Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions

Statute of Limitations – Substantial Omission from Gross Income

Thanks for sharing!
JusticeImage Source: Deval Kulshrestha
via Wikimedia Commons

In the September 12, 2009 newsletter, Taxing Lessons featured T.C. Memo. 2009-195, Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, LLC (click here to view the newsletter). The case covered the question of whether the standard three year statute of limitations for assessing tax applies to an overstatement of basis.

In a new case (134 T.C. No. 11, Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, LLC) the court reaffirmed its decision-and declared regulations the IRS issued in the interim invalid.

Here’s a recap: In T.C. Memo. 2009-195, the IRS attempted to make corrections to the taxpayer’s 1999 income tax return six years after the return was filed. The taxpayer argued that the correction should not be allowed because the IRS waited too long to make the assessment. The IRS claimed a six year statute of limitations applied to the change at issue, which involved an overstatement of the basis of an asset, leading to a loss.

The court decided for the taxpayer, saying a basis overstatement is not an omission from gross income, which would trigger the six year statute.

The IRS responded by issuing temporary, retroactive regulations asserting that an overstatement of basis can create a substantial omission of gross income for purposes of the six year statute of limitations for assessments–effectively creating an interpretation of the law to support the position in T.C. Memo. 2009-195. The IRS then asked the court to reconsider T.C. Memo. 2009-195, which led to 134 T.C. No. 11.

In 134 T.C. No. 11 (Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, LLC) the court reaffirmed the decision reached in the initial opinion. In addition, because a 1958 Supreme Court case (Colony) dealing with this exact issue supports the decision, the court found that the temporary regulations were invalid.

Taxing Lesson: When researching tax law issues, remember that judicial precedent is a primary authority, and can carry as much weight as IRS regulations.


Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Adjusting the interest Image source:   When a CPA deducted interest on a rental mortgage, was he being reasonable? In Wahlin (Docket #23108-16S), the taxpayer, a certified public accountant, owned three rentals. When he purchased them in 2005, he took out three adjustable rate notes with a b...
Decisions — Rejecting the boilerplate Image source:   The whistleblower wanted a share of the $37.5 million the IRS collected. The IRS gave him boilerplate instead. In Kasper (150 T.C. No. 2), the taxpayer told the IRS that his former employer failed to pay overtime wages to employees and therefore didn't wi...
Decisions — Dueling rules Image source:   En garde! When provisions in the internal revenue code appear to conflict, taxpayers and the IRS face off in court. Here are two cases from this week involving disputes over dueling code sections. 1. In Docket No. 2103-17S (Palsgaard), the dueling internal...
Decisions — The bagel business Image source:   Unlike bagels, the deductions discussed in TC Memo. 2017-246 (Lender Management, LLC) have only two flavors: one the taxpayer prefers and one the IRS prefers. The taxpayer manages investments for heirs of a family fortune built on frozen bagels. During ta...
Tagged , , ,