Professional Tax Research Solutions from the Founder of Kleinrock. tax research
Parker Tax Library
Accounting News Expert Tax Analysts professional tax research software Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Find us on Pinterest
CPA software
Professional Tax Software
tax and accounting
Tax Articles Federal Tax Bulletin CPA Sample Client Letters Tax Software Reviews - CPA Client Testimonials Tax Research Library Tax Library


Accounting Software for Accountants, CPA, Bookeepers, and Enrolled Agents

CPA Tax Software

        

 

Tenth Circuit Says 23-Day Notice Requirement for Third-Party Summons Is Mandatory.
(Parker Tax Publishing May 22, 2014)

Because the IRS failed to give a taxpayer notice of four third-party record summonses at least 23 days before the date the records were to be examined, the summonses were not enforceable. Jewell v. U.S., 2014 PTC 210 (10 Cir. 4/28/14).

Sam Jewell was being investigated by the IRS for allegedly failing to pay employment taxes for several nursing homes he owned. In conjunction with the investigation, the IRS issued four summonses to banks in the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma for records involving the nursing homes. Under federal law, the IRS was supposed to notify Sam at least 23 days before the examination date. Because the IRS waited too long to mail the notices, Sam received the notices less than 23 days before the records were to be examined. Claiming that he was given inadequate notice, Sam filed petitions to quash the summonses in the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma.

The two district courts split on how to interpret the notice requirement. The Western District granted the IRS's summary judgment motion and denied Sam's petition to quash, noting that he received the summonses in time to file his petition. The Eastern District granted Sam's petition to quash and denied the IRS's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the IRS failed to comply with the notice requirement. Sam appealed the ruling in the Western District, and the IRS appealed the ruling in the Eastern District.

In U.S. v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964), the Supreme Court listed four requirements the IRS must meet to make a prima facie case for enforcement of an administrative summons: (1) the investigation must be conducted for a legitimate purpose; (2) the summons must be relevant to that purpose; (3) the IRS must not already have the information sought; and (4) the IRS must have followed the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. Sam and the IRS agreed that the fourth prong of Powell determines whether the summonses must be quashed.

Code Sec. 7609 lists special procedures for the IRS's summonses to third parties. That section provides that notice of the summons "shall" be given no later than 23 days before the date of the examination.

The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by considering the meaning of the term "shall." Applying what it referred to as an "age-old precept," the court determined that the term "shall" indicates a mandatory intent. Thus, the court found that Code Sec. 7609 creates a mandatory obligation.

Having found that the 23-day requirement is a mandatory obligation, the court next considered whether that obligation involves an "administrative step" under Powell. The court concluded that it does. The court rejected the IRS's characterization of the notice defect as a mere "technical default." According to the court, even if the IRS's delay constituted a technical default, the question is whether the technical notice requirement involves an "administrative" requirement. The court determined that the meaning of the term "administrative" is broad and would include precisely this sort of "technical" requirement.

The court's nest step was to apply the Supreme Court's opinion in Powell. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the IRS cannot make a prima facie case for enforcement of a summons until it shows it complied with the Code's administrative steps. According to the Tenth Circuit, these steps include the 23-day notice requirement and the IRS admitted that it did not give Sam 23 days' notice. The Tenth Circuit concluded that, under Powell, that failure prevented the IRS from making a prima facie showing for enforcement of the summonses. Thus, Powell prevents enforcement of the summonses.

The court noted that five other circuits the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have declined to apply Powell in this manner. Four of those circuits acknowledged Powell, but declined to enforce the 23-day requirement as mandatory. These courts have taken two approaches. According to the Tenth Circuit, one approach (taken by the First Circuit) is to acknowledge that Powell requires the IRS to comply with all of the required administrative steps, but then to ignore the fact that the 23-day notice is one of the administrative steps required in the Code. A second approach (taken by the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits) is to assume that the courts have equitable power to excuse the notice defect if the taxpayer was not prejudiced. The Tenth Circuit observed that none of these courts denied that the 23-day requirement was mandatory or an administrative step under the Code. The Fifth Circuit declined to apply Powell when the IRS violated a separate notice provision. Though the IRS violated the notice requirement, the Fifth Circuit allowed enforcement of the summons to avoid elevating "form over substance."

The Tenth Circuit admitted some hesitation in creating a circuit split, but felt obliged to follow Supreme Court precedent, even when it might be viewed as "inequitable" or as "form over substance."

For a discussion of the IRS's summons authority, see Parker Tax, ΒΆ263,120. (Staff Editor Parker Tax Publishing)

Parker's Tax Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution. www.parkertaxpublishing.com

Disclaimer: This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Parker Tax Publishing guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. Parker Tax Publishing assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein.

    ®2012-2016 Parker Tax Publishing. Use of content subject to Website Terms and Conditions.

IRS Codes and Regs
Tax Court Cases IRS compliance