U.S. Tax Court: Timely e-filed return triggers limitations period, even when initially rejected by IRS
Timely e-filed return triggers limitations period
The U.S. Tax Court today in a “reviewed opinion” held that a properly filed income tax return triggers the statute of limitations for a deficiency notice, regardless of the fact that the return—electronically filed—lacked a required personal identification number.
The case is: Fowler v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. No. 7 (September 9, 2020). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 85 KB] (no dissenting or separate concurring opinions)
The taxpayer (an individual) appointed his tax return preparer to electronically file his 2013 tax return on October 15, 2014. The IRS software rejected this return for its failure to include an Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN).
The taxpayer subsequently refiled his 2013 tax return on two occasions and the last filing was made with an IP PIN on April 30, 2015. The IRS software reviewed and accepted the return.
The IRS later reviewed the return, determined a deficiency, and sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency for the 2013 tax year on April 5, 2018.
The taxpayer filed a petition with the Tax Court. The IRS moved for partial summary judgment, and the taxpayer filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting that the IRS had not timely issued a notice of deficiency. At issue was whether the taxpayer’s first submission of the income tax return on October 15, 2014, triggered the section 6501(a) limitations period.
Relying on the test to determine whether a document constitutes a tax return as set forth in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), the Tax Court granted summary judgment for the taxpayer, holding that the taxpayer’s first submission triggered the section 6501(a) limitations period, notwithstanding the omission of an IP PIN.
The Tax Court concluded:
The October 15 submission appears to be an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the tax laws. The submission included inputs for income, deductions, exemptions, and credits along with supporting documentation and schedules. The only difference between the October 15 submission (which [IRS] rejected) and the April 30 submission (which [IRS] accepted) is that the October 15 submission did not include an IP PIN.
* * *
Where a taxpayer properly files a required return, the taxpayer has satisfied all his duties to trigger the statute of limitations. … We simply see no reason to allow [IRS] to toll the statute of limitations where [taxpayer] properly filed a return.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.