t c no united_states tax_court raymond b magana petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 10306-o0l filed date held under sec_6330 i r c in this judicial proceeding involving respondent’s proposed collection activity petitioner is precluded from relitigating a statute_of_limitations issue that was previously adjudicated in a related district_court proceeding respondent’s motion for summary_judgment with regard thereto is granted held further in our review for an abuse_of_discretion under sec_6330 i r c of respondent’s determination generally we consider only arguments issues and other matter that were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the appeals_office this case does not involve an allegation of recent unusual illness or hardship or other special circumstance that might cause us to make an exception to the general_rule set forth herein and to consider petitioner’s new hardship argument paul h durham for petitioner william f castor for respondent opinion swift judge this matter is before us on respondent’s motion under rule for summary_judgment petitioner challenges respondent’s appeals_office determination sustaining the filing of federal tax_liens relating to petitioner’s dollar_figure assessed and unpaid federal_income_tax deficiency for unless otherwise indicated all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure and all section references are to the internal_revenue_code as applicable to the year in issue the issues for decision on respondent’s motion for summary_judgment are whether we in reviewing respondent’s notice_of_determination under sec_6330 for an abuse_of_discretion may consider a statute_of_limitations contention that was asserted by petitioner and adjudicated against petitioner in a prior district_court proceeding and shall consider a new issue that was not raised by petitioner at his collection hearing with respondent’s appeals_office background at the time the petition was filed petitioner resided in bartlesville oklahoma based on an amended federal_income_tax return filed by petitioner for on date respondent assessed against petitioner the above dollar_figure federal_income_tax deficiency in november of petitioner submitted an offer_in_compromise that was rejected by respondent in october of the statute_of_limitations on collection under sec_6502 was amended to provide a 10-year period from the date of assessment for the collection of federal taxes extended from years omnibus budget reconciliation act of publaw_101_508 sec a stat on date the united_states brought an action in the district_court for the northern district of oklahoma to reduce to judgment respondent’s above dollar_figure unpaid federal_income_tax assessment against petitioner for united_states v magana no 95-cv-462-k n d okla date in the above district_court proceeding petitioner asserted that the period of limitations on collection of petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for had expired as of date the day on which the above suit was filed by the united_states against petitioner q4e- on or about date respondent mailed to petitioner copies of form sec_668 c notices of federal tax_liens lien filings that respondent on date had filed in various counties in oklahoma with respect to petitioner’s above unpaid dollar_figure tax_liability for on date petitioner requested in writing from respondent’s appeals_office a collection hearing under sec_6320 seeking release of respondent’s lien filings relating to petitioner in petitioner’s request for a collection hearing petitioner asserted only that the period of limitations on collection under sec_6502 of petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for had expired and therefore that respondent’s lien filings with regard thereto were untimely and improper petitioner did not indicate any other basis for his challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s lien filings petitioner did not allege hardship and petitioner did not offer any alternative to the lien filings on date in united_states v magana supra the district_court granted the united states’ motion for summary_judgment and on date the district_court entered a judgment against petitioner in favor of the united_states in the amount of dollar_figure with respect to petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for - - in its ruling on the united states’ motion for summary_judgment relating to petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for the district_court concluded that the period of limitations on collection of petitioner’s tax_liability for remained open united_states v magana supra ’ petitioner’s motion for rehearing was denied in the above district_court case and petitioner did not appeal the district_court judgment on date that judgment became final fed r app p a b in united_states v magana supra petitioner was represented by counsel during petitioner’s collection hearing with respondent’s appeals_office petitioner by way of counsel again asserted the same statute_of_limitations contention also during the collection hearing petitioner did not allege hardship and petitioner did not wish to discuss any alternatives to the lien filings respondent’s appeals_office memorandum expressly states in this regard that petitioner’s counsel did not desire a discussion with regard to alternatives to the lien filings and therefore appeals is unable to make an alternative determination that is less intrusive than the lien filings the district court’s ruling was based on the execution by petitioner of an extension of the period of limitations on collection on an offer_in_compromise submitted by petitioner to respondent and on the referred-to statutory extension of the period of limitations on collection from years to years -- - on date respondent’s appeals_office mailed to petitioner a notice_of_determination in which respondent’s lien filings were sustained in the above notice_of_determination with regard to the statute_of_limitations contention asserted by petitioner respondent’s appeals_office concluded that the period of limitations on collection had not expired also in the notice_of_determination respondent’s appeals_office concluded that because petitioner did not wish to discuss any collection alternatives and because petitioner did not raise any concerns regarding collection other than the statute_of_limitations the lien filings balanced the need for efficient collection_of_taxes with the legitimate concerns of petitioner that the lien filings be no more intrusive than necessary on date petitioner timely filed a petition herein for our review of the above notice_of_determination in his petition petitioner reiterated his claim that the period of limitations on collection had expired with respect to his tax_liability for and therefore that respondent’s lien filings were untimely and improper the basis for petitioner’s statute_of_limitations contention was that he allegedly had not executed an extension of the period of limitations on the collection of petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for also in his petition petitioner for the first time raised hardship as an objection to respondent’s lien filings namely - petitioner’s physical illness and the resulting cloud on title to petitioner’s residence petitioner’s only significant asset petitioner makes no other argument with regard to the propriety of respondent’s notice_of_determination on date at the hearing before us on respondent’s motion for summary_judgment petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that petitioner’s ill health was not recent but had extended back over years further at that hearing in response to a question from the court as to why hardship had not been raised at petitioner’s collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of respondent’s appeals_office petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that he had had an opportunity at the collection hearing to raise hardship but that he had chosen not to do so discussion statute_of_limitations respondent argues that under sec_6330 and under the principle of collateral_estoppel petitioner is precluded in this case from asserting that no effective extension to extend the period of limitations on collection of petitioner’s unpaid tax_liability for was executed by petitioner we agree with respondent sec_6330 expressly provides that taxpayers at collection hearings before respondent’s appeals_office may not - - raise issues that were previously raised by taxpayers and considered in any other administrative or judicial proceeding in which the taxpayers meaningfully participated see sec_301_6320-1 e proced admin regs these statutory and regulatory prohibitions are directly applicable to the statute_of_limitations contention that petitioner previously litigated in united_states v magana no 95-cv-462-k n d okla date that he sought to raise at his collection hearing and that he now asks this court to consider ’ petitioner is precluded from raising the statute_of_limitations contention new issue as indicated petitioner for the first time in his petition raised hardship as an objection to respondent’s lien filings in respondent’s motion for summary_judgment respondent asserts that under the abuse_of_discretion standard that applies to our review of respondent’s lien filings petitioner’s new ground for opposing respondent’s lien filings namely hardship is not properly before this court also based on collateral_estoppel petitioner would be precluded from relitigating in this court the statute_of_limitations contention that was adjudicated in the district_court proceeding see 76_tc_853 see also 4_fedappx_565 10th cir applying collateral_estoppel to bar the taxpayers’ claims previously litigated in the tax_court - under sec_6330 respondent’s notices of determination generally are to be reviewed only for an abuse_of_discretion 117_tc_183 117_tc_117 115_tc_35 114_tc_604 114_tc_176 citing h conf rept pincite 1998_3_cb_755 145_fsupp2d_194 d conn under that standard of review generally it would be anomalous and improper for us to conclude that respondent’s appeals_office abused its discretion under sec_6330 in failing to grant relief or in failing to consider arguments issues or other matter not raised by taxpayers or not otherwise brought to the attention of respondent’s appeals_office 58_f3d_557 10th cir the tax_court cannot find an abuse_of_discretion where there is no evidence that the commissioner exercised any discretion at all affg tcmemo_1992_693 estate of chimblo v commissioner tcmemo_1997_535 affd 177_f3d_119 2d cir see also sec_301_6320-1 q a-f5 f q a-f5 proced admin regs accordingly in our review for an abuse_of_discretion under sec_6330 of respondent’s determination generally we -- - consider only arguments issues and other matter that were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the appeals_office in this case because petitioner’s alleged longstanding illness and hardship were not raised as an issue and were not otherwise brought to respondent’s attention in connection with petitioner’s collection hearing with respondent’s appeals_office petitioner may not now raise hardship for the first time before this court petitioner herein has not established any credible basis for us to make an exception to the above general_rule see the inner office inc v united_states no 00-cv-2576-l u s dist lexis at magis n d tex date in seeking judicial review of a notice_of_determination the taxpayer can only ask the court to consider an issue that was raised in the taxpayer’s collection hearing adopted on this issue aftr 2d n d tex see also 115_tc_582 n we would not consider taxpayer’s alternative request because the record does not establish that he raised that issue at his appeals_office hearing affd per curiam 21_fedappx_160 4th cir sego v commissioner supra pincite matters raised after a hearing do not reflect on whether the determinations that are the basis of this petition were an abuse_of_discretion this case does not involve an allegation of recent unusual illness or hardship or other special circumstance that might cause us to make an exception to the general_rule set forth herein and to consider petitioner’s new hardship argument further under sec_6334 and e respondent may not levy upon petitioner’s principal_residence without approval of a federal district_court for the reasons stated we shall grant respondent’s motion for summary_judgment an appropriate order and decision will be entered also we note that this case does not involve a claim under sec_6015 for relief from joint_and_several_liability and the general_rule set forth herein is not intended to control the issue of whether such a claim under sec_6015 may be raised ina collection proceeding under sec_6330 for the first time in this court we leave that question for another day


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c contact person contact number jt eb date qoft 2nng uniform issue list legend t o w w dear applicant this is - in reply to your ruling_request of date requesting approval of a set-aside of your income under the suitability test of sec_4942i of the internal_revenue_code and sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the foundation and similar excise_taxes regulations you f are exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code and are a private_foundation under sec_509 of the code you propose to set_aside amounts of up to x dollars of your income pursuant to sec_4942 b i of the code in year y your specific project for the income is to provide funds for a municipal public recreation building you indicate that all of the amounts to be set_aside for this specific project will be paid out for this project within months from the time when your first amount of income is set_aside you indicate that the cost of this project can better be accomplished by a set-aside of your income rather than by immediate payment of your funds because this set-aside will allow adequate time to earn income for this project sec_501 of the code provides for the exemption from federal_income_tax of nonprofit_organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable and or the other exempt purposes stated in that section sec_509 of the code describes organizations exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code that are private_foundations subject_to the private_foundation provisions of chapter of the code sec_4942 of the code imposes excise_tax on any private_foundation that does not expend qualifying distributions for exempt purposes at least equal to its distributable_amount for its tax_year sec_4942 of the code provides that in general a qualifying_distribution is any amount including reasonable and necessary administrative expenses paid to accomplish or to acquire an asset used directly in carrying on one or more of the purposes described in sec_170 of the code which includes charitable purposes sec_4942 g a of the code provides that an amount of income that is set_aside for a specific project within one or more purposes of sec_170 c b of the code may be treated as a qualifying_distribution if the amount meets the set-aside_requirements of sec_4942 of the code he sec_4942 b of the code provides in pertinent part that an amount set_aside for a specific project may be treated as a qualifying_distribution if at the time of the set-aside the private_foundation establishes to the satisfaction of the secretary that the amount set_aside will be paid for the specific project within five years and that the suitability test for a set-aside under sec_4942 of the code is met sec_4942 of the code provides a suitability test in which the private_foundation at the time of the set-aside must establish to the satisfaction of the secretary that the specific project is one that can better be accomplished by the set-aside of income rather than by the immediate payment of funds sec_53_4942_a_-3 b of the foundation and similar excise_taxes regulations provides that the amounts of income set_aside for a specific project for one or more of the purposes in sec_170 c or c b of the code may be treated as qualifying distributions for the tax_year s in which such amounts are set_aside but not in the tax_year in which actually paid if the requirements of sec_4942 g b i of the code are met the foundation establishes to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the amount set_aside will be paid for the specific project within months after it is set_aside and the set-aside otherwise meets the suitability test of sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the regulations sec_53_4942_a_-3 b of the regulations provides that its suitability test for a set-aside is met if the foundation establishes that the specific project is one in which relatively long-term grants or expenditures must be made the regulation cites as an example of a suitable project a plan to erect a building to house the direct charitable educational or similar exempt_activities of the foundation such as a museum building even if the exact location and architectural plans have not been finalized sec_53_4942_a_-3 b i of the regulations provides that a private_foundation must obtain internal_revenue_service approval of its set-aside of income under the suitability test by applying before the end of the tax_year in which the amount is set_aside you have timely sought approval of your set-aside of income in advance of the time when the amounts of income are to be set_aside as required by sec_4942 b i of the code and sec_53 a -3 b i of the regulations your set-aside for the building will be for a specific project within the charitable purposes of sec_170 of the code as required by sec_4942 g a of the code and sec_53 a - b of the regulations you represent that your amounts of income to be set_aside for this specific project will be paid out for this project within months from the time when the first amount is set_aside as required by sec_4942 of the code and sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the regulations your project is better accomplished by this set-aside of income rather than by immediate payment under the suitability test of sec_4942 of the code and sec_53_4942_a_-3 b of the regulations because this set-aside will provide you adequate time to earn funds for the building thus your specific project of providing funds for the construction of the building meets the requirements for a set-aside of income under the suitability test of sec_4942 bx i of the code and sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the regulations accordingly we rule that your amounts of income of up to x dollars to be set_aside for the building will be qualifying distributions under sec_4942 b i of the code and sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the regulations ald sec_53_4942_a_-3 of the regulations provides that any set-aside approved by the internal a dollar amount in your books_and_records as a revenue service must be evidenced by the entry of pledge or obligation to be paid at a future date or dates further the amount of the set-aside must be taken into account in determining your minimum_investment_return see sec_53_4942_a_-2 of the regulations and any income attributable to a set-aside must be taken into account in computing your adjusted_net_income see sec_53 a -2 d of the regulations because this ruling letter could help to resolve any questions please keep it in your permanent records and include a copy in your annual return form_990-pf this ruling letter is directed only to the organization that requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent sincerely joseph chasin acting chief exempt_organizations technical group


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury number release date index number washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc psi b01 plr-127197-00 date date legend x state d1 d2 d3 d4 this responds to your letter dated date submitted on behalf of x requesting rulings under the internal_revenue_code facts x was incorporated under state law and elected to be treated as a subchapter_s_corporation effective d1 in d3 x discovered that state had administratively dissolved x on d2 for failure_to_file its annual report from d2 to d3 x was unaware of the dissolution and continued to file form_1120s upon learning of the dissolution x immediately reincorporated in state effective d4 law and analysis sec_1361 defines an s_corporation as a small_business_corporation for which an election under sec_1362 is in effect sec_1361 provides in part that a small_business_corporation must be a domestic_corporation the core test of corporate existence for purposes of federal income_taxation is always a matter of federal_law whether an organization is to be taxed as a corporation under the code is determined by federal not state law if the conduct of the affairs of a corporation continues after the expiration of its charter or the termination of its existence it becomes an association see 305_f2d_844 ct_cl cert_denied 373_us_923 a corporation is plr-127197-00 subject_to federal corporate_income_tax liability as long as it continues to do business in a corporate manner despite the fact that its recognized legal status under state law is terminated see 438_f2d_774 3rd cir conclusions based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude the following provided that x qualified as a small_business_corporation under sec_1361 prior to the administrative dissolution under state law x’s status as a small_business_corporation is not terminated by reason of the administrative dissolution and subsequent reincorporation and x will not be required to make a new election under sec_1362 and x is not required to apply for a new employer_identification_number and can continue to use the number assigned prior to the state law dissolution except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this letter specifically no opinion is expressed concerning whether the original election made by x to be treated as an s_corporation was a valid election under sec_1362 this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative david r haglund senior technician reviewer branch sincerely associate chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes


o f f i c e o f t h e c h i e f c o u n s e l department of the treasury i n t e r n a l r e v e n u e s e r v i c e w a s h i n g t o n d c date ----------------- number release date conex-129128-16 uil codes the honorable trent kelly member u s house of representative sec_431 west main street suite tupelo ms attention dear representative kelly i am responding to your inquiry dated date on behalf of the ---------------- ---------------------------------------- program to purchase a medicare supplement plan for eligible county employees wishing to enroll in medicare it asks if the county’s purchase of a medicare supplement plan for its employees complies with the affordable_care_act aca employers generally may offer medicare supplement plans to their employees and comply with the aca the market reforms under the aca impose certain requirements on group_health_plans generally health coverage offered by employers and failing to satisfy those requirements results in an excise_tax under sec_4980d of the internal_revenue_code the code however the requirements of the aca market reforms do not apply to certain excepted_benefits included in excepted_benefits are medicare supplemental health insurance as defined under section g of the social_security act see sec_9832 of the code please note that the aca provisions for group_health_plans in the code do not apply to governmental plans see sec_9831 of the code however similar aca provisions under the public health service act which does apply to non-federal governmental plans apply to state or county plans those provisions include a similar exclusion for excepted_benefits including the exclusion for medicare supplemental the board contacted you about establishing a county conex-129128-16 health insurance the department of health and human services administers the public health service act as applied to non-federal governmental plans i hope this information is helpful if you have any questions please call me at ---------------------- --------------------- ------------------ or at sincerely christine ellison acting chief health and welfare branch office of associate chief_counsel tax exempt and government entities