Page 434 - TaxAdviser_2022

held that the copies of the 2001 return
The Tax Seaview sent the IRS in 2005 and In a number
2007 were not returns because neither
Court held Seaview’s accountant nor its attorney of situations,
that Seaview intended to file a return when they sent internal IRS
the copies. Accordingly, the copies were
did not ‘file’ not a return under the tests in Beard, 82 guidance requires
the tax return T.C. 766 (1984), because they did not or encourages
by faxing a purport to be a return. Seaview appealed an IRS agent
the Tax Court’s denial of summary judg-
copy to the IRS ment to the Ninth Circuit. to request a
revenue agent. The Ninth Circuit’s decision taxpayer to file
a return with
The Ninth Circuit held that the IRS’s
notice of FPAA in 2010 was untimely, the IRS agent.
it had received Seaview’s signed 2001 tax determining that Seaview’s 2001 tax
return and introduced the Form 1065 return was filed in 2005, when the IRS
as an exhibit for both interviews. In July agent requested the missing return,
2007, Seaview’s counsel mailed another Seaview delivered it, and the IRS form, or instructions to the form, and
signed copy of the 2001 tax return to an acknowledged receipt during the au- that the form must be filed on or before
IRS attorney at the attorney’s request. diting process in connection with the the 15th day of the fourth month fol-
In October 2010, the IRS issued FPAA. The court found that while a lowing the close of the partnership’s
Seaview a Final Partnership Administra- timely return must be sent to a service tax year.
tive Adjustment (FPAA) for the 2001 center to be filed under the regulations, Seaview conceded that it could
tax year. In that notice, the IRS stated delinquent returns are not subject to not show that it timely filed its 2001
that “[p]er Internal Revenue Service the regulations and, based on the IRS’s partnership return because it could not
records, no tax return was filed by informal guidance and practices, a delin- prove the IRS ever received the return
[Seaview] for 2001,” but said, “[d]uring quent return could be filed with an IRS it claimed to have sent to the Ogden,
the examination,” the partnership pro- official authorized to receive it. Utah, service center. But the court found
vided “a copy of a 2001 tax return which Under former Sec. 6229(a), for a that this was not the question before it;
taxpayer claimed to have filed.” The partnership subject to the Tax Equity rather, it was whether Seaview had filed
Service determined that “none of the and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 a delinquent return by delivering the
income/loss/expense amounts” shown on (TEFRA) audit procedures, the IRS return, as instructed by the IRS agent,
Seaview’s 2001 unfiled tax return were could only make adjustments to the in 2005.
allowable. Thus, the IRS adjusted the partnership’s income for a tax year In the Ninth Circuit’s view, Regs.
2001 reported loss from over $35 mil- within three years after the later of the Sec. 1.6031(a)-1(e) did not appear
lion to zero. date the partnership return for the tax to govern how a delinquent return
Seaview challenged the IRS’s adjust- year was filed or the last day for filing should be filed, as the regulation’s text
ment in Tax Court. The LLC, having the return for the tax year. Although the does not state that the time and place
provided an IRS revenue agent a copy Code does not provide a definition of requirements applied to untimely returns
of the 2001 return in 2005, moved for the term “filed,” Sec. 6230(i) states that and thus does not expressly establish
summary judgment, asserting that the a partnership return “shall be filed or how taxpayers file a delinquent return.
return had been filed in 2005 and, con- made at such time, in such manner, and In addition, a taxpayer could not comply
sequently, the 2010 tax adjustment was at such place as may be prescribed in with the regulation for a delinquent
time-barred under the three-year statute regulations.” return because it specified when a return
of limitation. Regs. Sec. 1.6031(a)-1(e) provides must be filed. So, the court found that
The Tax Court denied the motion. the time, manner, and place for filing a at most, the regulation was silent on
The court held that Seaview did not partnership return, stating that the place the issue.
“file” the tax return by faxing a copy to for filing a partnership return is the Moreover, the court pointed out
the IRS revenue agent or by mailing service center prescribed in the relevant that no regulation prohibits filing an
a copy to the IRS counsel. It further IRS revenue procedure, publication, untimely return with an IRS official

www.thetaxadviser.com August 2022 51