Attorney-at-Law

LE QUINZIÈME JUILLET

In Uncategorized on 04/10/2020 at 17:17

Reste tranquille, enfants de la patrie, your national holiday hasn’t changed, but Steve Mnuchin and the Treasury Munchkins have extended more than the due date of your 1040NRs, and that of the 1040s of the rest of us.

Here’s Notice 2020-23, 4/9/20, with good news for the dilatory, quarantined and isolated who are trying to petition, or otherwise wet-ink via snail mail or PDS, the Glasshouse Gang, while the Glasshouse Gang aren’t receiving mail.

“Affected Taxpayers also have until July 15, 2020, to perform all Specified Time-Sensitive Actions, that are due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020. This relief includes the time for filing all petitions with the Tax Court, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court, filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax, and bringing suit upon a claim for credit or refund of any tax. This notice does not provide relief for the time period for filing a petition with the Tax Court, or for filing a claim or bringing a suit for credit or refund if that period expired before April 1, 2020.” Notice, at p. 8.

An Affected Taxpayer is any person (see Reg. Section 7701(a)(1)) who has or had to file a return or anything else on or after 4/1/20 and before 7/15/20, and who is covered under the current COVID-19 emergency declaration of 3/13/20.

My colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, asked why I hadn’t blogged this. I’d seen the Notice, but I thought the blogosphere and the trade press would be all over this.

The weekly IRS e-news for tax professionals hasn’t hit my inbox yet, and I had expected that e-news would have tipped off everybody. Apparently not.

Thanks again, Mr Reilly. Stay safe, stay strong, and the rest of you go and do likewise.

Edited to add: Of course, even if the clock ran, one could always try equitable tolling. See my blogpost “For Whom The Equitable Tolls,” 4/9/20.

Further edited to add: But the explicit Section 6213 language, with the stay of collection, makes the 90-150 day limitation on petitioning a SNOD jurisdictional. Likewise Section 6015(e)(1)(A) slams the ninety day-six month door on innocent spousery. Yet maybe, just maybe, Sections 6320 and 6330 lien-levy CDP petitions might could slide under the tag. See Myers DC Cir opinion at p. 20: “Although this Circuit is the first to decide whether Section 7623(b)(4) is jurisdictional in nature, we recognize that our holding is in some tension with that of another circuit regarding a similarly worded provision of the Internal Revenue Code 26 USC §6330(d)(1).” But DC Cir says notwithstanding other learning, including our old pal Guralnik, the statutory language is the same for petitions from NODs in CDPs as for whistleblower NODs. Of course, watch out for statutory stay language in Section 6330(e)(1); that’s a tripwire for a landmine that might blow your case sky-high. So ya pays yer money and yer takes yer chances.

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: