In Uncategorized on 12/11/2019 at 19:12

We all know Rev. Rul.s. We also know Rev. Proc.s. These are the daily grist of Federal tax practice.

Mark Marineau, Docket No. 9469-16L, filed 12/11/19, is another last-known-address story. Mark’s last notice didn’t include his SSAN or his middle name, but Judge Buch doesn’t need to decide if those omissions are material, because IRS got the letter with the address change three (count ‘em, three) days before they sent Mark the SNOD off the SFR. IRS gets 45 (count ‘em, 45) days to process a change-of-address per Rev. Proc. 2010-16, and thereby hangs the cliché.

Judge Buch: “Mr. Marineau argues that he should not be bound by the 45-day processing window outlined in Rev. Proc. 2010-16. In support, Mr. Marineau quotes Macey’s Jewelry Corp. v. United States, 387 F.2d 70, 72 (5th Cir. 1967), which states ‘Revenue rulings, however, are not authority having the force of law, to be automatically applied in each and every case.’ Mr. Marineau conflates a ‘revenue ruling’-an IRS interpretation of tax law-with a ‘revenue procedure’-an official statement of procedure issued by the IRS. While it is also true that this Court is not bound by revenue procedures, we often look to them for guidance.” Order, at p. 7 (Footnote omitted, but it’s a cite to Hollimon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-157, at *7-*8.).

And Tax Court is often guided by Rev. Proc. 2010-16.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: