Page 179 - TaxAdviser_Jan_Apr23_Neat

Procedure because Sec. 6512(a) bars any
suit to relitigate the tax liability for a The IRS also argued that this action was
particular tax year for which a petition barred by res judicata because the Tax
was filed in Tax Court. The IRS also
argued that this action was barred by res Court had held that the Garavaglias were not
judicata because the Tax Court had held entitled to a refund for tax years 1989 and
that the Garavaglias were not entitled
to a refund for tax years 1989 and 1990 1990 in the prior suit, and that ruling had
become final.
in the prior suit, and that ruling had
become final.
The district court’s decision To avoid this problem, the Gara- because the taxpayer recasts them
The district court granted the IRS’s mo- vaglias in their pleadings attempted to as prayers for injunctive or declara-
tion to dismiss the case, agreeing with reframe the case as one seeking to com- tory relief.
the IRS it did not have subject matter pel the IRS to “process the amended With regard to res judicata, the IRS
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the returns,” which they claimed the IRS also contended that the Garavaglias
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. had ignored. However, the district court failed to state a viable claim because
Sec. 6512(a) provides: “If the [IRS] found that when a court analyzes the the res judicata effect of the prior Tax
has mailed to the taxpayer a notice of scope of a statutory bar to suit, “the Su- Court judgment bars their case. How-
deficiency … and if the taxpayer files a preme Court consistently has held that ever, when a court concludes that the
petition with the Tax Court … no suit the focus must be on the gravamen of defendants’ argument that it lacks juris-
by the taxpayer for the recovery of any the complaint as a whole, not on partic- diction has merit, the Supreme Court
part of the tax shall be instituted in any ular labels or terms of art affixed to the has held in Brownback v. King, 141
court.” Thus, the court found that ac- claims as attempts at artful pleading.” S. Ct. 740, 750 (2021), that the court
cording to the clear text of Sec. 6512(a), According to the court, the Gara- “need not — and ought not — address
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over vaglias did not attempt to frame their the merits argument about whether the
the Garavaglias’ claims, because they claims as anything other than a demand complaint states a cognizable claim for
sought a redetermination of their 1989 for specific amounts of taxes allegedly relief.” The dismissal must be without
and 1990 tax liabilities, which had been improperly assessed and collected. Thus, prejudice because by definition the
the subject of a petition in Tax Court, the gravamen of their pleadings clearly court lacks power to reach the merits of
and that court’s decision had been af- was an attempt to reopen the dispute the case.
firmed on appeal. over the IRS’s assessment of their tax
The court found that it was plain liabilities for 1989 and 1990. Reflections
from “even a casual reading” of the Moreover, the court explained, to As the court notes in its opinion, the
Garavaglias’ complaint that the entire the extent that the Garavaglias con- Garavaglias (and other taxpayers in
substance of their suit was a claim for tended that they were seeking to have similar situations) are not without an
refund of the taxes they allegedly over- the district court issue an order to the avenue to press claims based on new-
paid for the 1989 and 1990 tax years. IRS to “process the amended returns,” found evidence from the records with-
Based on Sixth Circuit precedent, any this relief would be barred by the Anti- held by the IRS. If new information is
such suit is barred regardless of the fact Injunction Act, which prevents a court revealed in district court litigation and
that it purports to arise from “new evi- from issuing an injunction to restrain an a party believes that it should be re-
dence” or postjudgment circumstances assessment of taxes, and by the carve- lieved of the obligation of a judgment,
allegedly developed after the entry of out for federal taxes in the Declaratory relief may be found under Federal Rule
judgment in the Tax Court. Further, the Judgment Act, which prohibits a court of Civil Procedure 60(b), and the Tax
Garavaglias did not suggest that any from issuing declaratory relief in any Court has an analogous rule in its rules
of the enumerated exceptions to the form that would interfere with the ad- of procedure. Also, the Tax Court rules
jurisdictional bar in Sec. 6512(a) could ministration of tax collection. Citing the of procedure permit application of anal-
apply in this case (e.g., a suit is allowed Sixth Circuit in Dickens, 671 F.2d 969 ogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
regarding overpayments determined (6th Cir. 1982), the district court said where the circumstances warrant.
by a decision of the Tax Court that has that claims seeking relief from actions Garavaglia, No. 2:21-cv-12740 (E.D.
become final by Sec. 6512(a)(1)). to collect taxes may not proceed merely Mich. 12/29/22) ■

www.thetaxadviser.com March 2023 65