Payments v. Deposits and Below-the-Line Stipulations in a Stipulated Tax Court Decision Document (4/19/23)

In Hill v. Commissioner, ___ F.4^th ___ (11^th Cir. 4/10/23), CA11 Slip Op. here and GS here, the Court held that the taxpayer’s remittance of $10,263,750 to the IRS was a deposit that accrued interest at the lower interest rate for deposits rather than the higher overpayment rate.

Payments v. Deposits Background

In reaching its decision, the Court provided this background introduction (Slip Op. 18-20, cleaned up, particularly to eliminate parallel citations):

C. Payments and Deposits

As further background, it helps to understand why taxpayers, like Hill, will expressly designate a remittance as a "deposit," as opposed to a payment. Whether the taxpayer makes a deposit or a payment can affect whether the taxpayer can challenge the amount of a deficiency.

Generally, when a taxpayer makes an undesignated remittance, the IRS treats that remittance as a payment and applies it "against any outstanding liability for taxes, penalties[,] or interest." See Rev. Proc. 2005-18 § 4.01(2), 2005-13 I.R.B. 798, 799.n4 "If an undesignated remittance is made in the full amount of a proposed liability," it "will be treated as a payment of tax, a notice of deficiency will not be mailed[,] and the taxpayer will not have the right to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency." Id. § 4.03, 2005-13 I.R.B. at 800.

   n4 Throughout their briefs, both parties cited and relied upon Revenue Procedure 2005–18. No party raised a deference issue under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984), and thus we do not address Chevron.

By contrast, a taxpayer who makes a "deposit" can challenge an alleged deficiency in the Tax Court without accruing underpayment interest on the disputed tax, up to the amount of the deposit. See I.R.C. §§ 6601(a), 6603(a)-(b), 6213(a). The Supreme Court has recognized that "the taxpayer will often desire treatment of the remittance as a deposit—even if this means forfeiting the right to interest on an overpayment—in order to preserve jurisdiction in the Tax Court, which depends on the existence of a deficiency," which "would be wiped out" if the remittance were treated as a payment. Baral v. United States, 528 U.S. 431, 439 n.2 (2000).

Court of Federal Claims Rejects Defective § 6603 Strategy for Multiple Transferee Liabilities (11/21/22)

In Dillon Trust Company LLC v. United States, ___ Fed. Cl. ___, 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2575 (11/10/22), FC here and GS here, the Government moved for partial dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and for partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s interest-related claim. I focus here on the interest-related claim.

The background is an intermediary or Midco transaction by a family corporation with the assets stripped out of the corporation by direct or indirect transfer to shareholders without paying the large tax corporate liability generated by the corporation. In initially reporting the transaction, the corporation claims the benefit of a bullshit tax shelter to effectively zero out the gain and tax, but on audit and denial of bullshit tax shelter benefit, the gain is taxed to the corporation which has no assets (because the shareholders stripped them out directly or indirectly). So, the IRS has to chase the “transferees” – here the shareholders – to collect the payment through transferee liability under § 6901.  I cover these transactions in Federal Tax Procedure (2022 Practitioner Ed.), here, at pp. 745-746. In a footnote, I quote Alterman Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-231, at *2:

Courts, including this court, have been plagued by Midco cases. Rarely do these cases present themselves for a determination of the underlying liabilities. Instead, these cases are postured so that the courts are asked to determine whether someone other than the taxpayer should be on the hook for the taxpayer's liability. They are transferee liability cases, and so are these cases.

The corporate taxpayer involved was Humboldt Shelby Holding Corporation (“HSHC”) which was unable to pay the tax, the gross valuation misstatement penalty, and the interest on each. The corporate liabilities as of August 2014 were “a federal income tax deficiency of $25,617,887 and a gross valuation misstatement penalty of $10,247,155, plus interest, which remained unpaid.” The transferees the IRS targeted were certain Dillon family trusts (with the parties agreeing that the results would apply to all of the family trusts as direct or indirect transferees). 

Among other arguments in this refund suit, the trusts argue that they cannot be held for transferee liability for the gross valuation misstatement penalty “because they lacked knowledge of HSHC’s plan to carry out the tax shelter scheme that formed the basis of the I.R.C. § 6662 penalty.”  Good luck to them on that. 

But in this case, the  court only addressed interest issues. The interest issue arose from the trusts’ apparent desire to invoke § 6603 to prevent the running of interest during the period of the deposit. I cover § 6603 in Federal Tax Procedure (2022 Practitioner Ed.) pp. 268-272. The rules of § 6603 are not particularly complex, but the application of those rules in the Dillon Trust case was complex because of the machinations involved where the trusts, as putative persons liable for transferee liability, apparently thrusted about to achieve some purpose to avoid interest but did so in which appears to be a haphazard fashion. The result is that, although the IRS had the deposit money in a large amount and for a significant period, the taxpayer and the transferees achieved no interest benefit under § 6603 that might have been achieved had they structured the deposits/payments differently.

Good Tax Court Opinion on Interest Consequences of Distinction between Deposits and Payments (11/2/21)

In Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-121, GS here, Judge Lauber held that a portion of a remittance labeled the taxpayer as a deposit will be treated under the interest rule for deposits under § 6603 rather the interest rule than for overpayments.  Judge Lauber states nicely the issue and holed in the opening paragraphs (footnote omitted):

            Currently before the Court is petitioner’s motion to redetermine interest under section 7481(c) and Rule 261.  In 2012 petitioner remitted [*2] to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) a check for $10,263,750, designating the remittance as a “deposit” to be applied toward his anticipated gift tax liability for 2011. In a stipulated decision entered July 19, 2019, we determined a gift tax deficiency of $6,790,000 for 2011 and no overpayment for any year. After our decision became final, the IRS sent petitioner a check for $3,473,750, the amount of his excess deposit, but without any interest.

            Respondent concedes that petitioner is allowed interest on the excess deposit, and he computes the interest due as $218,122, calculated using the Federal short-term rate. See sec. 6603(d)(4) (cross-referring to section 6621(b)). But respondent contends that we lack jurisdiction to redetermine interest under section 7481(c), which permits reopening a case for this purpose only where “the Tax Court finds under section 6512(b) that the taxpayer has made an overpayment.” In respondent’s view, petitioner made a deposit, not a payment of tax, and our decision did not determine any “overpayment.”

            Disavowing his repeated designations of the remittance as a “deposit,” petitioner contends that the $10,263,750 check constituted a “payment” of gift tax. And he insists that our decision in effect determined an “overpayment,” because it  [*3] included the parties’ below-the-line stipulation that petitioner had a “prepayment credit” of $10,263,750 that would be “applied to * * * [his] tax year 2011 gift tax liability.” From these premises petitioner concludes, not only that we have jurisdiction to redetermine interest, but also that he is due interest of $1,267,323, the sum calculated using the Federal short-term rate plus three percentage points, the interest rate  specified for “overpayments.” See sec. 6621(a)(1). Concluding that respondent has the better argument, we will deny petitioner’s motion.

I recommend the full opinion for its great discussion of the history of the deposit/payment distinction and the operation of § 6603 designed to somewhat mitigate the difference in interest for deposits and payments.