Page 381 - TaxAdviser_2022

TAX TRENDS

ancillary role in the tax collection sys- administratively determined that the DelPonte was entitled to relief. CCISO
tem,” the Court said. taxpayer is entitled to relief. is the IRS unit that receives and pro-
Finally, the Court rejected the IRS’s cesses most requests for innocent-spouse
arguments that equitable tolling of Background relief, and its determinations are gener-
Sec. 6330(d)(1) would leave uncertainty Michelle DelPonte was married to Wil- ally binding on the IRS and the spouse
as to whether the IRS could proceed liam Goddard in the years 1999 through asking for relief. However, the referral
with collection after the deadline had 2001 and filed joint returns with him letter that the Office of Chief Counsel
passed. The Court, pointing to the for those years. Goddard was a lawyer (OCC) lawyer sent with DelPonte’s
relatively smaller number of taxpayers who made large sums of money selling request asked CCISO to not issue a
involved, stated that it was not con- tax shelter strategies. He used some of determination letter but instead “provide
vinced that the possibility for equitable the same strategies he sold to shelter his the results of [its] consideration directly
tolling with respect to Sec. 6330(d)(1) income from selling the shelter strate- to [the OCC].”
would add to the uncertainty already gies in 1999–2001. The IRS eventually CCISO reached out to DelPonte
present in the process. noticed Goddard’s activity, audited his directly and instructed her to fill out and
and DelPonte’s joint returns for those return a Form 8857, Request for Innocent
Reflections years, and issued notices of deficiency for Spouse Relief, which DelPonte did. After
While the Court discounted the several million dollars in tax. Although reviewing the form and the supporting
IRS’s arguments that equitable tolling DelPonte was unaware of Goddard’s documents DelPonte provided, CCISO
relief will now encumber the Tax tax problems, because the couple filed a concluded she was entitled to innocent-
Court’s docket, at least one other joint return, she was jointly and severally spouse relief.
taxpayer requested a reconsideration liable for the tax the IRS found was due Following the Chief Counsel’s
soon afterward, as blogger Keith Fogg in the audit. request in the referral letter, CCISO
has pointed out at procedurallytaxing. When the first notice of deficiency did not send a determination letter to
com. On May 2, Hallmark Research from the audit was sent out, DelPonte DelPonte, and instead it sent a letter to
Collective filed a motion to vacate the and Goddard had been living apart the OCC explaining its conclusion. The
Tax Court’s April 1, 2022, dismissal for several years. The notice was sent OCC, rather than accepting CCISO’s
of its petition for lack of jurisdiction. to Goddard’s law office, and Goddard conclusion and settling DelPonte’s cases,
Although that motion and a legal neglected to inform DelPonte about it. decided more information was needed to
memorandum concern a different However, apparently thinking it was determine whether DelPonte was enti-
petition filing deadline, the 90-day unfair that DelPonte would have to tled to Sec. 6015 innocent-spouse relief.
limit for a redetermination of a defi- pay taxes as a result of his tax troubles, It also told DelPonte that CCISO had
ciency under Sec. 6213(a), the Goddard filed a petition for Sec. 6015 found in her favor but that the OCC
taxpayer argues that Boechler has now innocent-spouse relief for DelPonte. was not abiding by that decision.
established a standard and analysis that The IRS sent four more notices of DelPonte was not happy with the
should be employed in determining deficiency related to the audit of OCC’s request for more information
whether a statutory deadline 1999–2001 to Goddard’s office (one and refused to send any. In her view, ad-
is jurisdictional. in 2005 and three in 2009), and in re- ditional information would be superflu-
Boechler, P.C., No. 20-1472 (U.S. sponse to each of these notices, ous because CCISO had already decided
4/21/22) Goddard filed a petition for innocent- she was entitled to relief and its decision
From Paul Bonner spouse relief on DelPonte’s behalf was binding on the OCC.
without telling her. Things did not progress further until
IRS litigators not bound In 2010, after DelPonte became 2021, when the IRS’s litigation with
by innocent-spouse aware of the deficiencies from Goddard over the deficiency for 1999–
determination 1999–2001 and the petitions Goddard 2001 was completed. DelPonte and the
Where a taxpayer raises innocent- had filed on her behalf, she ratified OCC resumed their correspondence on
spouse relief for the first time in a those petitions. the innocent-spouse issue shortly after
petition to the Tax Court for rede- In April 2011, the Chief Counsel the Tax Court released its opinion in
termination of a deficiency, the IRS referred DelPonte’s claim for innocent- Goddard’s deficiency cases. DelPonte
Chief Counsel has the final authority spouse relief to the IRS’s Cincinnati responded to the Chief Counsel’s dis-
to determine whether to concede or Centralized Innocent Spouse Opera- covery requests but still insisted that dis-
settle the issue, even if the IRS has tion (CCISO) to determine whether covery was unnecessary because CCISO

50 July 2022 The Tax Adviser