Third Circuit Holds Taxpayer Fraud is not Required for 6501(c)(1) Unlimited Statute of Limitations, Creating Conflict (8/18/25; 10/17/25)

Added 10/22/25 @ 2:40pm: On October 17, 2025, the Third Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc and issued a revised opinion in Murrin v. Commissioner, 158 F.4th 527 (3rd Cir. 10/17/25), CA3 here and GS here. The revised opinion reaches the same result as the earlier opinion--fraud on the return permits the unlimited statute of limitations regardless of whether or not it is the taxpayer's fraud. I have not analyzed the opinion to see where precisely the changes were. The opinion is a straight-foward textualist reading of the Code provision. It is apparent that, as with the original opinion, the author is not that familiar with tax procedure. (See e.g., p. 4 n. 1, basically same as original opinion.)

In Murrin v. Commissioner, 152 F.4th 136 (3rd Cir. 8/18/25), CA3 here,TN here, and GS here, the Court held that the §6501(c)(1), here, unlimited statute of limitations applying "In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax" applies even without the taxpayer's personal fraud. The opinion is a straightforward textualist interpretation of the governing statute. Since the opinion is relatively short, I am not sure my nitpicking (aka pontificating) over the reasoning and specific text would be helpful to readers of this Blog, most of whom are already familiar with the issue.

In the event my thoughts may be helpful, I link here first my prior blogs generated by the search terms "allen fraud limitations" which picks up the blogs that discussed the issue. (If you click that link, the returns are first in some relevance scoring of the content order for the terms but there is a link to put them in reverse date order.) The more recent blog discussions that I think may be most helpful to readers wanting more than offered in Murrin are:

• On the Tax Court decision in Murrin: Tax Court Again Declines to Reconsider Its Holding that the Preparer's Fraud without the Taxpayer's Fraud Invokes Unlimited Statute of Limitations (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/25/24; 2/5/24), here (where I discuss and link Professor Bryan Camp's discussion of the Tax Court opinion in Murrin) (those reading the Third Circuit opinion in Murrin will see that Professor Camp filed an amicus in favor of the taxpayer's position).
• On BASR P’ship v. United States, 795 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which Murrin conflicts (Murrin substantially adopts the dissenting opinion in BASR), I did not write a separate blog on the BASR opinion, but I wrote one on the court awarding attorneys fees under § 7430: Major Attorneys Fee Award for BASR Partnership Prevailing on the Allen Issue in Federal Circuit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 2/11/17), here. This conflict certainly insures a petition for cert by Murrin. I suspect that there may be a flurry of amicus briefs on the petition and, if cert is granted, on the merits briefing because a lot of wealthy taxpayers investing in fraudulent taxpayers have a dog in the hunt, so to speak.
• On City Wide Transit, Inc. v. Commissioner,  709 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) discussed in Murrin: Second Circuit Holds That Fraud on the Return -- Even If Not the Taxpayer's -- Causes an Unlimited Civil Assessment Statute of Limitations to Apply (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 2/4/13), here.
• My early venture into the subject discussing an important extension of a holding that the taxpayer's fraud is not required if the return is fraudulent: Civil Tax Statute of Limitations for Fraudulent Tax Shelters (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 12/19/09), here.

 This blog entry is cross-posted on the Federal Tax Crimes Blog, here.

Further on Murrin and Allen and the Unlimited Statute of Limitations for Fraud on the Return (4/30/26)

I read earlier this week an excellent article on Murrin v. Commissioner, 158 F.4th 527 (3d Cir. 2025), here, cert petition pending (see here). Bryan Camp, The New Forever Rule for Record Retention (Tax Notes March 3/25/26), here. Professor Camp is concerned, as he was in filing an amicus brief in Murrin, with the potential application to innocent taxpayers of § 6201(c)(1)’s unlimited statute of limitations for a “false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax.” Murrin held that the taxpayer’s fraud is not required and that a return preparer’s fraud would suffice to apply the unlimited statute of limitations for fraud. For further on Murrin, see my post Third Circuit Holds Taxpayer Fraud is not Required for 6501(c)(1) Unlimited Statute of Limitations, Creating Conflict (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 8/18/25; 10/17/25).

In an alarmist mode, Professor Camp concludes his article by stating that, unless the problem of § 6201(c)(1) applying to innocent taxpayers is fixed, “I think we must all advise our clients to keep their records . . . forever.” (Emphasis supplied.) What does forever mean in this context? That's a quibble. Professor Camp is not just content to provide that bottom line from Murrin but repeats his arguments in his amicus brief as to error in Murrin and the predicate tax court opinion in Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), here.

I encourage those interested in the issue (which I call the Allen issue) to read Professor Camp’s article. I have not recently stepped through the legislative and statutory history he discusses in support of his claims, but my recollection is that I was not then sure that they support his claims. In any event, I am sure that for a long period of time since the early tax law, practitioners, including me, assumed that § 6201(c)(1) required taxpayer fraud. Allen appeared out of the blue, so to speak. But now that, in Justice Kagan's words “we are all textualists now,” if we focus on the text of § 6201(c)(1), there is no textual reading that would limit its scope to taxpayer fraud if the fraud is on the return. In other words, at best regarding Professor Camp's claims, the actual text is ambiguous as to whether the text of § 6201(c)(1) requires the taxpayer's fraud.

Further, on the purpose of § 6201(c)(1), I do not conceive it is as a punishment provision but a recognition that fraud on the return makes discovery by the IRS more difficult. After all, the consequence of the unlimited statute of limitations is that the taxpayer pays the tax the taxpayer owed ab initio. True, the taxpayer may have to pay interest, but tax and interest are not penalties. The taxpayer Professor Camp is concerned about is the truly innocent taxpayer relying on a fraudulent preparer; for such a taxpayer there will be no penalty because (i) § 6662 civil penalty which does not apply with taxpayer reasonable cause (unless, for some § 6662 civil penalties, the reasonable cause exception does not apply which is not likely in an innocent taxpayer context) and (ii) § 6663 civil fraud penalty does not apply unless taxpayer fraud is involved. So, from that perspective, the truly innocent taxpayer suffers no penalty with respect to the fraud on the return; rather, he would just pay the tax and interest that are in the helpful metaphor, his dues for a civilized society.

That’s all I have on the merits of Murrin and Allen. Just a few more comments:

Update on Murrin Petition for Cert re Unlimited Civil Statute of Limitations for Non-Taxpayer Fraud Reported on Tax Return (5/19/26)

I provide an update on the Murrin petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court’s docket sheet is here. On May 15, 2026, the Government filed its brief in opposition here. I have recently addressed some points on the Murrin petition before the Government’s Brief in Opp. Further on Murrin and Allen and the Unlimited Statute of Limitations for Fraud on the Return (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here.

The Government distinguishes (Brief in Opp. 13-15) the principal case indicating a possible conflict (a key factor in the Supreme Court accepting cert). That case is BASR Partnership v. United States, 795 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015), GS here. The Government asserts that Murrin involves fraud by the tax return preparer whereas BASR did not involve fraud by the tax return preparer (the fraud was by others in the bullshit shelter feeding chain, such as promoter and lawyers issuing bullshit opinions). That distinction strikes me as irrelevant to a textual reading of § 6501(c)(1).

The text is:

In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

Once you say that fraud by someone other than the taxpayer that resulted in fraudulent reporting on a false return is sufficient, the text does not limit it to the taxpayer and the tax return preparer.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Murrin on Issue of Whether Taxpayer's Fraud is Required for § 6501(c)(1) Unlimited Statute of Limitations (6/22/26)

Today, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in Murrin v. Commissioner (Sup. Ct. No. 25-988), docket here. See Order List dated 6/22/26, here at p.3, The Third Circuit opinion from which Murrin sought cert was Murrin v. Commissioner, 158 F.4th 527 (3rd Cir. 2025), here.

The question presented in the petition here was:

Whether, under 26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(1), the IRS may assess tax beyond the Code’s three-year limitations period based solely on the fraudulent intent of a third-party, even when the taxpayer herself neither intended to evade tax nor knew of any wrongdoing.

The question as framed by the SG in the Commissioner’s Brief in Opposition here was:

Whether the indefinite limitations period in 26 U.S.C. 6501(c)(1) applies to a false or fraudulent return prepared by a tax return preparer who acted with the intent to evade tax.

Tax Court Again Declines to Reconsider Its Holding that the Preparer's Fraud without the Taxpayer's Fraud Invokes Unlimited Statute of Limitations (1/25/24; 2/5/24)

Long-time readers of this blog and the parallel blog Federal Tax Crimes may recall that I have had several postings on the issue of whether § 6501(c) unlimited statute of limitations for fraudulent returns requires (i) the taxpayer's fraud or (ii) may be a third party's fraud that is incorporated in the taxpayer's return without the taxpayer's fraud. The classic case is a preparer's fraud, but could also include fraud on an information return (such as a K-1 for partnership flow-through reporting).

At the end of this blog, I list significant Federal Tax Procedure or Federal Tax Crimes postings on the issue. Basically, the state of play was that the Tax Court held in a precedential decision that the taxpayer's fraud is not required. Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the taxpayer's fraud is required. BASR P'ship v. United States, 795 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Finnegan v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the Tax Court's Allen holding that the taxpayer waived the statute of limitations argument in the Tax Court.

In Murrin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-10, TA here & GS here, decided yesterday, the Tax Court held that Allen was still the interpretation the Tax Court will apply despite the holding in BASR. The Murrin opinion is 13 pages long and analyzes why BASR was not sufficiently persuasive to justify reconsidering its precedential holding in Allen.

BASR is not binding precedent in Murrin under the Tax Court's Golsen rule because appellate authority is only binding when in the Circuit to which an appeal would be taken in the case (barring stipulation otherwise). Mrs. Murrin lived in New Jersey when she filed the Tax Court petition. Thus, her appeal would be to the Third Circuit which has no authority in point, thus requiring the Tax Court to apply its own authority under Golsen.

Tax Court Holds that IRS Must Prove Return Fraud After a Convicted Spouse is Convicted for Tax Evasion (5/30/26)

In Li v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-42 (T.C. Case 12133-23 at #35, here, at #35, and GS here, the Court addressed proof issues for applying the unlimited statute of limitations for a joint return spouse (“unconvicted spouse”) after the other spouse was convicted of tax evasion (“the convicted spouse”). Of course, as to the convicted spouse, collateral estoppel will apply to establish fraud for the unlimited statute of limitations (§ 6501(c)(1)) and the civil fraud penalty (§ 6663). Li addresses the issue of the effect of the convicted spouse’s conviction on the unconvicted spouse’s statute of limitations (§ 6501(c)(1)),

The background is the Allen issue. In Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), the Court held that fraud on a return by a return preparer without the taxpayer’s personal fraud invoked the unlimited statute of limitations in § 6501(c)(1). The issues Allen raises are discussed in several blog entries over the years, but I think they are presented in my most recent blogs: Update on Murrin Petition for Cert re Unlimited Civil Statute of Limitations for Non-Taxpayer Fraud Reported on Tax Return (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 5/19/26), here; and Further on Murrin and Allen and the Unlimited Statute of Limitations for Fraud on the Return (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here.

Stripped down to basics, the current status of the Allen issue is as follows:

• for courts applying the Allen holding (that the preparer’s fraud alone will suffice to the unlimited statute of limitations; the taxpayer’s fraud is not required). This includes all courts addressing the issue except the Federal Circuit.
• the Federal Circuit held that the taxpayer’s fraud is required, at least in a context where the fraud on the return was not the preparer’s fraud (although the Federal Circuit did not intimate that preparer fraud would suffice).

Li dealt with the unlimited statute of limitations for the unconvicted spouse after the convicted spouse’s tax evasion conviction. The holding was that, as to the unconvicted spouse, the IRS must prove fraud on the return by clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the return (which need not necessarily be the unconvicted spouse’s personal fraud). In the Li facts, that means that the unconvicted spouse is not subject to collateral estoppel for the convicted spouse's conviction. Li does not address the issue I discuss in the first blog above as to whether fraud on the return committed by others than the tax return preparer (e.g., tax shelter promoters) will suffice.

I have synthesized the Li Opinion in my working draft for the Federal Tax Procedure Editions for 2026 (to be published in early August). I offer that synthesis here in the paragraph after discussing the Allen issue (note that the footnotes are presented after the text; the numbering on the footnotes will not be the same in the working draft or the final 2026 Practitioner Edition):

Guest Blog: Professors McGovern and Brewer on Developments in Hewitt Holding Regulation Procedurally Invalid (12/8/24)

This morning I offer a guest blog from Professors Bruce McGovern, teaching tax law at the South Texas College of Law Houston (school resume here) and Cassady V. (“Cass”) Brewer teaching tax law at the Georgia State University College of Law (school resume here). Professor McGovern authors many articles, including an annual article co-authored with Professor Brewer titled Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: The Year 2023, 77 Tax Law. 805 (2024). Professor McGovern makes monthly presentations of material included in that annual offering to the Wednesday Tax Forum (“WTF”) in Houston. In the most recent offering on December 13, 2024, Professors McGovern and Brewer had significant items on tax procedure that I thought readers of this blog might find interesting and enlightening. With their permission, I am offering a copy and paste of the two items in two separate blogs (because they are two separate subjects). I offer some comments after that copy and paste.

The first involves the saga of cases starting with Hewitt v. Commissioner, 21 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2021) here, which held IRS proceeds regulation for conservation easements adopted in 1986 invalid under the APA for failure to respond to significant comment in adopting the final regulation. There have been significant developments since Hewitt that Professors McGovern and Brewer cover quite nicely.

IX. EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND CHARITABLE GIVING Exempt Organizations Charitable Giving

          With more than 750 conservation easement cases on the docket, the Tax Court’s flip-flop on the validity of the extinguishment proceeds regulation is not going to help matters. Valley Park Ranch, LLC v. Commissioner, 162 T.C. No. 6 (3/28/24). In a reviewed opinion (7-2-4) by Judge Jones, the Tax Court refused to follow its prior decision in a conservation easement case decided just four years earlier Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 180 (2020), aff’d, 28 F.4th 700 (6th Cir. 2022). Instead, rejecting Oakbrook, a majority of the Tax Court in this case appealable to the Tenth Circuit determined that Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii), one of the chief weapons the IRS has used to combat conservation easements, is procedurally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). It is fair to say that the Tax Court’s decision in Valley Park Ranch will have a significant impact on current and future conservation easement litigation between the taxpayers and the IRS.

          Background. Other than challenging valuations, the IRS’s most successful strategy in combating syndicated conservation easements generally has centered around the “protected in perpetuity” requirement of § 170(h)(2)(C) and (h)(5)(A). The IRS has argued in the Tax Court that the “protected in perpetuity” requirement is not met where the taxpayer’s easement deed fails to meet the strict requirements of the “extinguishment regulation.” See Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii). The extinguishment regulation ensures that conservation easement property is protected in perpetuity because, upon destruction or condemnation of the property and collection of any proceeds therefrom, the charitable donee must proportionately benefit. According to the IRS’s reading of the extinguishment regulation, the charitable donee’s proportionate benefit must be determined by a fraction determined at the time of the gift as follows: the value of the conservation easement as compared to the total value of the property subject to the conservation easement (hereinafter the “proportionate benefit fraction”). See Coal Property Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 126 (10/28/19). Thus, upon extinguishment of a conservation easement due to an unforeseen event such as condemnation, the charitable donee must be entitled to receive an amount equal to the product of the proportionate benefit fraction multiplied by the proceeds realized from the disposition of the property.

          Facts. The taxpayer partnership in this case claimed a $14.8 million charitable contribution deduction for its 2016 tax year after granting to a charity a conservation easement over 45.76 acres of Oklahoma land it acquired in 1998 for $91,610. The easement deed recited in part that the contributed property was to be held “forever predominantly in its natural, scenic, and open space condition” and that “the duration of the Easement shall be in perpetuity.” 162 T.C. at ___. The easement deed further provided in relevant part that if the land was taken by eminent domain, the taxpayer and the charity would, “after the satisfaction of prior claims,” share in the condemnation proceeds “as determined by a Qualified Appraisal meeting standards established by the United States Department of Treasury.” 162 T.C. at _____. Upon audit, the IRS took the position, as it has in many prior cases, that the taxpayer’s deduction should be disallowed for failing to meet the proportionate benefit fraction requirement of the extinguishment proceeds regulation, Reg. [*9] § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii). The IRS’s litigating position is that the proportionate benefit fraction must be fixed and unalterable as of the date of the donation according to the following ratio: the value of the conservation easement as compared to the total value of the property subject to the conservation easement. Thus, according to the IRS, leaving the proportionate benefit upon condemnation to be determined later by a qualified appraisal meeting certain standards is insufficient. (Note: Section 4.01 of Notice 2023-30, 2023-17 I.R.B. 766 (4/10/23), sets forth what the IRS considers acceptable language regarding the proportionate benefit fraction as it relates to extinguishment clauses in conservation easement deeds.) After petitioning the Tax Court, the taxpayer argued alternatively that either (i) the easement deed met the requirements of Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) by “explicit incorporation,” or (ii) the regulation is procedurally invalid under the APA, in which case the easement deed need not strictly comply with the regulation as long as it meets the more general requirements of the applicable subsections of the statute, § 170(h) (qualified conservation contribution). The case was heard by the Tax Court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

          The Tax Court’s Majority Opinion. In a reviewed opinion (7-2-4) by Judge Jones (joined by Judges Foley, Urda, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, and Weiler), the court began its analysis by reviewing the conflicting decisions of the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits concerning the procedural validity of Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) under the APA. See Hewitt v. Commissioner, 21 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2021) (concluding that the regulation is invalid under the APA); Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 28 F.4th 700 (6th Cir. 2022) (concluding that the regulation satisfies the APA). The majority emphasized that a divided (2-1) Sixth Circuit panel decided Oakbrook, whereas a unanimous (3-0) Eleventh Circuit panel decided Hewitt. Thus, in a footnote, Judge Jones pointed out that of the six appellate court judges who have considered the issue, four decided that Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) is invalid under the APA while only two upheld the regulation. Noting that the case is appealable to the Tenth Circuit, which has not taken a position on the validity of Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii), Judge Jones concluded for the majority that “after careful consideration of the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Hewitt, we find it appropriate to change our position.” 162 T.C. at ____. The majority gave a nod to the principle of stare decisis—following established precedent—but reasoned that its holding in Oakbrook, even though affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, is not “entrenched precedent,” thereby allowing the Tax Court to strike down Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) as procedurally invalid under the APA in line with Hewitt. 162 T.C. at ____.

Second Circuit Says § 6751(b) Means What It Says-Appeals Officer in CDP Appeal Must Verify the Supervisor Approval Requirement (6/30/26)

In Besicorp Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (2d Cir. 2026), 2Cir here and GS here, the Court held that, in a CDP Appeals Office Conference, the Appeals Officer must verify the IRS’s compliance with § 6751(b)’s written supervisor approval requirement for penalties. The Court says that in 29 pages cogently, if not succinctly, traversing the applicable statute and other authority. Those 29 pages are not all fluff without lessons for students and practitioners, so I address certain key points.

1. I open with a comment I make in a soon to be published article. Section 6751(b) is nonsensical and a textual mess. That comment was focused on the courts’ flailing around to make sense of the mess and was an argument for courts to approve the regulations adopted in December 2024 to make sense of key components of § 6751(b). However, as to the text in § 6751(b) that Besicorp interprets and applies, the text is clear, so Besicorp is correct that CDP Appeals Office proceedings require verification of the written supervisor approval requirement. (I except from that the possible application of res judicata discussed below in ¶ 5.) That is a textualist reading of the text; I don’t see any reasonable mode of interpretation that would reach a different conclusion.

2. Of course, in making that verification, the Appeals Officer must wade into the mess of the other components of § 6751(b) which are a mess with differing interpretations by the courts. I suppose, the Appeals Officer might rely upon the § 6751(b) regulations, either proposed or permanent, although the Besicorp Appeals Office hearing likely occurred before the regulations were proposed or adopted. (In this regard, the Second Circuit argument in Besicorp was 2/5/24; and Besicorp (and consolidated cases) were filed in the Tax Court in 2017. See T.C. dkt. Entries here, before the 2024 regulations were even a twinkle in the Commissioner’s eye.

3. The income tax liabilities in Besicorp and consolidated cases arose from bullshit tax shelters. The Court says the tax and interest (Slip Op. 3) reporting and tax savings from “tax shelter transactions designed to avoid the payment of taxes,” as determined by the IRS. The tax shelter transactions were of the “intermediary tax shelter” aka Midco ilk. (Slip Op. 10.) Besicorp’s deficiency was $50 million. (Slip Op. 5.) And, being a category of bullshit tax shelters, the IRS also asserted the 40% penalty which for Besicorp was “roughly $20 million penalty on a $50 million deficiency for its accuracy-related gross valuation misstatements,” citing § 6662(h). (Slip Op. 5.)

4. The taxpayers involved in Besicorp and consolidated cases may have been affiliated with the promoters who promoted the bullshit tax shelters. Indeed, from my work in this area, I found it was not uncommon for the promoters who “earned” very large amounts from promoting the fake tax savings (a price taxpayers were willing to pay for fraud insurance) to themselves then “shelter” their income with their own bullshit tax shelters (always permitting some variance in the smoke and mirrors game). I note in this regard that one of the attorneys for the taxpayers was also an attorney for at least one promoter and related corporation.