TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Appellate Courts
Subscribe to Appellate Courts's Posts

Should Taxpayers File Amicus Briefs in Tax Court Cases?

by and | Feb 15, 2017 | , , ,

Amicus–or “friend of the court”–briefs are not uncommon in Supreme Court and appellate court cases.  The purpose of an amicus brief is generally to provide assistance to the court by presenting additional arguments either in support or opposition of one of the litigant’s positions.  Amicus briefs should not rehash the same arguments presented by one of the parties, but rather should provide insights and a different perspective that is not presented by the parties, and to inform the court of the impact of the issues in the case on other affected parties.  The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide detailed rules on how and when to file an amicus brief.  See here for Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which governs amicus filings.

Sometimes, amicus parties want to get involved at the trial court level before the trial record is fixed.  Thus, increasingly, amicus briefs are being filed in trial courts, and in particular in the United States Tax Court (Tax Court).  When, why and how to file an amicus brief in a trial court is not clear.  Indeed, most trial courts do not have procedural rules that directly address those filings.  This post provides an overview of some of the considerations and procedures for filing such briefs in a Tax Court case.

Whether to allow an amicus to participate in a case is within the sound discretion of the court.  Because the filing of an amicus brief is discretionary, the typical practice is to file a motion seeking permission or“leave” of the court to file an amicus brief accompanied with a statement stating that the litigants do, or do not, object to the filing of the amicus brief.

In deciding whether to grant permission to file anamicus brief, the Tax Court generally examines whether “the proffered information is timely, useful or otherwise helpful.”  The court also considers whether amici are advocates for one of the parties, have an interest in the outcome of the case and possess unique information or perspective.  This is consistent with the standards applied by other courts in making the determination.

Practice Point:  Several factors should be considered by taxpayers in deciding whether to file an amicus brief in Tax Court.  In addition to the cost, taxpayers may want to consider whether their position is being adequately represented by another taxpayer’s case and whether they believe that they can provide arguments that might persuade the court to adopt their position.  Participation as an amicus can also be helpful to taxpayers in coordinating legal positions and ensuring that the best possible arguments are presented on issues of first impression.  An effective amicus brief has the potential to persuade the court, and can be an effective tool to resolve an issue favorably.  This is especially true when, because of the specific facts of the taxpayer, the perspectives of other taxpayers are not adequately addressed.



read more

Change in Leadership at DOJ Tax Division

by and | Feb 3, 2017 | , , ,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division is responsible for litigating tax refund claims brought in Federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims and handling appeals from decisions of the United States Tax Court (the Chief Counsel’s office is responsible for Tax Court litigation).  Effective January 23, 2017, David A. Hubbert became the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Tax Division.  He replaces Carolyn Ciraolo, who resigned on January 20, 2017.  A copy of the DOJ press release, which includes biographical information on Mr. Hubbert, can be found here.  In accordance with the change, the Internal Revenue Service on January 31, 2017, announced corresponding changes in the address for correspondence to the DOJ Tax Division and the signature block for any Notice of Appeal from a Tax Court case.

Practice Note:  The changing of the guard is routine when there is a change in the administration, as demonstrated by the prior resignation of William J. Wilkins as Chief Counsel.  However, this year may be a little different as the new administration seems determined to “shake things up.”  In the coming weeks and months, we expect a lot of personnel changes.  Stay tuned!



read more

National Taxpayer Advocate 2016 Report – Penalties

by | Jan 26, 2017 | , , , ,

Every year, the Taxpayer Advocate Service’s (TAS) Annual Report to Congress provides a unique perspective regarding the workings of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and how the IRS relates to the vast majority of taxpayers. That insight is particularly valuable when the IRS chooses to assert penalties—one of the most policy-driven decisions that the IRS can make. In its 2016 report, the TAS makes a number of important observations and recommendations related to three of the most commonly asserted types of penalties—accuracy-related penalties, failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties, and the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty.

Accuracy-Related Penalties

The TAS identified 122 cases litigated between June 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016 (the reporting period), involving accuracy-related penalties.  Of those cases, the IRS prevailed in full in 86 cases (70 percent), taxpayers prevailed in full in 20 cases (16 percent), and 16 cases were split decisions (13 percent) (percentages were rounded down in the original report). Unusual this year were the number of split decisions and the number of taxpayer wins in pro se cases. Many cases involving the negligence penalty turned upon the taxpayer’s failure to maintain adequate books and records related to the adjustments at issue.

In 2013, the TAS issued a study noting that the IRS’s imposition of accuracy-related penalties, subsequently abated after an assessment and a successful taxpayer appeal (among other fact patterns), could lead to a perception of unfairness among taxpayers regarding the IRS’s manner of assertion of these penalties. The TAS cited this study in its 2016 report, and noted again that this conduct could be detrimental to voluntary taxpayer compliance and could undermine the purpose of accuracy-related penalties.

In fact, a main priority of the Annual Report overall is to improve voluntary compliance, a fundamental element of our tax system. The TAS notes that “unnecessary coercion” by the IRS—whether through unsustained penalties or otherwise—could have the effect of reducing voluntary compliance.

Failure-to-File / Failure-to-Pay Penalties

The TAS identified 45 total decisions involving failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties in the reporting period.  Of these, 28 cases involved taxpayers representing themselves. The majority of cases involved full or partial taxpayer losses.

The TAS noted, consistent with our experience, that the IRS frequently relies upon selection of failure-to-file and failure-to-pay cases through its Reasonable Cause Assistant software, which makes the initial decision to impose the relevant penalties in most cases without significant human involvement.  Personal review of the penalty decision does not generally occur until after the taxpayer files an administrative appeal.  The TAS advocated for heightened personal review of these penalties and heightened consideration of relevant facts and circumstances potentially supporting abatement.

Trust Fund Recovery Penalties

The TAS noted that several Trust Fund Recovery Penalty cases this year had successfully challenged whether the penalty was properly noticed and assessed. United States v. Appelbaum, 117 A.F.T.R.2d 2016-633 (W.D.N.C.); Romano-Murphy v. United States, 816 F.3d 707 (11th Cir. 2016).

The TAS further discussed a number of unsuccessful taxpayer challenges to assessment of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty on grounds of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Circuit Courts Agree Timely Filing Requirement for a Tax Court Petition is Jurisdictional

by and | Jan 23, 2017 | , , , ,

Arguably the most important aspect of litigating a case in the Tax Court or in a refund forum is the timely filing of the petition or complaint.  Absent timely filing, the court may not have jurisdiction and the case could be dismissed without the court ever reaching the substantive issues.  On January 13, 2017, the Seventh Circuit joined several other circuit courts in confirming that the time for filing a petition in Tax Court is jurisdictional, not a claims processing rule.

In Tilden v. Commissioner, No. 15-3838 (available here), the taxpayer’s petition was mailed on the last day of the 90-day filing deadline.  It was not stamped and bore no postmark; instead, a USPS print-at-home postage label was attached by legal staff, and it was delivered to the post office the same day.  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued this was insufficient for timelymailing under the “mailbox rule” of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7502.  The Tax Court disagreed with both parties about what section of the regulations applied, and used the date the envelope was entered into the postal service’s tracking system as the date of postmark and filing—which was two days late.  Thus, the Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (available here).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit raised sua sponte the issue of whether the filing deadline for a Tax Court petition is jurisdictional or a claims processing rule.  The proper characterization of the filing deadline is extremely important.  If the deadline is considered jurisdictional, then late filing automatically precludes the taxpayer from seeking relief in the Tax Court.  But, the taxpayer may still pay the tax due, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and file a complaint in a refund forum (if the IRS denies or fails to timely act on the claim).  On the other hand, if the deadline is a claims processing rule, the taxpayer’s options may be limited.  Although the taxpayer that files a late petition might be able to demonstrate that the Tax Court should hear its case, if the court were to determine that the petition was untimely, it arguably would be required under the Code to enter a decision on the merits for the IRS, rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.  That result eliminates the alternative refund forum.

In Tilden, the Seventh Circuit considered the Supreme Court’s current approach in non-tax cases for determining whether deadlines are jurisdictional or claims processing rules, but decided that the language of the relevant statute and the body of Tax Court and circuit court precedent compelled a finding that the 90-day deadline is jurisdictional.  Finding it “imprudent to reject that body of precedent” under principles of stare decisis, the Seventh Circuit followed the Tax Court and other circuit court precedent.  The Seventh Circuit further disagreed with the Tax Court’s holding on the relevant postmark regulations to conclude that the petition was timely filed.

Practice Point: The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is a good reminder as to the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

APA Challenge to Notice of Deficiency: QinetiQ Affirmed

by and | Jan 10, 2017 | , , ,

On January 6, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by published opinion, affirmed the US Tax Court’s (Tax Court) earlier ruling in QinetiQ US Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner.  We previously wrote about the case here, here, and here.  To refresh, the taxpayer had argued in Tax Court that the Notice of Deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which contained a one-sentence reason for the deficiency determination, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”  The APA provides a general rule that a reviewing court that is subject to the APA must hold unlawful and set aside an agency action unwarranted by the facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing that it was well settled that the court is not subject to the APA and holding that the Notice of Deficiency adequately notified the taxpayer that a deficiency had been determined under relevant case law.  The taxpayer appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan, the court concluded that the IRS complied with all applicable procedural requirements.  The court reasoned that the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provided a unique system for judicial review that should govern the content requirements for a Notice of Deficiency.  Per the court, it “is that specific body of law, rather than the more general provisions for judicial review authorized by the APA, that governs the content requirements of a Notice of Deficiency.”  The court cited a Fourth Circuit opinion from 1959, in which it held that the Code’s provisions for de novo review are incompatible with limited judicial review of final agency actions allowed under the APA.

The court held that the APA’s requirement of a reasoned explanation in support of a “final” agency action does not apply to a Notice of Deficiency issued by the IRS.  A Notice of Deficiency, the Court reasoned, cannot be a “final” agency action within the meaning of the APA, because the agency action is not one “by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.”  After issuing a Notice of Deficiency, the IRS may later assert in Tax Court new theories and allege additional deficiencies.  Moreover, a taxpayer may also raise new matters in Tax Court.  In addition, the court cited to the Supreme Court’s 1988 opinion in Bowen v. Massachusetts, emphasizing that Congress did not intend for the APA “to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies.”

The court also held that the Notice of Deficiency issued to QinetiQ satisfied the requirement of Code section 7522(a), which requires that the IRS “describe [in the Notice] the basis for, and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest, additional amounts, additions [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Court Opinions – A Year In Review

by | Jan 4, 2017 | , , , ,

Several notable court opinions were issued 2016 dealing with a variety of substantive and procedural matters. In our previous post – Tax Controversy 360 Year in Review: Court Procedure and Privilege – we discussed some of these matters. This post addresses some additional cases decided by the court during the year and highlights some other cases still in the pipeline.

(more…)



read more

Court Holds that Willful Failure to File FBAR Standard is the Lesser Standard of Recklessness

by | Dec 19, 2016 | , ,

On December 2, 2016, the US District Court for the Central District of California found that taxpayers who failed to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) for three foreign accounts, one of which, in the court’s view, was intentionally kept secret from all persons except their children, for over a decade were “at least recklessly indifferent to a statutory duty.” Read more about the case here. The court found that the taxpayers were “sophisticated,” pointing to evidence that they ran a successful camera shop, and that they lacked credibility having made several misrepresentations on their failed attempt to apply to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) and for making unbelievable assertions at trial. The court did not apply the heightened standard of willfulness applicable to criminal trials, a violation of a known legal duty, finding that civil trials apply the lesser standard of reckless disregard of a statutory duty. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the government had to show willfulness under the clear and convincing standard of proof and applied the typical civil preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. The taxpayers’ lawyer has stated that they will appeal the decision.

Practice note: Ensuring that OVDP applications are complete and truthful is crucial to their acceptance and, as demonstrated here, can and will be used against the taxpayer in any later proceedings. The taxpayers in this case had a number of factors working against them, and, as shown here, offshore reporting cases will often turn on their own specific facts. As more and more FBAR enforcement cases are being docketed around the country, it will be interesting to see whether reviewing courts will apply a uniform standard for willfulness under the FBAR statute.



read more

December 2016 Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure: Electronic Service and Word Counts

by | Dec 1, 2016 | , , ,

December 1 is an important day for federal litigators and for tax practitioners with cases pending in federal district and appellate courts. It brings with it changes to the rules governing their day-to-day practices. This year, those changes are few and simple but important.

First, electronic service no longer entitles litigants to three extra days to respond to something. Items not served personally have historically triggered what many practitioners referred to as a “mailbox rule” of three extra days to respond to the item, and the concept appears in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(c). For many years, items served electronically were inexplicably treated (contrary to fact) as if they were not delivered immediately. That is no longer the case. The rules have caught up to technology, and in district court and the courts of appeals serving an item by email or using the electronic case filing (ECF) system’s notice function will not give one’s adversary additional time to respond unless a local rule preserves the status quo, as Eastern District of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 6 does.

Second, the courts of appeals have moved almost entirely to word-count limits for papers. For many years now, litigants did not have to comply with page limits for briefs if their papers complied with certain word-count limits. Other papers, however, such as motions and petitions had only page-count limits. Several applicable appellate rules (21 [mandamus petitions], 27 [motions], 29 [amicus briefs], 35 [rehearing en banc petitions], and 41 [rehearing petitions]) have been amended to include word-count limits. In addition, the word counts for briefs have been reduced from 14,000 to 13,000 for opening, response, and cross-appeal response-and-reply briefs; 16,500 to 15,300 for cross-appeal opening-and-response briefs; 7,000 to 6,500 for reply briefs.  Please see McDermott’s modified table showing the applicable word limits for the most common pleadings. These reductions were controversial when proposed and many circuits have opted out of them, as indicated in their local rules. E.g., 7th Cir. R. App. P. 32(c).

Finally, appellate practitioners need to determine how courts are implementing the changes. Some courts are applying the old rules to appeals docketed before December 1, 2016, and the new rules to ones docketed on or after December 1, 2016. Others are using the setting of the briefing schedule as the line of demarcation, and some appear willing to modify the rules in the middle of a briefing schedule.

Practice Note:  In light of these changes, now is a good time to review the local rules of the federal courts where your cases are pending or where you typically practice to ensure you are not dropping any deadlines or failing to meet your word counts.



read more

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Case Involving Auer Deference

by and | Nov 1, 2016 | , ,

On October 28, 2016, the US Supreme Court (Supreme Court) granted certiorari in the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. V. G.G., No. 16-273, which involves a dispute as to whether an unpublished letter by a Department of Education (Department) official purporting to interpret the agency’s regulatory interpretation relating to discrimination on the basis of sex is entitled to Auer deference. The petition for writ of certiorari specifically asked the Court to consider three questions: (1) whether the Court should retain the Auer doctrine; (2) if Auer is retained, whether deference extends to the unpublished agency letter; and (3) with or without deference, whether the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation should be given effect. The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the petition.

We have previously discussed Auer deference in the tax context here and here. Although the Supreme Court has declined to address whether the Auer doctrine should be retained, it will be interesting to see if the Court follows its recent opinions in this area and further curtails the application of the doctrine given the unpublished form in which the Department’s interpretation was rendered in the Gloucester County case. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken the position in prior litigation that interpretations in unpublished IRS guidance are eligible for Auer deference. The Tax Court, on the other hand, has indicated that to be entitled to Auer deference an IRS pronouncement must be issued in published form so that taxpayers are aware of such guidance in preparing their tax returns. We will continue to follow this case and report on any future developments.



read more

APA Challenge to Notice of Deficiency: QinetiQ Oral Arguments

by and | Oct 31, 2016 | , ,

On October 26, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in QinetiQ U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 15-2192. We previously wrote about the case here and here. To refresh, the taxpayer had argued in the US Tax Court (Tax Court) that the notice of deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which containing a one-sentence reason for the deficiency determination, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The APA provides a general rule that a reviewing court that is subject to the APA must hold unlawful and set aside an agency action unwarranted by the facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing that it was well settled that the court is not subject to the APA and holding that the notice of deficiency adequately notified the taxpayer that a deficiency had been determined under relevant case law. The taxpayer appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

The substance of the oral argument focused on two issues: (1) whether the IRS’s notice of deficiency in this case violated the APA and was invalid; and (2) whether, on the merits, the taxpayer was entitled to a particular deduction. We focus on the former issue here.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge