Code Section 6501(a) Archives - TAX CONTROVERSY 360

Weekly IRS Roundup September 3 – 7, 2018

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 11, 2018 | IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, Uncategorized

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of September 3 – 7, 2018:

September 4, 2018: The IRS reminded taxpayers that they have until September 28, 2018, to apply for the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

September 5, 2018: In response to taxpayer inquiries, the IRS clarified that taxpayers generally can deduct business-related payments to charities or governmental entities even if they also receive a state or local tax credit.

September 6, 2018: The IRS released a Practice Unit on “Determining an Individual’s Residency for Treaty Purposes.”

September 6, 2018: The IRS published Revenue Procedure 2018-47, which provides guidance to regulated investment companies regarding the application of the section 4982 excise tax to amounts included in income under the new Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 965 transition tax.

September 7, 2018: The IRS published Revenue Ruling 2018-25, establishing the interest rates applicable to over- and under-payments of tax.

September 7, 2018: The IRS released PMTA 2018-016, concluding that it can use it math error authority, not only on intake and before refunds have been issued, but also anytime within the three-year statute of limitations period under Code Section 6501(a).

September 7, 2018: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandum and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Kevin Hall in our DC office for this week’s roundup.

Statutes of Limitation in the International Tax Context

by Elizabeth Chao and Lowell D. Yoder | Oct 19, 2017 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

As most taxpayers know, under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6501(a), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) generally has three years after a tax return is filed to assess any additional tax. However, Code Section 6501 provides several exceptions to this rule, including but not limited to the following.

False or fraudulent returns with the intent to evade tax (unlimited assessment period)
Willful attempt to defeat or evade tax (unlimited assessment period)
Failure to file a return (unlimited assessment period)
Extension by agreement (open-ended or for a specific period)
Adjustments for certain income and estate tax credits (separately provided in specific statutes)
Termination of private foundation status (unlimited assessment period)
Valuation of gifts of property (unlimited assessment period)
Listed transactions (assessment period remains open for one year after certain information is furnished)
Substantial omission of items (six-year assessment period)
Failure to include certain information on a personal holding company return (six-year assessment period)

If the IRS issues a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer files a petition in the Tax Court, the statute of limitations on assessment is extended until after the Tax Court’s decision becomes final. See Code Section 6503(a); see also Roberson and Spencer, “11th Circuit Allows Invalid Notice to Suspend Assessment Period,” 136 Tax Notes 709 (August 6, 2012). (more…)

Tax Court Rejects IRS Argument that Corporate Taxpayer Failed to File Valid Return

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 13, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

The issue of whether a valid tax return has been filed usually comes up in the context of individuals. One common situation involves taxpayers who file so-called zero returns or returns with an altered jurat and protest paying any taxes. Another common situation, which has received substantial attention lately, involves whether a tax return filed after an assessment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a “return” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. We previously posted on the latter.

This post focuses on the uncommon situation where the IRS disputes whether a corporate taxpayer filed a valid return. As we have previously discussed, in the widely cited Beard v. Commissioner, 82 TC 766 (1984), the Tax Court defined a four-part test (the Beard Test) for determining whether a document constitutes a “return.” To be a return, a document must: (1) provide sufficient data to calculate tax liability; (2) purport to be a return; (3) be an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (4) be executed by the taxpayer under penalties of perjury. This test applies to all types of taxpayers, and its application to corporate taxpayers was recently highlighted in New Capital Fire, Inc. v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2017-177.

In New Capital Fire, Capital Fire Insurance Co. (Old Capital) merged into New Capital Fire, Inc. (New Capital), with New Capital surviving, on December 4, 2002. The merger was designed to be a tax-free reorganization under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 368(a)(1)(F). Old Capital did not file a tax return for any part of 2002 and New Capital filed a tax return for 2002 which included a pro forma Form 1120-PC, US Property and Casualty Insurance Company Income Tax Return, for Old Capital’s 2002 tax year. The IRS issued Old Capital a notice of deficiency in 2012 determining that Old Capital was required to file a return for the short tax year ending December 4, 2002, because the merger failed to meet to reorganization rules. (more…)