Susan C. Morse is Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor of Law at University of Texas School of Law
If a taxpayer is late in seeking judicial review in a tax proceeding known as a “collection due process” case, the U.S. Tax Court has the power to excuse the missed deadline for equitable reasons, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a unanimous decision.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. As expected, the court held that equitable tolling can apply to a statutory time limit in tax cases known as “collection due process,” or CDP, cases.
At the argument on Wednesday in Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, most justices seemed prepared to allow consideration of “equitable tolling” in tax collection due process cases – so long as a decision is written narrowly and does not spill over to support equitable tolling for other tax deadlines.
The argument on Wednesday in Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue will consider whether “equitable tolling” – which allows courts to excuse missed deadlines in some circumstances – is available for a statutory federal income tax deadline.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a 7-2 decision that the federal government must prove a “nexus” between a particular administrative proceeding and a taxpayer’s conduct in order to secure a conviction under the “omnibus clause” in Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which makes it a
Marinello v. United States is a criminal tax case that presents a limiting-principle puzzle. It turns on the meaning of I.R.C. § 7212(a), which makes “corrup[t]” “obstruction” of “the due administration of this Title” a felony.
Without hearing anything from the Internal Revenue Service, a taxpayer destroys business records that show cash receipts, cash outlays and failure to pay income tax or remit withholding tax. Can he be found to have “corruptly” “obstruct[ed] the due administration of” the tax law, which is a felony?
The Supreme Court on June 19 unanimously vacated and remanded an Eleventh Circuit per curiam decision in United States v. Clarke. The Eleventh Circuit had reversed a district court refusal to grant a summons recipient an evidentiary hearing to challenge an IRS summons.
What guidance should be given to district courts that must decide whether the recipient of an IRS summons has raised a sufficient question about the government’s “improper purpose” to merit an evidentiary hearing?
If a taxpayer refuses to respond to a summons issued by the IRS, the government must take the summons to a federal district court to seek enforcement.