SCOTUS Reports

Tag: Collection Due Process Hearing

  • Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 161 T.C. No. 4 (2023): Equitable Tolling of the 30-Day Period for Requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing

    Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 161 T. C. No. 4 (2023)

    In a significant ruling, the U. S. Tax Court decided that the 30-day deadline for requesting a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing can be equitably tolled, overturning prior precedent. This decision expands taxpayer rights by allowing late-filed requests to be considered when equitable circumstances exist, impacting future IRS collection actions and taxpayer interactions.

    Parties

    The petitioner, Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC, is a California limited liability company that elected to be taxed as a corporation. The respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The case was heard in the U. S. Tax Court with docket numbers 381-22L and 5442-22L.

    Facts

    Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC had unpaid income taxes for the years 2010, 2011, and 2018. The IRS issued notices of federal tax lien (NFTL) filings for these years. The petitioner timely requested a CDP hearing for the 2010 and 2011 tax years within the statutory 30-day period. However, the petitioner’s request for a 2018 CDP hearing was submitted one day after the 30-day period. The IRS provided a CDP hearing for 2010 and 2011 but determined the 2018 request was untimely and offered an equivalent hearing instead. The petitioner filed a petition seeking review for all three years, and after the petition was filed, the IRS issued a Decision Letter for 2018.

    Procedural History

    The IRS moved to dismiss the case regarding the 2018 tax year for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the petitioner’s request for a CDP hearing was untimely, and thus, there was no determination to review. The petitioner argued that the 30-day period should be equitably tolled and that the IRS should have made a determination for 2018. The Tax Court overruled its previous holding in Kennedy v. Commissioner, which stated that the 30-day period was a fixed deadline not subject to equitable tolling, and remanded the case to the IRS to consider whether the circumstances warranted equitable tolling for the 2018 tax year.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing under I. R. C. § 6320(a)(3)(B) can be equitably tolled?

    Rule(s) of Law

    The Internal Revenue Code, I. R. C. § 6320, provides taxpayers with the right to a CDP hearing upon the filing of an NFTL. The statute requires that such a hearing be requested within 30 days after the 5-day notice period following the NFTL filing. The Supreme Court has established a rebuttable presumption that nonjurisdictional filing deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, as articulated in Irwin v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990).

    Holding

    The Tax Court held that the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing under I. R. C. § 6320(a)(3)(B) is subject to equitable tolling. The court overruled Kennedy v. Commissioner, which had previously held that the 30-day period was a fixed deadline not amenable to equitable tolling.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning focused on the statutory text, context, and legislative history of I. R. C. § 6320. The court found no clear statement in the statute that the 30-day period was an administrative bar that precluded Appeals from considering untimely requests. The court applied the Supreme Court’s framework from cases such as Boechler, P. C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022), which held that a similar 30-day period under I. R. C. § 6330(d)(1) was subject to equitable tolling. The court noted the remedial nature of the CDP regime, designed to provide due process and fairness to taxpayers, supported the application of equitable tolling. The court also considered the Treasury regulations, which, while setting forth a strict 30-day deadline, did not categorically preclude equitable tolling and allowed for certain exceptions. The court concluded that the absence of a clear statement against equitable tolling, combined with the statute’s remedial purpose, supported the application of the doctrine. The court remanded the case for the IRS to determine whether equitable tolling was warranted based on the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s late filing for the 2018 tax year.

    Disposition

    The Tax Court overruled its precedent in Kennedy v. Commissioner and held that the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing is subject to equitable tolling. The court remanded the case to the IRS to determine if equitable tolling applied to the 2018 tax year.

    Significance/Impact

    This ruling significantly expands taxpayer rights by allowing for the equitable tolling of the 30-day period to request a CDP hearing. It overturns prior precedent that treated the deadline as fixed, thereby enhancing due process protections for taxpayers. The decision aligns the administrative deadline with the judicial filing deadline under I. R. C. § 6330(d)(1), which the Supreme Court held was subject to equitable tolling. The ruling may lead to more flexible IRS practices in handling late-filed CDP hearing requests and could influence future cases regarding the application of equitable principles in tax law. It underscores the importance of the CDP regime as a protective mechanism for taxpayers facing IRS collection actions.

  • Rickey B. Barnhill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 155 T.C. No. 1 (2020): Opportunity to Dispute Trust Fund Recovery Penalty Liability

    Rickey B. Barnhill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 155 T. C. No. 1 (2020)

    In Rickey B. Barnhill v. Commissioner, the U. S. Tax Court denied the IRS’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a taxpayer’s inability to participate in an Appeals conference due to non-receipt of notification did not preclude a subsequent challenge to the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) liability at a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. This decision underscores the importance of a meaningful opportunity to dispute tax liabilities before the IRS can bar such challenges in later proceedings, ensuring taxpayers are not denied due process rights.

    Parties

    Rickey B. Barnhill, as the Petitioner, challenged the assessment of Trust Fund Recovery Penalties by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Respondent, in the U. S. Tax Court. The case originated from Barnhill’s appeal of the proposed TFRP assessments and subsequent CDP hearing request following the IRS’s filing of a notice of federal tax lien.

    Facts

    Rickey B. Barnhill was a director at Iron Cross, Inc. , which failed to pay over employment withholding taxes for ten quarters from 2010 to 2012. The IRS sent Barnhill a Letter 1153 proposing to assess TFRPs against him as a responsible person. Barnhill timely filed an appeal with the IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals). Appeals then sent a Letter 5157 to schedule a conference, which Barnhill alleges he never received. As a result, he did not participate in the scheduled conference. Appeals rejected Barnhill’s appeal, assessed the penalties, and filed a notice of federal tax lien. Barnhill requested a CDP hearing to challenge the underlying TFRP liability, but Appeals rejected this challenge, citing the prior opportunity provided by the Letter 1153.

    Procedural History

    The IRS assessed TFRPs against Barnhill after Appeals rejected his initial appeal. Upon receiving a notice of federal tax lien, Barnhill requested a CDP hearing, where he attempted to dispute his underlying liability for the TFRPs. Appeals sustained the lien filing, determining that Barnhill had a prior opportunity to dispute his liability due to his receipt of Letter 1153. Barnhill then filed a petition in the U. S. Tax Court, which denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the absence of a meaningful opportunity to dispute the TFRP liability in the initial Appeals conference did not preclude a subsequent challenge at the CDP hearing.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a taxpayer who received a Letter 1153 but did not receive subsequent correspondence (Letter 5157) scheduling an Appeals conference has had an “opportunity,” for purposes of I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), to dispute his underlying TFRP liability, thereby precluding a challenge to that liability at a later CDP hearing?

    Rule(s) of Law

    Under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), a taxpayer may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at a CDP hearing if the taxpayer “did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. ” A prior conference with Appeals, whether pre- or post-assessment, constitutes an “opportunity” to dispute the liability. See 26 C. F. R. sec. 301. 6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court held that if a taxpayer received a Letter 1153 but did not receive the subsequent Letter 5157, thereby missing the Appeals conference, the taxpayer did not have an “opportunity” to dispute the underlying TFRP liability within the meaning of I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Therefore, the taxpayer should not be precluded from challenging that liability at a subsequent CDP hearing.

    Reasoning

    The Tax Court reasoned that the mere receipt of Letter 1153 does not constitute an “opportunity” to dispute the TFRP liability; rather, it is the Appeals conference that provides the actual opportunity. The court distinguished between the receipt of a notice and the opportunity it occasions, emphasizing that the statutory text of I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) bars a liability challenge at a CDP hearing only if the taxpayer had a genuine chance to dispute the liability. In Barnhill’s case, the absence of the Letter 5157 meant he was not informed of the conference and thus did not have a meaningful opportunity to participate. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that merely receiving the Letter 1153 was sufficient to preclude a subsequent challenge, finding that the lack of participation in the Appeals conference due to non-receipt of the scheduling letter constituted a denial of the opportunity to dispute the liability. The court also found that any error in the TFRP appeal process could not be considered harmless, as it potentially affected the outcome of the appeal and the subsequent CDP hearing.

    Disposition

    The U. S. Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the absence of a meaningful opportunity to dispute the TFRP liability in the initial Appeals conference did not preclude a subsequent challenge at the CDP hearing.

    Significance/Impact

    This decision clarifies the requirement for a meaningful opportunity to dispute tax liabilities before such challenges can be barred in subsequent proceedings. It reinforces the importance of due process in tax collection actions, ensuring that taxpayers are not denied the right to challenge their liabilities based on procedural deficiencies in the IRS’s appeals process. The case may influence future IRS procedures and taxpayer rights in TFRP assessments and CDP hearings, emphasizing the necessity of effective communication and the provision of actual opportunities for taxpayers to engage in the appeals process.

  • Kuykendall v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 7 (2007): Taxpayer’s Right to Challenge Underlying Tax Liability in Collection Due Process Hearings

    Kuykendall v. Commissioner, 129 T. C. 7 (2007)

    In Kuykendall v. Commissioner, the U. S. Tax Court ruled that taxpayers who received a notice of deficiency with insufficient time to file a petition could challenge the underlying tax liability during a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. This decision, significant for taxpayers’ rights, addressed the adequacy of time for filing a petition, setting a precedent that 12 days was not enough time, thereby allowing taxpayers a chance to contest their tax liabilities in subsequent hearings.

    Parties

    Plaintiffs/Petitioners: Alan Lee Kuykendall and Debi Marie Kuykendall (husband and wife), throughout all stages of litigation. Defendant/Respondent: Commissioner of Internal Revenue, throughout all stages of litigation.

    Facts

    Alan and Debi Kuykendall resided in Middletown, California, at the time they filed their petition. Debi worked as an accountant and bookkeeper and part-time at a restaurant where she was assaulted in 2002, leading to severe physical and psychological trauma, including a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. Alan, a former property manager, suffered from postpolio syndrome, making him unable to work and impairing his short-term memory. In April 2002, the IRS notified them of an audit for their 1999 tax return. Despite Debi’s request to delay the examination due to her medical condition, the IRS proceeded and issued an audit report in July 2002. The Kuykendalls did not respond to the report by the September 3, 2002 deadline. In May 2003, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency for their 1999 tax year, which they did not receive until July 18, 2003, leaving them only 12 days to petition the Tax Court. They requested and received a copy of the notice but did not file a petition. Subsequently, they were notified of the intent to levy in February 2004 and requested a CDP hearing, during which they sought to challenge the underlying tax liability.

    Procedural History

    The Kuykendalls requested a CDP hearing following the IRS’s notice of intent to levy in February 2004. At the hearing in August 2004, they attempted to challenge the underlying tax liability, but the Appeals Officer determined they could not because they had received a notice of deficiency. The IRS issued a notice of determination in July 2006, sustaining the proposed collection action. The Kuykendalls timely filed a petition with the Tax Court, which the IRS moved for summary judgment on in June 2007, arguing that the Kuykendalls were barred from challenging the tax liability due to the notice of deficiency. The Tax Court considered the motion under the standard of review applicable to summary judgment motions, which requires no genuine issue of material fact and a decision as a matter of law.

    Issue(s)

    Whether taxpayers who received a notice of deficiency with only 12 days remaining to petition the Tax Court are precluded from challenging the underlying tax liability during a Collection Due Process hearing under section 6330(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code?

    Rule(s) of Law

    Section 6330(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code states that a taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at a CDP hearing if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Treasury Regulation section 301. 6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2 defines “receipt” of a notice of deficiency as receipt in time to petition the Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiency. The Tax Court has jurisdiction over deficiency suits if a petition is filed within 90 days from the issuance of a notice of deficiency, as per section 6213(a) and Rule 13(c) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    Holding

    The Tax Court held that 12 days was insufficient time for the Kuykendalls to petition the Tax Court for redetermination of the notice of deficiency. Therefore, they were entitled to challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability during their section 6330 hearing.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning was grounded in its precedent concerning the adequacy of time for taxpayers to petition the Tax Court upon receiving a notice of deficiency. The court cited cases such as Mulvania v. Commissioner and Looper v. Commissioner, which established that a taxpayer generally has sufficient time to file a petition if the notice of deficiency is received with at least 30 days remaining in the filing period. However, in this case, the Kuykendalls received the notice with only 12 days remaining, which the court found to be insufficient based on prior rulings where less than 30 days was deemed inadequate. The court also considered that the Kuykendalls did not deliberately avoid receipt of the notice and took diligent steps to dispute the liability upon learning of it. The court’s interpretation of section 301. 6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2 of the Treasury Regulations supported its conclusion that the Kuykendalls should be allowed to challenge the underlying tax liability at the CDP hearing. The court’s analysis reflected a policy consideration of ensuring taxpayers have a fair opportunity to contest tax liabilities. The majority opinion did not address dissenting or concurring opinions as none were presented in the provided text.

    Disposition

    The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the IRS Appeals Office for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.

    Significance/Impact

    Kuykendall v. Commissioner is significant for its clarification of the timeframe within which taxpayers must receive a notice of deficiency to effectively challenge their tax liabilities. This decision impacts the procedural rights of taxpayers in CDP hearings, emphasizing the importance of adequate notice and opportunity to contest tax liabilities. It sets a precedent for future cases involving the timing of notices of deficiency and may influence IRS procedures regarding the issuance of such notices. The ruling reinforces the taxpayer’s right to due process and could lead to more careful consideration by the IRS of the timing and delivery of notices of deficiency to ensure taxpayers have a fair chance to respond.

  • Keene v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 275 (2002): Taxpayer’s Right to Audio Record IRS Collection Hearings Under Section 7521(a)(1)

    Keene v. Commissioner, 119 T. C. 275 (2002)

    In a significant decision, the U. S. Tax Court ruled that taxpayers have the right to audio record their hearings with the IRS Appeals Office under Section 7521(a)(1). The case centered on taxpayer Keene’s attempt to record his Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, which the IRS had prohibited. The court found that such hearings constitute “in-person interviews” under the law, rejecting the IRS’s distinction between interviews and hearings. This ruling enhances taxpayer rights by ensuring transparency in collection proceedings and aids judicial review of IRS determinations.

    Parties

    Plaintiff-Appellant: Robert N. Keene. Defendant-Appellee: Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Keene was the petitioner at the trial and appeal stages, while the Commissioner was the respondent throughout the litigation.

    Facts

    Robert N. Keene, a Las Vegas resident, filed a joint federal income tax return for the 1991 tax year with his spouse, reporting various income sources and a tax liability. After making partial payments, Keene filed for bankruptcy and later amended his return, claiming no tax was due based on frivolous arguments. In 2002, the IRS issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and a Notice of Right to a Hearing regarding the unpaid 1991 tax. Keene requested a CDP hearing and sought to audio record it. The IRS Appeals Office denied this request, citing a new policy against recording such hearings. Keene then left the scheduled hearing when not allowed to record and subsequently challenged the IRS’s decision in the U. S. Tax Court.

    Procedural History

    The case was assigned to a Special Trial Judge, whose opinion the full Tax Court adopted. The IRS moved for summary judgment, arguing that Section 7521(a)(1) did not apply to CDP hearings. Keene opposed this motion, asserting his right to record under the statute. The Tax Court considered the motion without Keene’s appearance but with his written opposition on file. The court ultimately denied the IRS’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Keene was entitled to record his CDP hearing.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a taxpayer has the statutory right under Section 7521(a)(1) to audio record a Collection Due Process hearing with the IRS Appeals Office?

    Rule(s) of Law

    Section 7521(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states that “Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service in connection with any in-person interview with any taxpayer relating to the determination or collection of any tax shall, upon advance request of such taxpayer, allow the taxpayer to make an audio recording of such interview at the taxpayer’s own expense and with the taxpayer’s own equipment. “

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court held that a taxpayer is entitled to audio record a Collection Due Process hearing with the IRS Appeals Office under Section 7521(a)(1), as such a hearing constitutes an “in-person interview” relating to the collection of tax.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation of “in-person interview” under Section 7521(a)(1). The court found the term broad enough to encompass a CDP hearing, rejecting the IRS’s distinction between an “interview” and a “hearing. ” The court relied on dictionary definitions of “interview” and noted that a CDP hearing involves a face-to-face, formal discussion about tax collection, fitting the ordinary meaning of an interview. The court also rejected the IRS’s argument that CDP hearings are voluntary, emphasizing that they are integral to the tax collection process and thus covered by the statute. Furthermore, the court noted that allowing recordings aligns with congressional intent to provide safeguards in IRS collection actions and facilitates judicial review of the IRS’s determinations. The court also addressed the IRS’s concerns about recording abuse but found these insufficient to override statutory rights. The decision did not address the validity of IRS regulations against recording but focused solely on the statutory right under Section 7521(a)(1).

    Disposition

    The Tax Court remanded the case to the IRS Appeals Office with instructions to offer Keene a CDP hearing that he could audio record. The court withheld action on the IRS’s motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of the remanded hearing, warning Keene against making frivolous arguments at the recorded hearing.

    Significance/Impact

    This case significantly impacts taxpayer rights by affirming their ability to record IRS collection hearings, enhancing transparency and accountability in the tax collection process. It clarifies the scope of Section 7521(a)(1), potentially affecting how the IRS conducts hearings and how courts review IRS determinations. The ruling may lead to changes in IRS policy and practice regarding recordings and could influence future legislation on taxpayer rights. It also underscores the importance of clear statutory language in protecting taxpayer interests against administrative discretion.