IRS Practice and Procedure News Briefs for January 2021

Joshua A. Nesser • January 27, 2021

DISCHARGE OF TAXES IN BANKRUPTCY – In re Alexander, Dk. No. 19-05033, Adv. Pro No. 19-5033 (D. Conn. 2020)


Why this Case is Important: While income taxes generally are dischargeable in bankruptcy, certain requirements must be met for a discharge to be granted. Filing bankruptcy too early, as the taxpayer did in this case, is a major mistake that could have been avoided with competent legal advice.


Facts: In Alexander, the taxpayer owed past-due income taxes for 2011 through 2015. She timely filed her returns for all of these years, including having filed her 2015 return on October 17, 2016. In February 2017, after the IRS threatened to take certain collection actions against the taxpayer with respect to her 2015 debt, she filed a request for a collection due process hearing. The hearing was not closed until October 2017. Under the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS was prohibited from taking action to collect the 2015 liability the entire time the hearing was open. On October 31, 2019, the taxpayer filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In the course of the bankruptcy, she filed an adversary proceeding against the IRS in an effort to have her 2011 through 2015 liabilities discharged. The IRS conceded that the 2011 through 2014 liabilities should be discharged but contested the 2015 discharge on the basis that not enough time had passed between the filings of the taxpayer’s 2015 return and bankruptcy petition.


Law and Conclusion: Under Section 507(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, income taxes are not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless (1) the tax return in question was due more than three years before the bankruptcy filing; (2) the return was filed more than two years before the bankruptcy filing; and (3) the tax to be discharged was assessed at least 240 days before the bankruptcy filing. These time periods are extended by the time that the IRS was prohibited from collecting the tax because of the taxpayer’s filing of a request for a collection due process hearing, plus 90 days. In this case, if the taxpayer had not requested a collection due process hearing, her 2015 taxes would have been dischargeable as of October 17, 2019 (three years after the 2015 return was due) and therefore would have been discharged by way of her October 31, 2019 bankruptcy filing. However, because the taxpayer’s collection due process hearing was open for eight months, during which time the IRS could not take action to collect her 2015 liability, her 2015 taxes were not dischargeable in bankruptcy until 3 years and 11 months after the 2015 return was due. With the return due in October 2016, the earliest the taxes could be discharged was September 2020. Therefore, the Court found in favor of the IRS and the 2015 taxes were not discharged.



UPDATING ADDRESS ON FILE WITH IRS – Gregory v. Commissioner, No. 19-2229 (3d Cir. 2020)


Why this Case is Important: This case reverses a decision of the Tax Court discussed in the April 2019 edition of Newsbriefs and eases the burden on taxpayers to update their addresses on file with the IRS by placing a greater burden on the IRS.


Facts: In Gregory, the taxpayers filed their 2014 joint income tax return using their home address in Jersey City, New Jersey. The IRS selected the return for examination. While the audit was ongoing, the taxpayers moved to Rutherford, New Jersey. In the course of the audit, the taxpayers used their new address in multiple forms they sent to the IRS, including a power of attorney and a consent to extend the statute of limitations, though they never filed an IRS Form 8822, Change of Address. When the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency in 2016 proposing an assessment against them of additional taxes, it was sent to their old Jersey City address. As a result, the taxpayers did not receive the notice until January 2017, after the deadline for filing a Tax Court petition had passed. They still immediately filed a petition. In response, the IRS filed a motion to dismiss the petition for being filed late. The Tax Court granted the motion and dismissed the taxpayers’ petition based on them not having followed IRS procedures for updating their address by filing a Form 8822. The taxpayers appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Law and Analysis: While the IRS has provided specific guidance and instructions for taxpayers who need to update their address by means other than filing a tax return, the Court pointed to case law that has required the IRS to use reasonable diligence to determine a taxpayer’s last known address. “Reasonable diligence” is measured by what “the IRS knew or should have known at the time it sent the notice of deficiency,” including information it should know “through the use of its computer system.” Based on the taxpayers having submitted to the IRS a power of attorney and other forms showing their new address and verbally communicated their new address to IRS agents, the Court determined that the IRS should have reasonably known the taxpayers’ correct address. That being the case, the Court overturned the Tax Court’s grant of the IRS’s motion to dismiss, thereby allowing the taxpayers to move forward with their petition disputing the IRS’s notice of deficiency. It is worth noting that the Tax Court will only be required to follow this precedent in cases originating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


If you would like more details about these cases, please contact me at 312-888-4113 or jnesser@lavellelaw.com.


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

The Junk Fee Ban Act and pricing transparency legislation.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Jacob Rotolo April 23, 2025
If enacted, the Junk Fee Ban Act would protect consumers from hidden fees and promote fair business practices in Illinois. While there has yet to be legislation in the proposed Junk Fee Ban Act that excludes dealerships, it will be important to look for future updates on this bill, as Illinois is quickly becoming a hub for vehicle innovation and automotive plant expansion.
Ancillary probate is required when a person dies owning real estate outside of their home state.
By Heather A. McCollum April 21, 2025
When someone passes away owning property in another state, their estate may need to go through ancillary probate—a secondary court process in that state.
$9.9 Million Dollar Purchase of Packaged Multi-Unit Properties
By Commercial Real Estate April 18, 2025
Lavelle Law represented a joint venture in its $9.9 million acquisition of four multi-unit buildings.
Type F Reorg offers a means of achieving structural change while preserving tax continuity
By Steven A. Migala and Nathan P. Toy April 14, 2025
A Type F reorganization (“F Reorg”), governed by Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code, provides a strategically significant mechanism for corporate restructuring. Defined as a “mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation,” an F Reorg permits a corporation to alter its legal existence while being treated for federal tax purposes as the same entity. This recharacterization allows for the uninterrupted preservation of tax attributes while maintaining shareholder continuity.
Estate Planning for Your Pet: Securing Your Pet’s Future with a Pet Trust
By Jackie R. Luthringshausen April 10, 2025
When it comes to estate planning, most people think about providing for their loved ones—but what about the furry, feathered, or scaled members of your family? In the United States, 68% of households own at least one pet, according to the American Pet Products Association’s 2023-2024 National Pet Owners Survey. For many, pets are more than just companions—they’re family. Ensuring their care after your death or incapacity is a vital part of comprehensive estate planning. In Illinois, a Pet Trust offers a powerful solution to guarantee your pet’s well-being long after you’re gone.
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options
By Timothy M. Hughes April 10, 2025
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options - A recent press release by the IRS addressed the options that are available to taxpayers who may owe more on April 15th than they can pay. The IRS advised taxpayers that they do not need to wait until April 15 to file their 2024 federal return, and if they owe and are unable to pay the balance in full, there are payment plans available to help them pay their tax obligation.
Learn about essential legal protections to strengthen your business and safeguard your interests.
By Lavelle Law April 9, 2025
Join us on May 21 in Schaumburg for an engaging Breakfast Briefs seminar, delving into vital strategies to fortify your business. This session will explore the critical role of crafting ironclad non-compete agreements, shielding your trade secrets, and mastering the nuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctive relief. Our presenters, attorneys Matthew Sheahin and Jennifer Tee, bring a wealth of experience in this legal domain. Seize this chance to bolster your company’s legal protections and lay a solid groundwork for enduring success!
FinCEN Eliminates BOI Reporting Obligations!
By Frank P. Portera March 25, 2025
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its interim final rule stating that those entities previously classified as "domestic reporting companies" are now exempt from all BOI reporting requirements. On the other hand, all foreign entities registered to do business in the USA must file their own initial BOI reports within 30 days of the initial final rule's publication, if they have not done so already.
Join us April 3, 2025 for Business After Hours 5-7 PM
By Lavelle Law March 19, 2025
Spring is here, and with baseball season kicking off, we’re stepping up to the plate with our annual Lavelle Law Business After Hours event. We’re excited to partner with our friends in the Schaumburg business community for an evening of networking, good vibes, and a few surprises—all hosted in the friendly confines of our Schaumburg office. Bonus points: Feel free to rock your favorite baseball team’s gear and show off your fandom while you’re at it!
Delaware Court  Provides the Standard of Supreme Review for the Redomestication of Corporations
By Steven A. Migala and Anthony Letto March 12, 2025
Delaware corporations seeking to redomesticate to another state should be advised that on February 4, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, addressing a challenge to TripAdvisor's redomestication from a Delaware corporation to a Nevada corporation. The case raised important questions regarding the standard of review applicable to such reincorporations, particularly when fiduciaries may derive a benefit from shifting to a legal regime perceived as more friendly.
More Posts