Tax Court Memo Opinion Denying Refund under § 6512 Offers Excellent Examination Question for Tax Procedure Class (12/13/24)

In Applegarth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-107, GS here and T.C. Dkt Sheet here at entry # 68, the Court decided that although Applegarth overpaid his tax liabilities for the years, the Tax Court could not order the refund under its authority for ordering refunds, § 6512, because applicable time limits were not met and there is no equitable tolling for these time limits. These are familiar issues in tax procedure, with varying results depending upon the particular time limits involved. Readers of this blog and fans of tax procedure already know the issues involved, although the results may vary. More importantly, from my perspective as an old tax procedure professor, the case presents the classic type of case that would frame the examinations I liked to give tax procedure students. I will address the teaching “lessons” at the end of the blog entry, but first I will go through the facts and resolution of the issues as presented in the case.

The facts are simple, at least relatively so for tax procedure cases. I copy and paste the FINDINGS OF FACT section (Slip Op. 3-4, footnote omitted): 

          Applegarth resided in Florida when he filed the Petitions in these cases.

          On April 15, 2015, the IRS granted Applegarth an extension to file his 2014 income tax return until October 15, 2015.

          On April 15, 2016, the IRS granted Applegarth an extension to file his 2015 income tax return until October 15, 2016.

          Over several years, beginning in 2014, Applegarth made payments towards his 2014 and 2015 tax obligations. He made all the payments either on or before the extended filing deadlines for the respective tax years.

          On June 24, 2019, Applegarth filed his 2014 tax return.

          On November 21, 2019, the IRS mailed the Notice of Deficiency to Applegarth.

          In March 2022 Applegarth sent an unsigned 2015 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to IRS counsel.

[*4]

Timeline of Events — 2014 Tax Year

Date	Description
Apr. 15, 2014	Applegarth made a payment of $49,000 for the 2014 tax year.
Apr. 19, 2014	Applegarth made a payment of $4,500 for the 2014 tax year.
Jan. 17, 2015	Applegarth made a payment of $19,500 for the 2014 tax year.
Oct. 15, 2015	Extended deadline for Applegarth to file 2014 tax return.
June 24, 2019	Applegarth filed his 2014 tax return alleging an overpayment for the year.
Nov. 21, 2019	IRS issued Notice of Deficiency for tax years 2014 and 2015.
Feb. 18, 2020	Applegarth timely filed Petition with Tax Court.

Pfizer Suit for Overpayment Interest Transferred to CFC for Tucker Act Jurisdiction (9/12/19; 9/25/19)

I write today on the recent decision in Pfizer, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2019), here.  Pfizer involves overpayment interest, normally one of the more boring issues in the tax law.  It also involves some arcane rules, and finally involves taxpayer forum shopping, one of the arts of the tax litigator's trade (perhaps not exciting but certainly important).

I start with some basic background.  Section 6611(a), here, says unequivocally that "Interest shall be allowed and paid upon any overpayment in respect of any internal revenue tax."  There is no question that a taxpayer with an overpayment is entitled to interest on the overpayment -- at least generally (that qualifier "generally" suggests exceptions that play prominently in this blog entry).

Other rules that come in play are:

1.  § 6611(b)(2) says that interest is due from the date of the overpayment "to a date (to be determined by the Secretary) preceding the date of the refund check by not more than 30 days, whether or not such refund check is accepted by the taxpayer after tender of such check to the taxpayer."  This is called the "back-off" period and, as stated may be less than 30 days.  Most importantly, if the refund check is not accepted by the taxpayer upon tender, overpayment interest no longer accrues beyond the back-up date.  [JAT note:  This back-off period did not seem to apply in Pfizer, and I include it as a step to get to the applicable section discuss in paragraph 2.]

2.  § 6611(e)(1) says that no overpayment interest may be paid if the refund is made within 45 days of the due date (determined without regard to extensions), or, if later, the actual filed date of the return reporting the overpayment.

Pfizer filed a timely (on extension) 2008 return on 9/11/09 reporting a net overpayment of $499,528,499 (after application of an amount to its next year estimated tax).  The IRS prepared six checks for the overpayment aggregating to that amount.  The IRS apparently mailed the overpayment refund checks on or around October 19, 2009 (well within § 6611(e)(1)'s 45 day interest-free period from the date of filing, so the checks would have aggregated $499,528,499 without any overpayment interest), but the checks were never delivered to Pfizer.  Pfizer started contacting the IRS about the overpayment refund in December and continued thereafter, with the IRS canceling the checks and then depositing the amount of the overpayment refund claim ($499,528,499) directly into Pfizer's account on March 19, 2010 just over one year from the original overpayment (the due date of the return without extensions).

The interest on the period from the normal due date (March 15, 2009) to Pfizer's actual receipt of the overpayment funds was substantial ($8,298,048, even with the reduced rate for corporate overpayments), so Pfizer wanted to pursue the matter.  It did so by filing a claim for the overpayment interest "three years after receiving the refund."  (I note in the comments below some issues about how overpayment interest claims are made, but the Pfizer Second Circuit opinions do not address that issue, so I move on here; suffice it to say that, somehow, Pfizer made the claim for overpayment interest.  I will say that, at least potentially relevant to the concurring opinion, there is no explanation as to why Pfizer waited so long to present the formal claim, although the IRS apparently told Pfizer that the statute of limitations on the claim for overpayment interest was six years rather than the two year period for refund claims.)  The IRS denied the claim for overpayment interest based on the issuance of the overpayment checks in October 2009, which checks were apparently lost in the mail before delivery to Pfizer.  Pfizer then filed the suit for the overpayment interest.

There is no question that Pfizer could have filed the suit in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) under Tucker Act jurisdiction.  (More on this later.)  Instead, Pfizer filed in the district court for SDNY.  The reason for that was to obtain favorable precedent in the Second Circuit, Doolin v. United States, 918 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1990), here, that held that a refund check not delivered to the taxpayer had not been tendered and thus did not suspend overpayment interest under § 6611(b)(2) (which stops interest after the refund check is tendered to the taxpayer whether or not the refund check is cashed by the taxpayer).  While Pfizer involved § 6611(e)(1), the same types of considerations as the Court invoked in Doolin would seemingly apply.  The CFC had no such favorable precedent, but also had no unfavorable precedent.  Still, if the taxpayer could find appropriate jurisdiction in the district court, then it had seemingly a winner under Doolin.  Pfizer is thus a classic example of taxpayer forum shopping.

Ah, the Flora Full Payment Rule Raises Its Ugly Head (1/16/13)

In Roseman v. United States, 2013 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2 (2013), here, a nonpublished opinion and order, the Court of Federal Claims (Judge Allegra) dismissed the taxpayer's trust fund recovery refund suit for failure to meet the prepayment requirement for refund suits.  This just applies the so-called Flora rule (see Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 150 (1960)) that a refund suit requires full payment, a rule that is mitigated in so-called divisible tax cases to require only the payment for one such divisible tax.  I explain this below, but first address the Rosenman opinion.

The body of the opinion is short, but a good reminder for practitioners and their clients:

Jurisdiction in this tax refund suit lies, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). n2 As a general rule, before bringing a refund suit, a taxpayer must, inter alia, pay his or her full tax liability. See Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 150 (1960)); see also Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This rule, however, does not apply to so-called divisible taxes, including the penalty under section 6672. Rather, "a taxpayer assessed under section 6672  need only pay the divisible amount of the penalty assessment attributable to a single individual's withholding before instituting a refund action." Boynton v. United States, 566 F.2d 50, 52 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89, 90-91 (8th Cir. 1960). n3 Courts have held that this requirement is satisfied where a plaintiff pays the penalty attributable to one employee's wages for one quarter. See, e.g., Ruth v. United States, 823 F.2d 1091, 1092 (7th Cir. 1987); USLIFE Title Ins. Co. of Dall. v. Harbison, 784 F.2d 1238, 1243 n.6 (5th Cir. 1986); Boynton, 566 F.2d at 52; Suhadolnik v. United States, 2011 WL 2173683, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2011); Todd v. United States, 2009 WL 3152863, at *3-4 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2009); Lighthall v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 1990 WL 53127, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 1990), aff'd, 948 F.2d 1292 (7th Cir. 1991). n4
   n2 It is worth repeating that jurisdiction for refund suits in this court is not provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1346. See Hinck v. United States, 64 Fed. C1. 71, 74-76 (2005), aff'd, 446 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2006), aff'd, 550 U.S. 501 (2007).
   n3 "This relaxed requirement is based on the theory that section 6672 assessments represent  a cumulation of separable assessments for each employee from whom taxes were withheld." Boynton, 566 F.2d at 52.
   n4 Defendant argues that payment must be made for one employee for each of the periods involved. Given the facts presented, this court need not address this argument. 

Plaintiff's payment of $25 per quarter satisfies neither the Flora "full payment" rule nor the Boynton exception for divisible taxes. As confirmed by the tax records filed in this case, the penalties in question were imposed based on a finding that plaintiff was an employee of his corporation. The amount of employment tax owed with respect to plaintiff for any of the quarters at issue far exceeds the $25 payment amount. Accordingly, the jurisdictional prerequisite for bringing this refund action has not been satisfied. 

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1). The Clerk is hereby ordered to dismiss the complaint.