Adam Sowards, T. C. Memo. 2023-99, filed 8/3/23, loses both Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit for his numberless children, even though everyone agrees he has four (count ’em, four) who might qualify. Ditto for his EITC and recovery rebate credit, for his non-US citizen wife. Problem is, for years at issue, they had no SSNs.

Judge Gale judge-‘splains: “Petitioner’s spouse (whom he married in 2003) did not have an SSN because she was not a citizen of the United States. Petitioner also had not obtained SSNs for his children because he had intended (consistent with his religious beliefs, which include conscientious objection to public insurance and reliance on government benefits) to allow his children to decide at an appropriate age whether they wished to participate in the Social Security system.” T. C. Memo. 2023-99, at p. 3.

Adam had a back-and-forth with IRS (corroboration scarce) over getting ITINs, but we all know you can’t get an ITIN if you can get an SSN. So Adam’s claims for CTC and ACTC get bounced for Section 6213(b)(1), (g)(2) math or clericals, hence no SNOD, so Adam can contest at CDP (no prior opportunity). In the meantime, the argy-bargy over ITINs drags on until the PATH Act ups the ante for the credits, so when Adam finally caves, gets the SSNs for the kiddies, and files amended returns claiming the credits, Section 24(e) as amended by the PATH Act says he’s too late with the SSNs.

Adam also loses EITC and recovery rebate credit because Mrs. Adam had no SSN, as she was not a US citizen.

Adam turns to Chris Bourell, Esq., and his trusty Rocketguys at the University of Toledo Tax Controversy Clinic.

The Rocketguys claim unconstitutional retroactivity of the Section 24(e) amendment, but Judge Gale isn’t having it. “…the PATH Act’s amendments to the section 24(e) identification number requirements expressly apply to returns, and amendments and supplements to returns, filed after the date of its enactment. See PATH Act § 205(c)(1), 129 Stat. at 3081. Thus, by its terms, the amended version of section 24(e) applies only prospectively, to documents (like petitioner’s amended returns) filed after enactment of the PATH Act.” T. C. Memo. 2023-99, at p. 14. That it changed Adam’s expectation of what the law would continue to be doesn’t make it retroactive.

No one’s life, liberty, property, or sanity is safe while Congress…but this is a nonpolitical blog.

And of course any mistaken advice on the law from IRS’ agents doesn’t create estoppel.

Free exercise of religion doesn’t get it, either. See Miller v. Com’r, 114 T. C. 511, 6/23/00, at pp. 516-518.

Adam loses.