and Martin and his revocable trust are considered the same person for tax purposes. The classic revocable trust is a “living trust,” which has no effect until one dies. Its purpose is not tax-driven at all and is instead to avoid probate.

Martin next created the MCC Irrevocable Trust.

COMMENT: Irrevocable means that Martin cannot undo the trust. He might be able to tweak a thing or two at the edges, but he cannot do away with the trust itself.

The Irrevocable Trust had the following language in the trust agreement:

The trust shall distribute the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the trustee then serving …. for the benefit of Maria C. Creel. From this bequest, the trustee … shall pay to Maria C. Creel a monthly distribution, as determined by Maria and Trustee to be a reasonable amount, not to exceed $9,000 ….”

You see the word “Estate” in the case name. The issue in this case is estate tax, and it involves passing assets at death to one’s surviving spouse. There are two general ways to do this:

·       You simply transfer the asset to the surviving spouse.

An example here is a principal residence. The deed is in both spouse’s names. When you die, the house transfers directly to her (I am assuming you are the husband). She can then do what she wants: she can keep the house, sell the house, rent it or whatever. She has unfettered control over the house.

·       You transfer a right – but not all the rights – to the asset.

Let’s stay with the above example. You instead transfer a life estate to your wife. Upon her death the house goes to your children from your first marriage. She no longer has unfettered control over the asset. She cannot sell the house, for example. She has some – but not all – incidents of ownership.

The reason this is important is that the estate tax will allow you to deduct category (1) assets from your taxable estate, but category (2) assets have to go through an additional hoop to get there.

Here is the relevant Code section:

26 U.S. Code § 2056 - Bequests, etc., to surviving spouse

(7) Election with respect to life estate for surviving spouse  

(A) In general In the case of qualified terminable interest property—  

(i) for purposes of subsection (a), such property shall be treated as passing to the surviving spouse, and

(ii) for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), no part of such property shall be treated as passing to any person other than the surviving spouse.  

(B) Qualified terminable interest property defined For purposes of this paragraph—  

(i)In general The term “qualified terminable interest property” means property—

(I) which passes from the decedent,

(II) in which the surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life, and

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

Section 2056 addresses the hoops we are talking about. If you are transferring less than total and unfettered rights to an asset, you want to make sure that you are transferring enough to qualify the asset as “qualified terminable interest property.” If you do, you get a subtraction for estate tax purposes. If you do not, there is no subtraction. 

It takes a lot to get to an estate tax in 2025 (given the lifetime exemption), but – if you do – the rate ramps to 40% rather quickly.  

Back to Martin.  

The Irrevocable Trust transferred enough to qualify as qualified terminable interest property.

Here is the Court:

The $2 million bequest is not QTIP. It is terminable interest property that does not qualify for the marital deduction and is includible in the estate.”

Huh? What happened?

Go back to (B)(iii) above:

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

How do you make the election?

You include the asset on Schedule M of Form 706 (that is, the estate tax return):

That’s it. It is not complicated, but it must be done. The Code requires it.

Someone missed this while preparing Martin W Griffin’s estate tax return.

Yep, I expect a malpractice suit.

The Importance of Marking A Return As “Final”

I have worked tax controversy for many years now. I have seen the system work well; I have seen the system work poorly. I would say – with some generosity – that the system has been on the downslope for several years now.

It may be as simple as a tax notice.

It may be – even more simply – failing to indicate that a particular tax filing is a “Final.” Perhaps the business has been sold or closed. Maybe the company discontinued a line of business and will no longer have that specific filing. Maybe the company is reorganizing to another state and will not have the origin state’s filing anymore. There can be a host of reasons for a final.

I am looking at one involving Albertina Camaclang doing business as “Europa Guest Home,” which we will abbreviate as “EGH.”

EGH was a small residential care facility in California. She sold the business in 2002. She however never marked “final” on her Form 941, which is the form to report (and remit) federal withholding and social security payroll taxes.

Sixteen years later (16, you read that correctly) there was a dispute. The IRS said they mailed a notice to EGH informing that they had never received Forms 941 for 2008.

COMMENT: Six years after the sale.

EGH said it never received the IRS notice.

And the IRS could not produce a copy of the letter nor proof that it was mailed.

But the IRS did kindly prepare Forms 941 showing unpaid liabilities of over $600 thousand. These are referred to a “substitutes for return” or “SFRs.” It is generally preferable to file a return rather than allow the IRS to prepare an SFR. The IRS is not concerned with deductions, for one thing. We are not told what EGH’s annual 941 liability was back in the day, a useful bit of information as we weigh the $600 grand.

The IRS filed liens.

COMMENT: Yep, predictable.

Off to Tax Court.

We are now in 2019. EGH hired a tax lawyer. The lawyer requested a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. EGH’s defense was straightforward: the business was sold long before 2008.

Go to 2020, and a settlement officer (SO) was assigned to the case.

And there was this:

The settlement officer learned of a parallel criminal investigation into petitioner, which delayed further work into the case. On February 15, 2023, the IRS lifted the suspension, and the settlement officer resumed work on the matter.”

OK then.

The SO wanted to schedule a conference with EGH on March 24, 2023. The SO also wanted paperwork to substantiate the sale of the business as well as original tax returns (meaning the 941s) for 2008.

COMMENT: Easiest tax returns ever: zero all the way down.

EGH requested access to its administrative file. This delayed the conference to June 5, 2023.

Which the IRS wanted later to reschedule. How about July 13^th?

EGH responded on July 19^th, explaining that it had received the notice that very day.

Back to rescheduling.

Mind you, EGH still had not provided documentation on the sale of the business.

COMMENT: I would have led with that documentation. I cannot help but wonder if something was afoot, which is how IRS CID had gotten involved.

The attorney finally provided the SO with a grant deed showing sale of the real estate.

COMMENT: What about the business located on that real estate, counselor?

The SO wanted to know why EGH filed Forms 941 for 2004 and 2005 if it was sold in 2002.

COMMENT: So do I.

The attorney argued that the IRS prepared these returns fraudulently.

COMMENT: Interesting persuasion skills being flashed there.

In the alternative, the attorney argued that the accountant was an idiot and incorrectly filed another entity’s return as EGH.

And here is an understated sentence:

While discussing these discrepancies, there was a ‘breakdown’ in communication between petitioner’s counsel and the settlement officer.”

To be a fly on the wall.

On August 29, 2023, a new settlement officer ….

I will interrupt here. I have practiced procedure for decades. I have never – barring illness or something like that – replaced an SO midstream. I am getting the impression that the most interesting parts of the story were not written down.

On August 29, 2023, the new SO reached out to explain why the IRS had filed SFRs and liens to back them up.

COMMENT: Self-serving, but OK.

The new SO requested new signed returns reporting zero liability filed by September 5,2023.

COMMENT: I would file them that very afternoon and end this nightmare.

On August 30, 2023, the IRS sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the returns. The IRS also enclosed Form 12257 Summary Notice of Determination and Waiver of Judicial Review.

EGH declined to sign the 12257.

The SO said fine. The IRS would nonetheless issue a notice of determination indicating a zero balance.

The IRS closed the file on September 1, 2023.

The IRS released the liens on October 27,2023.

The Tax Court closed the case.

COMMENT: I do not understand the reluctance to sign the 12257. Granted, one would lose certain procedural rights (such as the right to appeal), but EGH got everything it wanted: tax reduced to zero, interest and penalties likewise reduced to zero, liens released. What was left to fight over?

On October 6, 2023, EGH filed with the Tax Court for a review of the notice of determination.

COMMENT: Why? Let me keep reading…. EGH wanted reimbursement of approximately $50,000 for its litigation costs.

Folks, it does not work this way. The Tax Court had already decided and closed the case. EGH now wanted the Tax Court to resurrect the matter (the word is “vacate.”). Please stop already.

Would you believe that the Tax Court agreed to vacate?

EGH got its day. It now had to prove certain things – including being the prevailing party – to obtain reimbursement of its litigation costs.

EGH had pushed too far.

Remember: EGH had delayed at every turn. 

Here is the Court:

Petitioner is not the prevailing party. Accordingly, we need not consider whether petitioner unreasonably protracted proceedings or claimed ‘reasonable costs.’ Petitioner is not entitled to administrative or litigation costs.”

Our case this time was Albertina Camaclang d.b.a Europa Guest Home, Docket No. 15761-23L, filed April 23, 2025.

Valuing a Questionable Business

 

Starting with a 46-page case soon after finishing tax season may not have been my best idea.

Still, the case is a hoot.

Here is the Court:

Backstabbing, infidelity, and blackmail – not the first words that come to mind in relation to a baby products company.”

We are talking about Kaleb Pierce and his (ex) wife Ms. Bosco.

Early on Pierce sought to make money any way he could. At age 16 he purchased an ice cream truck, for example. He met Bosco and they married in 2000. Several children soon followed.

That ice cream truck was not going to suffice. He switched to selling timeshares. He then switched to painting houses.

In 2005 they had another child. Bosco had an idea relating to nursing newborns, and Pierce had his next business idea. He reached out to Chinese manufacturers to make wristbands for nursing mothers. He set up a website, attended tradeshows and whatnot.

His idea was not an initial success.

But there was someone at the tradeshow who was successful. Pierce wanted to partner with them, but they were not interested, Pierce then decided to duplicate their company and run them out of business.

The model was easy enough: he would manufacture the product in China, undercut the existing retail price and then reduce that already-undercut price to zero by use of promotional codes. Where is the money, you ask? He would charge a shipping fee. Considering that the price was already reduced to zero, he figured he could press his thumb on the shipping fee as his profit point.

He was right, but not fully. In the early days, the products were sometimes shipped to customers showing the actual shipping cost. Those customers were not amused.

But Pierce could make money.

And the model was simple: appropriate someone’s product, create a website to pitch it, have the product manufactured cheaply, make money hand over fist. Mind you, the products were all directed at nursing mothers, so the window to market and sell was limited. He had to strike hard and fast. He also had to keep introducing new products, as he continually needed something on which to hang a shipping charge.

The company was called Mothers Lounge (ML). ML sold each product through a different subsidiary. This separation of business was vital to give the appearance that the companies were unrelated. Even so, many customers found that the same company was selling the products. They requested that different orders be shipped together, which ML could not do, of course. ML had reached a point where 97% of its revenues came from that free- just-pay-shipping model.

How did it turn out?

In his own words:

He “never imagined that he was going to be this successful.”

But then ….

Pierce had an extramarital affair.

Someone added a tracker to Pierce’s software that tracked his keystrokes and found out about the affair.

Someone sent a box with a letter demanding $100,000 by the following week or said someone would tell Bosco about the affair.

Pierce told Bosco about the affair first. The news shattered her. She no longer trusted him. She forbade him from attending tradeshows. He responded by sending employees in his place, but it was not the same. His employees were not as … creative … at recognizing … opportunities as Pierce. Eventually he stepped down as CEO to deal with his family.

The business was not the same.

But Pierce and Bosco were still printing money. He did what a nouveau-riche entrepreneur would do: he started estate planning.

It is here that we get back to tax.

They created a trust. The trust in turn created an operating company. Pierce and Bosco each gifted 29.4% ownership to the trust. They also sold a 20.6% interest to the operating company owned by the trust.

The tax lawyers were busy.

There was a gift tax return, which meant that ML needed a valuation.

The IRS selected the gift tax returns (one by each spouse) for audit.

Pierce and Bosco fired their valuation expert and hired another.

That is different, methinks.

The new expert came in with a lower number. Pierce and Bosco told the IRS that – if anything – they had overreported the gift. What was the point of the audit?

The IRS was not buying this. The IRS argued that the two had underreported the gift by almost $5 million. Remember that the gift tax rate is 40%, so this disagreement translated into real money. The IRS also wanted penalties of almost $2 million.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court discussed valuation procedures for over twenty pages, the detail of which I will spare us. The Court liked some things about Pierce and Bosco’s valuations (remember they had two) and also liked some things about the IRS valuation. Then you had the unique facts of Mothers Lounge itself, a business which was not really a business but was nonetheless quite profitable. How do you value a business like that, and how do you adjust for the business decline since the blackmail attempt? The IRS argued that ML could return to a more traditional business model. The Court noted that ML could not; it was a different animal altogether.

The decision is a feast for those interested in valuation work. The Court was meticulous in going through the steps, but it was not going to decide a number. Truthfully, it could not: there was too much there.

The Court instead made an interim decision under Rule 155, a Tax Court arcana requiring the two parties to perform – and agree to – calculations consistent with the Court’s reasoning.

And the Court will review those results in a future hearing.

Our case this time was Pierce v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-29.

Shoplifting And Sales Tax

 

I was recently surprised by a question.

It has to do with use tax, and it is not the most riveting issue – even for a tax CPA.

But it did remind me of a recent-enough case from New Jersey involving sales tax.

Sales tax and use tax are flip sides of the same coin. Let’s set up an example.

·      You have a product-intensive business. Maybe you sell vintage collectible baseball and other sports-themed cards.

·      When you buy cards, it is your intention to sell them. That is your business, of course, and those cards are your inventory. You do not pay sales tax when you purchase them, but you would collect and remit sales tax when you finally sell them.  

·      Let’s say that you acquire a particularly appealing card, one that you want for your personal collection. You remove that card from inventory and take it home.

·      If it stops here, the state does not receive any tax on that card. The business did not pay sales tax when it bought the card. It did not resell because you took the card home.

·      To make the system work, you would owe use tax when you take the card. The state gets its money. Granted, there was a change in names: use tax versus sales tax. I suppose you might have to send a personal check for the tax, or perhaps the business could collect and remit on your behalf. Different states, different rules.

There was a New Jersey case to determine whether sales tax should be included in the calculation of “full retail value” when someone shoplifted an Xbox One game console.

Why the nitpicking?

Because New Jersey categorized the crime depending on full retail value. If the value was between $200 and $500, it was a fourth-degree offense. Go over $500, however, and it becomes a third-degree offense.

Kohl’s sold the X Box for $499.99.

Two pennies away.

Yes, the sales tax would take that above $500 and make it third degree.

Which is what the Court decided.

Then – believe it or not – the decision was appealed. The grounds? The full retail value should not include sales tax.

A fourth degree gets someone up to 18 months in prison. A third degree is between 3 and 5 years.

The Appellate Court noted that no New Jersey court had ever looked at this issue.

OK.

The Court reasoned that shoplifting was the purposeful taking of merchandise belonging to a merchant, thereby depriving him/her of the economic benefit from the same. A merchant does not keep the sales tax. Instead, the merchant is an agent, collecting the tax from the customer and remitting it to the state (although there me be a small administrative allowance). Since the merchant would not have kept the sales tax, the Court decided that it should not be considered when calculating full retail value.

The Appellate Court reversed the lower Court’s decision.

Not all states agree with this reasoning. California for example will include sales tax in its full retail value.

Our case this time was State v Burnham, 474 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div 2022).