Does it matter where you file your tax return?
In WH Hill Co v Commissioner, the Court held that in order to start the Statute clock, the tax return MUST be filed with the correct Service Center on the correct form. Providing a copy to an Revenue Agent (auditor) does not constitute a filing. In Alinutt v Commissioner, the Court found that providing a copy of the tax return to the Chief Counsel’s Office also did not constitute a proper filing. In addition to these two cases, there was a 2004 regulation that also supported the proper place and filing of tax returns. They must be filed with the correct Service Center on the correct form. In Harold v Commissioner, the Court ignoring the Internal Revenue Service guidance that was written in 1999 that Revenue Officers (tax collector) could accept tax returns, found that providing a copy of the tax return to a Revenue Officer because the Revenue Officer is not an office or person as stated in Internal Revenue Code Section 6091(b)(1) does NOT constitute the filing of that return.
In Dingman v Commissioner, Dingman was under criminal investigation. In February 19, 2003, Dingman’s attorney provided a Special Agent five years of tax returns along with payments of the tax liabilities. The Internal Revenue Service promptly processed the payments and listed them as advanced payments. The Internal Revenue Service on February 26, 2006 finally got around to making assessments for the tax returns that were filed with the Special Agent. The Court ruled that the tax returns were filed on February 19, 2003 when the Special Agent received them and the payments for the tax liabilities and although the Internal Revenue Service did not get around to processing the returns and making a final assessment until February 26 2006 the three year Statute of Limitations ended February 18, 2006; Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service’s additional assessment was invalid.
In Seaview Trading LLC v Commissioner an audit was begun because according to the auditor, no tax return (Form 1065) was filed for 2001. Seaview’s accountant immediately sent by facsimile to the auditor what he indicated was a copy of the 2001 tax return along with proof that it had been mailed to the Internal Revenue Service by Certified Mail. In 2007, while the 2001 tax return was still being audited, Seaview’s attorney sent another copy of the 2001 tax return by facsimile, except this time, sent it to the Chief Counsel attorney that was handling the United States Tax Court case. Again, the attorney indicated that this was a copy of the originally filed 2001 tax return. So now, the Court had to decide which date was the date of filing. Was it the date of the certified notice? Was it the date that the auditor received the facsimile from the accountant? Or, was it the date the Chief Counsel attorney received it by facsimile from Seaview’s attorney? Judge Ruwe found, even in the face of Dingman v Commissioner, that the returns were never properly filed at the Service Center as was indicated in the regulation and therefore, the Statute of Limitations had never started. Not so fast said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a blazing dissent, the majority determined that Judge Ruwe was completely wrong and further indicated that the date of the receipt of the tax return in question was the date the accountant sent it by facsimile to the auditor. The Justices did not seem to know or care about the difference between a Revenue Agent (auditor) and a Revenue Officer (tax collector).