t c no united_states tax_court arlene l pollock petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no filed date p sought relief from joint liability for unpaid taxes under sec_6015 i r c r sent her a notice_of_determination denying relief but at a time before congress gave the tax_court jurisdiction to review such denials r then sought to collect the taxes in a lien- enforcement action this prompted the district_court hearing the lien-enforcement action to invoke the doctrine_of equitable_tolling and give p days to file a petition with the tax_court p filed her petition within the time limit set by the district court’s order r moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because p filed her petition more than days after r had mailed the notice_of_determination to her held we are not barred from reviewing the district court’s order held further sec_6015 i r c sets a jurisdictional time limit which may not be equitably tolled the tax_court has no jurisdiction to review p’s petition jason grimes for petitioner leonard provenzale for respondent opinion holmes judge the irs sent arlene pollock a notice_of_determination denying her request for innocent-spouse relief on date she filed a petition seeking review of that notice more then a year later on date the code gives taxpayers only days to file pollock waited days do the math the commissioner tells us and dismiss her petition for lack of jurisdiction not so fast says pollock on the day that the commissioner mailed his notice_of_determination the government’s position was that the tax_court lacked jurisdiction to review it this position had already been endorsed by the ninth circuit and would be again five days later by the eighth circuit on july the court acknowledges the outstanding pro bono effort of petitioner’s counsel in this case 439_f3d_1009 9th cir date revg 118_tc_494 vacating 122_tc_32 446_f3d_785 8th cir may continued two days before pollock’s 90-day window would shut we ourselves decided that we had no jurisdiction and on date the chief_counsel of the irs told his lawyers to move to dismiss any such petitions still pending before us for lack of jurisdiction congress later amended the code to give us jurisdiction and made the change effective for all taxes arising or remaining unpaid on or after date pollock’s taxes remain unpaid to this day how can the usual 90-day limit apply to her the question presented must we dismiss pollock’s case for failure_to_file a petition with us when we would have had no jurisdiction over it background pollock married in and had two children she has an eighth-grade education and was a stay-at-home mom for most of the marriage differences between her and her husband grew and became irreconcilable and they divorced in date with pollock getting the family’s home left behind from the marriage was an enormous tax debt--for the years the pollocks jointly owed a total of dollar_figure which with interest has grown continued affg in part vacating in part tcmemo_2004_93 127_tc_7 tax relief and health care act of trhca publaw_109_432 div c sec_408 c 120_stat_3061 to over dollar_figure neither pollock paid and between date and date the irs sent them notices that it had filed federal tax_liens nftls against them it is from this debt that pollock seeks relief that liability is hers because the code makes spouses who sign a joint_return jointly and severally liable for any_tax due sec_6013 but relief is available in some cases under sec_6015 and one way for a spouse to win relief under that section is to show that taking into account all the facts and circumstances it is inequitable to hold her liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency or any portion of either sec_6015 our jurisdiction over such nondeficiency stand-alone petitions7 brought under sec_6015 was unclear in even before that back in when the commissioner sent his last nftl to the pollocks we were already analyzing our jurisdiction over such cases in 118_tc_494 ewing i we held--at the suggestion of the unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code nondeficiency because the irs accepted the return computing the unpaid tax as filed and asserted no deficiency and stand-alone because the claim for innocent-spouse relief was made under sec_6015 and not as part of a deficiency action or as part of a collection_due_process_hearing under sec_6320 or sec_6330 see billings t c pincite government--that we did have jurisdiction our initial analysis did not go unnoticed in the second circuit expressed doubt 360_f3d_361 n 2d cir affg 119_tc_267 the government then changed its mind and argued that we had no jurisdiction when ewing i was appealed in date the ninth circuit agreed with the government’s new position 439_f3d_1009 9th cir revg 122_tc_32 ewing ii pollock began the process that would lead to this case sometime between ewing i and the ninth circuit’s reversal by filing a form_8857 with the irs on date four months after the ninth circuit ruled in ewing the irs mailed a notice_of_determination denying innocent-spouse relief to pollock prominently featured on its first page was a warning that she had only days to file a petition challenging it but where the notice said tax_court but just days after the commissioner mailed the notice to irs litigation policy at the time was to concede our ability to hear all claims for relief under sec_6015 see irs chief_counsel notice n date form_8857 request for innocent spouse relief is filed by a spouse seeking relief from joint_and_several_liability and related penalties pollock claims she submitted form_8857 in date the commissioner claims that she first requested innocent-spouse relief in date and then amended her form_8857 in date we sidestep this dispute resolving it would not affect our analysis of the commissioner’s motion to dismiss pollock the eighth circuit in 446_f3d_785 8th cir affg in part vacating in part tcmemo_2004_93 adopted the ninth circuit’s position the final blow came on date when we revisited the question and agreed with these circuit courts that we did not have jurisdiction over cases like pollock’s see 127_tc_7 two days later pollock’s day deadline for filing with us expired she had at this point never filed a petition contesting the irs’s denial of relief with us or any other court later that summer the irs’s office_of_chief_counsel notified irs attorneys about how they should handle sec_6015 nondeficiency stand-alone cases after billings irs chief_counsel notice cc-2006-020 date this notice instructed irs attorneys to file motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in all nondeficiency stand-alone cases id although this was already happening with success as the ninth circuit’s ruling in ewing proved this notice coordinated the effort and changed the irs’s previous official stance that we had jurisdiction over these cases irs office_of_chief_counsel notice cc-2006-020 date see supra n a month later the department of justice began a collection suit against the pollocks by filing a lien-enforcement action in the southern district of florida the government’s goal was to collect more than dollar_figure in income-tax debt from both pollocks and more than dollar_figure in an unpaid trust-fund-recovery penalty owed by pollock’s former husband alonedollar_figure if the government won it would be able to foreclose on the home transferred to pollock during the divorce settlement on date congress amended sec_6015 to grant us jurisdiction to hear sec_6015 nondeficiency stand-alone cases trhca div c sec_408 c sec_6015 the amendment was effective for tax_liabilities arising or remaining unpaid on or after the date of the enactment in the commissioner moved for summary_judgment against pollock and her former husband in district_court pollock argued that she is entitled to innocent-spouse relief under sec_6015 but everyone now acknowledges that this is not a defense to a lien-enforcement actiondollar_figure on date the district taxes that employers withhold from their employees’ wages are known as trust_fund_taxes because they are deemed a special fund in trust for the united_states under sec_7501 the commissioner may collect unpaid employment_taxes from a responsible_person within the company that is someone who was required to pay over the tax the money that is collected is called a trust-fund-recovery-penalty tax sec_6672 see also bennett v commissioner tcmemo_2008_251 this may or may not be correct 10_f3d_305 5th cir and united_states v haag aftr 2d ustc par big_number d mass affd 485_f3d_1 1st cir don’t question the jurisdiction of article iii courts to entertain innocent-spouse defenses while in both cases rejecting them on other grounds united_states v boynton aftr 2d ustc par big_number s d continued court granted summary_judgment against pollock’s former husband but on july the same court stayed the case against pollock and granted her days to bring a claim for relief before our court in its order the district_court explained that the special circumstances of this case--namely the disordered state of the law in 2006--justified tolling the 90-day limit ms pollock’s failure_to_file a petition in the ninety-day_window is excusable given the uncertainty in the law over this issue i find that the ninety-day review period for f petitions is analogous to the ninety-day_window for filing a complaint with the eeoc in title vii cases in that situation the supreme court has held that the filing window is a requirement subject_to waiver estoppel and equitable_tolling 455_us_385 waiver and equitable_tolling should also be available to those seeking review of a denial of innocent spouse relief although like the title vii cases it should be granted sparingly see 466_us_147 ms pollock’s situation merits either a waiver or tolling of the ninety-day time period for filing a petition for review with the tax_court the uncertain state of the law on the jurisdiction of the tax_court at the time she would have had to file the petition excuses her failure_to_file continued cal following united_states v feda aftr 2d ustc par big_number n d ill does question the jurisdiction of district courts to hear the merits of innocent- spouse defenses raised as a defense against enforcement actions it concludes that sec_6015 limits jurisdiction to reviewing denials of relief in cases before the tax_court sec_6015 and refund suits before a district_court or the court of federal claims sec_6015 united_states v pollock no s d fla date order staying case granting defendant arlene pollock days to file for relief in united_states tax_court pollock filed her petition with us by the deadline set in the district court’s order and we must now decide whether we have jurisdiction to hear her case she has been a florida resident throughout and we held oral argument in miami on the commissioner’s motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction discussion our court is one of limited jurisdiction and we hear only those cases congress tells us we can sec_7442 83_tc_309 like other federal courts however we do have jurisdiction in all cases to decide whether we have jurisdiction kluger t c pincite and in this particular case we look at four questions what weight do we give to the district court’s order is sec_6015’s deadline for filing petitions with us a jurisdictional limit or a statute_of_limitations can we construe sec_6015 to give us jurisdiction over this case does the effective date of the law granting us jurisdiction apply to pollock’s case in a way that would give us jurisdiction i the district court’s order and law of the case we begin by asking if the district_court has answered the question of our jurisdiction for us the legal doctrine that seems to be involved is law of the case --namely that one court’s decision over a legal question generally governs later stages of litigation in the same case 486_us_800 94_tc_595 law of the case promotes finality and efficiency by treating an issue as settled once it’s been decided christianson u s pincite we frankly acknowledge however that law-of-the-case doctrine may not be the right source of law here because courts generally apply the doctrine where there’s a single case being swatted from one court to the next but the district_court here did not transfer the entire lien-enforcement case to us it just sent us the question of whether pollock deserves innocent-spouse relief still if we ultimately resolve the innocent-spouse issue in pollock’s favor her lien case would go away this makes us tentatively think that transfer of the innocent-spouse issue is sufficiently similar to other case transfers discussed in this corner of the law to at least consider the doctrine here courts also commonly apply law of the case vertically-- between inferior and superior courts where obedience and not deference has to be the rule id 111_us_176 but law of the case also constrains courts at the same level-- coordinate courts as the caselaw calls them a court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice christianson u s pincite quoting 460_us_605 n law of the case in this situation is a guide to exercising discretion not a limit on a court’s power--making it something of an amorphous concept arizona u s pincite the eleventh circuit which would be the venue for an appeal in this case described law-of-the-case doctrine--and in a context more like ours between two coordinate courts--in 321_f3d_1366 11th cir a district_court in alabama had transferred a case to a district_court in georgia the choice to transfer rather than dismiss the case meant that alabama law would still govern the outcome--and the parties were convinced that alabama’s and georgia’s law differed in decisive ways the eleventh circuit recognized and applied the law-of-the-case rule established for coordinate courts in christianson u s pincite it clarified the phrase clearly erroneous and outlined the standard of deference given to a coordinate court courts must rarely invoke the clear error exception lest the exception swallow the rule with this principle in mind the exception can be restated this way in a close case a court must defer to the legal conclusion of a coordinate court in the same case only when the legal error is beyond the scope of reasonable debate should the court disregard the prior ruling jenkins brick f 3d pincite jenkins brick also briefly explained that manifest injustice existed because applying alabama law would violate georgia’s public policy id pincite we likewise hold that expanding our jurisdiction beyond the bounds set by congress would violate federally established public policy we thus turn to the delicate question of whether the district court’s conclusion that the facts of pollock’s case justify an equitable_tolling of the usual 90-day limit is a close case or a clear error ii sec_6015’s 90-day limit jurisdictional or a statute_of_limitations the commissioner argues that no court has the power to equitably toll the 90-day limit he contends that when congress expanded our jurisdiction to include nondeficiency stand-alone cases it did not specifically provide for equitable_tolling of the existing 90-day limit for potential petitioners like pollock and he says that the 90-day limit is jurisdictional--not a statute of limitations--so we can’t extend it even if we wanted to pollock contends that sec_6015 invokes equity on its face and should therefore allow for equitable_tolling she also argues that equitable_tolling is especially appropriate in her case given the very peculiar situation she faced this last argument we can quickly reject--the possibility of equitable_tolling isn’t dependent on the underlying facts of a particular case but rather on whether the language of a particular time limit can be extended as a matter of law see 128_sct_750 455_us_385 this gets us directly to the commissioner’s most compelling point--that the district_court misconstrued sec_6015’s 90-day deadline to be a statute_of_limitations rather than a jurisdictional requirement this distinction is crucial a statute_of_limitations simply prescribes a period in which a court may enforce certain rights 535_us_43 courts may equitably toll them unless it would be inconsistent with the particular terms of the relevant statute id pincite john r sand gravel co s ct pincite they protect a defendant’s case-specific interest in timeliness john r sand gravel co s ct pincite and courts may be able to look past delay because a limitations_period is like other affirmative defenses subject_to exceptions such as waiver estoppel--or equitable_tolling zipes u s pincite in re int’l admin servs inc 408_f3d_689 11th cir but jurisdictional time limits have altogether different consequences if a deadline is jurisdictional a court may not use equitable_tolling to extend it 895_f2d_1301 11th cir citing 893_f2d_1458 3d cir and this is true even if the result is harsh the age-old rule that a court may not in any case even in the interests of justice extend its jurisdiction where none exists has always worked injustice in particular cases christianson u s at dollar_figure in a black-lung benefits case for example a court received a petition in atlanta one day after the expiration of the limitations period-- even though it was mailed eight days earlier from birmingham alabama the eleventh circuit held that it could not grant relief despite the unusual delay in delivery because j urisdictional limitations and the policies which they embody must be honored even in the face of apparent injustice or an administrative agency’s obvious misapplication or violation of but it’s possible that in close cases harshness in result itself may affect a court’s inquiry into the statute’s character see 410_f3d_1090 9th cir substantive law 864_f2d_120 11th cir in 519_us_347 the supreme court similarly held that although a taxpayer’s mental_disability might be a valid reason for equitable_tolling the court could not equitably toll sec_6511’s deadline for filing a refund claim because it contained no implied equitable_tolling exception id pincite- dollar_figure in other cases courts have held that mistakes made by a pro_se litigant or an agency’s miscommunications about the proper appeals process cannot justify equitable_tolling of a jurisdictional deadlinedollar_figure we distinguish statutes of limitations from jurisdictional deadlines by applying the normal rules of construction we start with the words of the statute and their context see 158_f3d_530 11th cir we look past plain meaning to determine congressional intent only if the congress later amended sec_6511 to add subsection h which allows equitable_tolling in certain circumstances when the taxpayer is disabled irs restructuring and reform act of publaw_105_206 112_stat_740 see eg 895_f2d_1301 11th cir relief denied where appeal timely mailed but sent to wrong office 893_f2d_1458 3d cir no relief for pro_se litigant who filed appeal with wrong office on attorney’s advice 836_f2d_131 3d cir relief denied where petitioner filed within time instructed by agency but later than the law allowed language is ambiguous applying the plain meaning would lead to an absurd result or maybe where there is clear evidence of contrary legislative intent in re int’l admin servs inc f 3d pincite we begin with the code sec_6015 petition for review by tax_court -- in general --in the case of an individual who requests equitable relief under subsection f -- a in general --in addition to any other remedy provided by law the individual may petition the tax_court and the tax_court shall have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under this section if such petition is filed-- i at any time after the earlier of- i the date the secretary mails by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer's last_known_address notice of the secretary's final_determination of relief available to the individual or ii not later than the close of the 90th day after the date described in clause i i emphasis added the most important point to notice is that the code here actually uses the word jurisdiction --giving us jurisdiction if someone files her petition within the 90-day time limit statutes granting a court jurisdiction if a case is filed by a stated deadline look more like jurisdictional time limits zipes u s pincite we ourselves have already analyzed a very similar question about sec_6330’s 30-day deadline for filing petitions to challenge the commissioner’s determinations on how to collect unpaid taxes in 124_tc_296 affd 451_f3d_8 1st cir we affirmed our decision in jones v commissioner tcmemo_2003_29 holding that sec_6330 is a jurisdictional deadline that can’t be extended and that section has language quite similar to sec_6015’s sec_6330 proceeding after hearing -- judicial review of determination --the person may within days of a determination under this section appeal such determination to the tax_court and the tax_court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter emphasis added courts also commonly distinguish statutes of limitation from jurisdictional deadlines by the complexity of a statute’s language brockamp u s pincite finding that section 6511--a statute that on its face doesn’t contain the word jurisdiction or other jurisdictional terms--did not allow for equitable_tolling the supreme court stated that o rdinarily limitations statutes use fairly simple language which one can often plausibly read as containing an implied equitable_tolling exception but sec_6511 uses language that is not simple it sets forth its limitations in a highly detailed technical manner that linguistically speaking cannot easily be read as containing implicit exceptions id pincite citation omitted the court also pointed out that sec_6511 sets forth explicit exceptions to its basic time limits a list which doesn’t include equitable_tolling id pincite the presence of such detailed statutory rules is a sign that congress did not intend courts to read other unmentioned open-ended ‘equitable’ exceptions into the statute that it wrote id pincite statutes of limitation on the other hand have no such jurisdictional identifiers and courts construe them with a presumption that they were written against a backdrop of legal default rules and doctrines that they can legitimately apply when the statute is silent and the facts of a particular case warrant itdollar_figure and one of these default rules as the supreme court recently clarified is a rebuttable_presumption in favor of equitable tolling’s availability in suits brought by a private see young u s pincite holding that an express equitable_tolling provision is not needed for the doctrine’s availability in a bankruptcy statute albillo-de leon f 3d pincite the absence of any language clearly proclaiming the filing deadline as ‘jurisdictional’ suggests that the statute is not jurisdictional but a statute_of_limitations cf 398_f3d_686 5th cir because congress prefers to provide explicit tolling exceptions to the limitations periods contained in federal tax law by implication it does not intend courts to invoke equitable_tolling to alter the plain text of the statutes at issue party against the government john r sand gravel co s ct pincite for example the supreme court has ruled that the limitations period--found pincite u s c sec_405 -- for those appealing a denial of social_security_benefits is a statute_of_limitations and courts may use equitable_tolling when appropriate 476_us_467 but the statute being construed there did not use any jurisdictional terms explicitly provided discretion to the commissioner of social_security to extend the 60-day filing deadline and lacked any other indication that congress wouldn’t want courts to apply equitable-tolling doctrine id see 506_f3d_1349 11th cir we think that sec_6015 is more like sec_6511 or sec_6330 than the statute at issue in bowen--as we’ve noted sec_6015 uses the word jurisdiction and it’s part of a system of detailed rules on requests for relief and appeals from their denial there are also no explicit reservations of discretion to extend the deadline we conclude that this is not a close case and hold instead that sec_6015’s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn’t allow for equitable_tolling even though such a result may be very harsh for pollock we need not comment on whether the underlying circumstances of pollock’s situation merit equitable tolling-- tax law after all is not normally characterized by case-specific exceptions reflecting individualized equities brockamp u s pincite iii liberal construction having decided that sec_6015’s time limit is jurisdictional makes pollock’s position even more difficult but she correctly points out that at the time her petition was due she actually had no forum in which to bring her claim meaning that the commissioner is arguing not just that she failed to file a timely petition but that she failed to file a timely petition in a court that at the time was without jurisdiction to hear her case by the time congress amended the code to give us jurisdiction her 90-day window had already closed this leads us to an important question--how flexible we can be in construing sec_6015 to provide her with a forum for her case under these unusual circumstances w e lack general equitable powers to expand our statutorily prescribed jurisdiction 92_tc_776 and though we can apply equitable principles to decide a case over which we do have jurisdiction our inability to apply those principles to expand our jurisdiction to cases where we otherwise wouldn’t have it is for example we can apply equitable principles such as waiver duty_of_consistency estoppel substantial compliance abuse_of_discretion laches and the tax-benefit rule woods t c pincite really nothing more than a fancy way of saying we can’t override statutory limits on our power 165_f3d_572 7th cir we are similarly reticent in our refusal to create deductions credits or exclusions out of a desire for a fairer outcome--we understand that this would be legislation and legislation belongs exclusively to congress 50_tc_567 affd 414_f2d_265 10th cir farmer v commissioner tcmemo_1994_342 we have nevertheless decided cases involving the limitations_period found in sec_6213 establishing our deficiency jurisdiction that at first glance may seem to speak to the issues in this case--choosing to give the language of that section a broad practical construction rather than a narrow technical meaning 68_tc_779 where the statute is capable of two interpretations we are inclined to adopt a construction which will permit us to retain jurisdiction without doing violence to the statutory language id see also loyd v commissioner tcmemo_1984_ sec_6213 has two requirements that must be met first the irs must issue a valid notice_of_deficiency and second the taxpayer must timely file a petition with our court 81_tc_42 the commissioner’s mailing of the notice_of_deficiency starts a day or 150-day if the notice is addressed to a person outside the united_states period in which the taxpayer may petition our court for redetermination sec_6213 the irs may send the notice to the taxpayer’s last_known_address and as long as it does the notice is valid whether or not he receives it 59_tc_818 if the irs uses the wrong address the notice is still valid as long as the taxpayer receives it in time to file a timely petition 749_f2d_691 11th cir frieling t c pincite this has led to a number of cases in which we have had to decide how long is enough time for a taxpayer to file with this courtdollar_figure but even this flexibility doesn’t lead to the tolling pollock seeks instead the result of a decision in favor of the taxpayer in such a case is that the notice_of_deficiency itself is invaliddollar_figure see eg 815_f2d_1400 11th cir but see gaw see eg lindstrom v commissioner tcmemo_2007_ fileff v commissioner tcmemo_1990_452 loftin v commissioner tcmemo_1986_322 cf kuykendall v commissioner 129_tc_77 since the taxpayers received their notice_of_deficiency with only days remaining before the jurisdictional time limit expired we held that they could contest their underlying tax_liability at their collection_due_process_hearing because sec_6330 contemplates actual receipt of the notice_of_deficiency by the taxpayer see sec_301_6330-1 q a-e2 proced admin regs v commissioner 45_f3d_461 d c cir failure to address notice to last_known_address tolls 90-day or 150-day period until actual receipt revg tcmemo_1993_379 within this same line of cases we have had to decide how strictly to apply the language of sec_6213 allowing days to file a petition if the notice is addressed to a person outside the united_states in lewy the taxpayer was a resident of france with an office and an apartment in new york city although the irs sent the notice to his new york address the taxpayer left for france the next day and didn’t receive the notice until day we held that he was a person outside the united_states and so had days from the time of mailing to file with this court--even though he was actually in the united_states on the day the commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency--because petitioner’s absence resulted as a natural and probable consequence in his delayed receipt of the notice lewy t c pincite we can find no such wiggle room in sec_6015 as applied to this case its language is clear and is not capable of more than one interpretation pollock is right that the amendment of sec_6015 gave us jurisdiction over claims arising from liability remaining unpaid as of the amendment’s effective date but the commissioner is correct that the unamended language of e limits our new jurisdiction to claims filed within days of the irs’s issuing its notice_of_determination iv the effect of the effective date pollock makes one more sally at the commissioner’s defenses congress’s amendment to sec_6015 was effective with respect to liability for taxes arising or remaining unpaid on or after date pollock asks us whether congress really intended to create a cause of action only to simultaneously foreclose the opportunity to sue for some of those potential litigants could it really be that the 90-day limitations_period in sec_6015 became effective for her only after it had already expired we agree that the language of the amendment’s effective date tells us that the statute has some retroactive reachdollar_figure but how much there are other possible cases falling into the same jurisdictional gap as pollock’s claim--cases where the irs issued a notice_of_determination but the taxpayer never petitioned the in 511_us_244 quoting hallowell v commons 239_us_306 the supreme court noted we have regularly applied intervening statutes conferring or ousting jurisdiction whether or not jurisdiction lay when the underlying conduct occurred or when the suit was filed application of a new jurisdictional rule usually takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case court cases that we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after billings but before the amendment at least those where we didn’t vacate our order of dismissal or cases where we denied relief on the merits after ewing i but before billings in all of these situations it’s conceivable that the requesting spouse’s tax_liability remained unpaid as of the trhca’s effective date there is a reasonable amount of caselaw construing statutes that extinguish live claims looking to general principles of statute-of-limitations jurisprudence the third circuit recently held that where a shortened limitations_period would bar pre- accrued claims other circuits have provided claimants the shorter of the pre-shortened limitation period commencing at the time the action accrued or the shortened limitation period commencing from the date the statute became effective 501_f3d_323 3d cir see also 516_f3d_102 2d cir so even if we were to hold that a grace period was appropriate these cases suggest there would still be a limit of no more than days after the amendment’s enactment pollock didn’t raise an innocent-spouse defense until date and it’s important for us to note that these cases arise from situations where a court undoubtedly had jurisdiction before congress changed the law by imposing a new or shorter deadline 454_us_516 taking property ruiz-martinez f 3d pincite habeas corpus kolkevich f 3d pincite habeas corpus 150_f3d_97 2d cir habeas corpus pollock’s case is different we had no jurisdiction to hear sec_6015 nondeficiency stand-alone cases before the amendment so the amendment to sec_6015 was congress creating jurisdiction for nondeficiency stand-alone claims where there had been none before it’s within congress’s power to create a cause of action but limit those who may petition their cause and we think that’s what happened here--although pollock falls within the large set of potential petitioners whose tax_liability remained unpaid she falls outside the smaller subset of potential petitioners whose tax_liability remained unpaid and to whom the commissioner had either mailed a notice_of_determination within the days preceding the amendment or who had filed undismissed petitions with us when we had no jurisdiction we recognize this to be an odd result but it follows from congress’s failure to tinker with the 90-day deadline when it amended the code to give us jurisdiction congress simply provided people in pollock’s situation with no window of opportunity to petition our court and no grace period to do sodollar_figure certainly congress could have decided not to act at all thereby providing no forum under sec_6015 for sec_6015 relief see 282_us_409 the broad discretion of the congress in the exercise of continued we therefore have no jurisdiction to hear her claim and21 an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will be entered continued its constitutional power as to taxation necessarily extends to the whole field of supervision and control of the processes of enforcement in its selection the congress dealt with an appropriate class and was not bound to include others perhaps not all hope is lost--the commissioner conceded at oral argument that if she filed a refund action in district_court after her home was seized and sold pollock could try to make her case that she is an innocent spouse


internal_revenue_service number release date index numbers ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------- -------------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact -------------------- id no ------------- telephone number --------------------- refer reply to cc corp plr-132224-07 date date ------------------ ----------------------------------- legend parent ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- sub --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- date a date b company official ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- dear ---------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- this letter responds to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of parent requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election additional information was submitted in a latter dated date parent is requesting an extension of time to file a sec_1_337_d_-2 statement under sec_1_337_d_-2 of the income_tax regulations the election that was required to be filed with its consolidated federal_income_tax return for the taxable_year ended date b the information submitted is summarized below plr-132224-07 parent is the common parent of an affiliated_group_of_corporations filing a consolidated federal_income_tax return sub was a member of the group on date a parent sold all of the outstanding_stock of sub recognizing a loss on the disposition of such stock an election under sec_1_337_d_-2 to recognize some or all of a loss upon the disposition of the stock of a subsidiary was required to be filed with or as part of parent's consolidated group's return for the year of the disposition however for various reasons the election was not filed subsequently this request was submitted under sec_301_9100-3 for an extension of time to file the election the period of limitations on assessment under sec_6501 of the internal_revenue_code has not expired for parent's consolidated group's taxable_year for which it desires to make the election or for any taxable years that would be affected by the election had it been timely filed sec_1_337_d_-2 provides that no deduction is allowed for any loss recognized by a member of a consolidated_group with respect to the disposition of stock of a subsidiary sec_1_337_d_-2 provides that a disposition means any event in which gain_or_loss is recognized in whole or in part sec_1_337_d_-2 provides that sec_1_337_d_-2 applies with respect to stock of a subsidiary only if a separate statement entitled sec_1_337_d_-2 statement is included with the return in accordance with sec_1_337_d_-2 sec_1_337_d_-2 provides that loss is not disallowed under sec_1 d - a to the extent the taxpayer establishes that the loss is not attributable to the recognition of built-in_gain on the disposition of an asset including stock and securities sec_1_337_d_-2 provides that the statement required under sec_1 d - c must be included with or as part of the taxpayer's return for the year of the disposition in general sec_1_337_d_-2 applies with respect to dispositions and deconsolidations on or after date under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner has discretion to grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the code except subtitles e g h and i section sec_301_9100-1 defines the term regulatory election as an election whose due_date is prescribed by a regulation published in the federal_register or a plr-132224-07 revenue_ruling revenue_procedure notice or announcement published in the internal_revenue_bulletin sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make a regulatory election sec_301_9100-1 sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections sec_301_9100-3 provides extensions of time for making regulatory elections that do not meet the requirements of sec_301_9100-2 requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when it is established that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government sec_301_9100-3 in this case the time for filing the election is fixed by the regulations ie sec_1_337_d_-2 therefore the commissioner has discretionary authority under sec_301_9100-3 to grant an extension of time for parent to file the election provided parent establishes that it acted reasonably and in good_faith that the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government information and an affidavit submitted by parent and company official explain the circumstances that resulted in the failure to timely file the election the information establishes that parent reasonably relied on a qualified_tax professional who failed to make or advise parent to make the election and that the government will not be prejudiced if relief is granted see sec_301_9100-3 based on the facts and affidavit submitted we conclude that parent has shown that it acted reasonably and in good_faith that the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government accordingly an extension of time is granted under sec_301_9100-3 until days from the date on this letter for parent to file the election the above extension of time is conditioned on parent's consolidated group's tax_liability if any being not lower in the aggregate for all years to which the election applies than it would have been if the election had been made timely taking into account the time_value_of_money no opinion is expressed as to parent's consolidated group's tax_liability for the years involved a determination thereof will be made by the director's office upon audit of the federal_income_tax returns involved further no opinion is expressed as to the federal_income_tax effect if any if it is determined that the taxpayers' tax_liability is lower sec_301_9100-3 we express no opinion with respect to whether in fact parent qualifies substantively to make the election specifically no opinion is expressed regarding whether parent incurred a loss on its disposition of its stock in sub in addition we express no opinion as to the tax effects or consequences of filing the election late under the provisions of any other section of the code or regulations or as to the tax treatment plr-132224-07 of any conditions existing at the time of or effects resulting from filing the election late that are not specifically set forth in the above ruling for purposes of granting relief under sec_301_9100-3 we relied on certain information and an affidavit provided by parent and company official under penalties of perjury however the director should verify all essential facts moreover notwithstanding that the extension is granted under sec_301_9100-3 to file the election any penalties and interest that would otherwise be applicable still apply 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 a copy of this letter must be attached to any income_tax return to which it is relevant alternatively taxpayers filing their returns electronically may satisfy this requirement by attaching a statement to their return that provides the date and control number of the letter_ruling being sent to your authorized representatives pursuant to a power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is sincerely _____________________________________ ken cohen senior technician reviewer branch office of associate chief_counsel corporate-


id office uilc cca_2008111909261650 ---------------- number release date from ---------------------- sent wednesday date am to ---------------------- cc ------------------- subject ------------- case -------- - here’s a description of how the registration rules might apply to the dyeing case we’ve been discussing sec_48_4101-1 allows the irs to suspend or revoke a terminal operator’s registration require a bond and or require the operator to file monthly or semimonthly returns due to its creation of a significant risk of nonpayment of tax in this case by passing out dye packs in hopes that somebody else would dye the fuel properly additionally the operator most likely violated the conditions of registration under sec_48_4101-1 and v which provide that records be maintained relating to dye and a prohibition for issuing a bill of lading shipping paper etc indicating fuel was dyed according to sec_48_4082-1 when it was not if the irs revoked the operator’s registration the irs may also be able to make an adverse action against the registration of the operator’s parent the definition of related_party is pretty broad under sec_48_4101-1 under sec_48_4101-1 i-iii an entity is related to an applicant if it exercises control own sec_5 or more or is liable for that entity's taxes it seems that this is a one way street such that a parent is related to its subsidiary but a subsidiary is not related to its parent however sec_48_4101-1 makes members of an affiliated_group related and v makes entities with exchanges with carryover bases related as well their relationship would have to be verified but the following assumes they are related thus falling under iv above a registrant must meet the tests activity acceptable risk and adequate security tests listed in sec_48_4101-1 focusing on the parent’s registration the test that appears relevant is the acceptable risk test that test is further described in sec_48_4101-1 it provides that an applicant only meets this test if neither the applicant nor a related_party has been penalized for a wrongful act having a registration revoked is a wrongful act under sec_48_4101-1 by revoking the operator’s registration the parent as well as all other related companies fail the acceptable risk test the irs could also consider whether the parent has a satisfactory tax history described in sec_48_4101-1 as the irs may not be satisfied with the operator’s tax payment history from this point the irs we would have to revoke or suspend the parent’s registration under sec_48 i i because the parent does not meet one or more of the registration tests under sec_48_4101-1 f -- --------


internal_revenue_service number release date index number ------------------------------------ ----------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact --------------------------- id no ------------- telephone number -------------------- refer reply to cc psi b01 plr-132177-12 date october legend x country d1 d2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ------------------------ dear --------------- this responds to a letter dated date and subsequent correspondence submitted on behalf of x requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election under sec_301_7701-3 to be treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes facts according to the information submitted x was organized under the laws of country on d1 x failed to timely file form_8832 entity classification election to be treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes effective d2 law and analysis sec_301_7701-3 provides in part that a business_entity that is not classified as a corporation under sec_301_7701-2 or an eligible_entity can elect its classification for federal tax purposes an eligible_entity with at least two members can elect to be classified as either an association or a partnership and an plr-132177-12 eligible_entity with a single owner can elect to be classified as an association or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner sec_301_7701-3 provides guidance on the classification of a foreign eligible_entity for federal tax purposes generally a foreign eligible_entity is treated as an association if all members have limited_liability unless the entity makes an election to be treated otherwise a foreign eligible_entity with two or more members having limited_liability may elect to be treated as a partnership pursuant to the rules of sec_301_7701-3 sec_301_7701-3 provides that an entity classification election must be filed on form_8832 and can be effective up to days prior to the date the form is filed or up to months after the date the form is filed under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code except subtitles e g h and i sec_301_9100-1 defines the term regulatory election as including an election whose due_date is prescribed by a regulation published in the federal_register sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections sec_301_9100-3 provides extensions of time for making elections that do not meet the requirements of sec_301_9100-2 requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government conclusion based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that the requirements of sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied as a result x is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to make an election to be treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes effective d2 x should make the election by filing a properly executed form_8832 with the appropriate service_center a copy of this letter should be attached to the form this ruling is contingent on the owners of x filing within days of this letter all required returns including amended returns for all open years consistent with the requested relief these returns may include but are not limited to the following forms i forms information_return of u s persons with respect to certain foreign_corporations ii forms return of u s persons with respect to certain foreign_partnerships and iii forms information_return of u s persons with respect to plr-132177-12 disregarded entities such that these forms reflect the consequences of the relief granted in this letter a copy of this letter should be attached to any such returns except as specifically set forth above we express no opinion concerning the federal tax consequences of the facts described above under any other provision of the internal_revenue_code 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 x’s authorized representative sincerely associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries by laura c fields laura c fields senior technician reviewer branch office of associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy of this letter for sec_6110 purposes cc


t c memo united_states tax_court roger and jean muldavin petitioners v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 6854-o0l filed date roger and jean muldavin pro sese timothy s murphy for respondent memorandum findings_of_fact and opinion vasquez judge pursuant to sec_6330 ’ petitioners seek review of respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of petitioners’ and tax_liabilities unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure - findings_of_fact some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference at the time they filed the petition petitioners resided in arcadia michigan in respondent issued statutory notices of deficiency to petitioners for and in respondent issued a statutory_notice_of_deficiency to petitioners for petitioners filed petitions with the court regarding their and tax years the court issued muldavin v commissioner tcmemo_1997_ orders and decisions which addressed the deficiencies and additions to tax for petitioners’ and tax years petitioners did not appeal these decisions a stipulated decision was entered for petitioners’ tax_year on date respondent prepared a notice_of_federal_tax_lien ftl notice for roger muldavin mr muldavin for and an ftl notice for petitioners for and that same day respondent mailed the ftl notices to the register of deeds manistee county michigan register’s office on date respondent issued a notice_of_federal_tax_lien filing and your right to a hearing under sec_6320 this opinion also addressed the deficiencies and additions to tax determined by respondent for petitioners’ and tax years hearing notice to mr muldavin for and a hearing notice to petitioners for and on date the register’s office recorded the ftl notices on or about date petitioners filed a request for a collection_due_process_hearing form petitioners explained their disagreement with the ftl notices as follows we are currently before the u s tax_court for with the opportunity to open for greater oil depletion allowances adjustments for carryforward and carryback credits have not been made for depletion depreciation and prepayments as the court so ordered nor has the commissioner fullfilled sic its promises to make such adjustments in exchange for our not going to trial over proper business_expenses in ann arbor michigan pursuant to petitioners’ request for a hearing appeals officer mary jo fedewa held a hearing attended by petitioners and ms fedewa petitioners raised two issues at the hearing they challenged the underlying deficiencies and they claimed that respondent had not followed proper procedures in providing them with the hearing notices ms fedewa verified that for each of the years in issue petitioners received a statutory_notice_of_deficiency they petitioned the court and a decision had been entered ms fedewa also verified that on date respondent prepared petitioners claimed they were entitled to additional depletion allowances and wanted respondent to change the computation of their underlying liabilities q4e- and mailed the ftl notices for each of the years in issue to the register’s office and that on date respondent issued hearing notices for each of the years in issue to petitioners ms fedewa repeatedly explained to petitioners that she could not consider the underlying liabilities on date respondent mailed mr muldavin a notice_of_determination concerning collection action s under sec_6320 and or notice_of_determination for and petitioners a notice_of_determination for and the appeals_office made the following determinations in the notices of determination there were no open tax_court cases for through petitioners could not raise the amount of the underlying liabilities as an issue and as no collection alternatives were raised petitioners’ request for relief from the proposed collection action was denied opinion petitioners received statutory notices of deficiency for each of the years in issue accordingly petitioners cannot contest the underlying deficiencies for and sec_6330 b 114_tc_604 114_tc_176 where the validity of the underlying tax_liability is not properly in issue we review respondent’s determination for an --- - abuse_of_discretion sego v commissioner supra pincite sec_6321 imposes a lien in favor of the united_states on all property and rights to property of a person when demand for payment of that person's liability for taxes has been made and the person fails to pay those taxes the lien arises when the assessment is made sec_6322 sec_6323 requires the secretary to file an ftl notice if such lien is to be valid against any purchaser holder of a security_interest mechanic's lienor or judgment lien creditor lindsay v commissioner tcmemo_2001_285 sec_6320 provides that the secretary shall furnish the person described in sec_6321 with written notice ie the hearing notice of the filing of a notice of lien under sec_6323 the hearing notice must be provided not more than business days after the day the ftl notice is filed sec_6320 sec_6320 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter in the form of an appeals_office hearing within the 30-day period beginning on the day after the 5-day period described above the appeals_office hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in sec_6330 d and e sec_6320 c petitioners claim that the ftl notices were filed on date when the register’s office recorded the ftl notices - - and therefore respondent did not follow sec_6320 a because he sent the hearing notices on date respondent claims that the ftl notices were filed on date the date of mailing and therefore the hearing notices were sent to petitioners within days of the filing of the ftl notices as required by sec_6320 irrespective of whether the date of filing of the ftl notices was august as respondent contends or august as petitioners contend respondent complied with sec_6320 sec_6320 requires that the hearing notice be given not more than business days after the date of the filing of the notice of lien_date the date respondent issued the hearing notices to petitioners 1s not more than business days after august or petitioners have failed to raise a spousal defense make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended collection action or offer alternative means of collection these issues are now deemed conceded rule b accordingly we conclude that respondent’s determination to proceed with collection with respect to petitioners’ and tax years was not an abuse_of_discretion to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c tax_exempt_and_government_entities_division release number release date date date uil dear contact person identification_number contact number employer_identification_number form required to be filed tax years this is our final_determination that you do not qualify for exemption from federal_income_tax as an organization described in internal_revenue_code sec_501 recently we sent you a letter in response to your application that proposed an adverse determination the letter explained the facts law and rationale and gave you days to file a protest since we did not receive a protest within the requisite days the proposed adverse determination is now final because you do not qualify for exemption as an organization described in code sec_501 donors may not deduct contributions to you under code sec_170 you must file federal_income_tax returns on the form and for the years listed above within days of this letter unless you request an extension of time to file instructions and do not send them to this office failure_to_file the returns timely may result in a penalty file the returns in accordance with their we will make this letter and our proposed adverse determination_letter available for public inspection under code sec_6110 after deleting certain identifying information please read the enclosed notice notice of intention to disclose and review the two attached letters that show our proposed deletions if you disagree with our proposed deletions follow the instructions in notice if you agree with our deletions you do not need to take any further action in accordance with code sec_6104 we will notify the appropriate state officials of our determination by sending them a copy of this final letter and the proposed adverse letter you should contact your state officials if you have any questions about how this determination may affect your state responsibilities and requirements if you have any questions about this letter please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter federal_income_tax status and responsibilities please contact irs customer service pincite-829-1040 or the irs customer service number for businesses the irs customer service number for people with hearing impairments is if you have any questions about your sincerely robert choi director exempt_organizations rulings agreements enclosures notice redacted proposed adverse determination_letter redacted final adverse determination_letter department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c contact person identification_number contact number fax number employer_identification_number tax_exempt_and_government_entities_division date date legend cc ef g h j k m n date a date b year d date e year date l dear this letter supersedes and replaces our letter to you dated date a we have considered your application_for recognition of exemption from federal_income_tax under internal_revenue_code code sec_501 and sec_501 based on the information provided we have concluded that you do not qualify for exemption under code sec_501 the basis for our conclusion is set forth below on date b you were incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation under the laws of the state of c you began operations in year d on date e you filed form_1023 application_for recognition of exemption under sec_501 of the code you were dormant until year d when you established the f which you describe as a self- insurance mechanism to offer limited medical-reimbursement type benefits to persons who would join f you indicate that f was developed to provide modest medical coverage to uninsured or underinsured persons in the community who became f members anyone in the community could become a member and participate in the f reimbursement program in exchange for an annual dollar_figureg membership fee you indicated that this fee was far below the estimated ‘market value’ of the rights received by f members members included a cross- section of the community including the mayor of n and various providers of health care services you targeted promotion of f primarily to those whom you determined to be medically challenged disenfranchised or disadvantaged particularly those without health insurance and awarded h free memberships to persons who demonstrated an inability to pay the annual membership fee e members qualified for reimbursement of various medical and health-related expenses interest-free loans were available for members who incurred significant dental expenses members also qualified for discounts on various services and goods primarily health-related services from private for-profit practitioner members of f who provided health-care related_services in the community practitioner members qualified for discounts and coupons from area businesses between year d and year j of f’s k members were practitioner members you promoted f’s practitioner members by distributing a list of these members and discounts for their services available to f members to other f members and community groups practitioner members included dentists physical therapists chiropractors massage therapists energy healers acupuncturists feng shui practitioners veterinarians clairvoyants tarot card readers psychic readers and other providers you indicated that most practitioner members operated small freelance businesses and many of them were uninsured or underinsured you indicated that you also published f newsletters and sponsored periodic workshops and educational events through f dealing with public health-oriented themes and issues you also organized an event in which f-member massage therapists provided massages to members of the community in date l you transferred f and its associated assets fund balances and membership to m an organization that has applied for recognition of its tax exemption since that time you have been inactive you state that you are hoping to provide financial support and advice to organizations that engage in worthwhile endeavors for the community the public at large and are awaiting another brilliant idea to emerge in the n community for how such a successful beneficial model can be designed operational_test law an organization described in sec_501 of the code must be among other requirements organized and operated exclusively for certain purposes sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the income_tax regulations states in order to be exempt as an organization described in sec_501 an organization must be both organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes specified in such section if an organization fails to meet either the organizational_test or the operational_test it is not exempt sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations states an organization will be regarded as operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of such exempt purposes specified in sec_501 an organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt_purpose sec_1_501_c_3_-1 i of the regulations states an organization may be exempt as an organization described in sec_501 if it is organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the following purposes b charitable f educational sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations states that the term charitable is used in sec_501 of the code in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor and distressed or of the underprivileged advancement of religion advancement of education or science erection or maintenance of public buildings monuments or works lessening of the burdens of government and promotion of social welfare by organizations designed to accomplish any of the above purposes or i to lessen neighborhood tensions ii to eliminate prejudice and discrimination iii to defend human and civil rights secured_by law or iv to combat community deterioration and juvenile delinquency sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations states that the term educational relates to b the instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations provides that an organization is not organized or operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes specified in subdivision i of this subparagraph unless it serves a public rather than a private interest an organization that serves a private interest other than incidentally is not entitled to exemption under sec_501 of the code thus although an organization’s operations may be deemed to be beneficial to the public if it also serves private interests other than incidentally it is not entitled to exemption in 92_tc_1053 the tax_court held that an organization that as its primary activity operated a school to train individuals for careers as political campaign professionals was not operated exclusively for exempt purposes as described in sec_501 of the code because the school’s activities conferred impermissible private benefit the court defined private benefit as nonincidental benefits conferred on disinterested persons that serve private interests d pincite in revrul_60_143 1960_1_cb_192 the social and recreational activities carried on by an alumni association of a university were merely incidental to the association’s basic purpose of advancing the interests of the university and thus did not preclude the association from being described in sec_501 of the code this revenue_ruling noted that an activity which is in fact incidental secondary or subservient to an organization’s exempt_purpose or purposes and which when weighed against the whole of the activities of the organization is less than a substantial part of the total will not ordinarily operate to deny exemption in revrul_61_170 1961_2_cb_112 an association composed of professional private duty nurses supported and operated a nurses’ registry to help make the nurses’ services more readily available to the general_public the association was operated primarily for the benefit of its members and only incidentally for the benefit of the general_public thus the association was not organized or operated exclusively for exempt purposes as described in sec_501 of the code revrul_80_287 1980_2_cb_185 provides that a nonprofit lawyer referral service_organization does not qualify for exemption under sec_501 of the code the organization was created by several bar associations in a metropolitan area to provide a lawyer referral service the organization aided persons who did not have an attorney by helping them select one in exchange for a nominal service charge any member of the public could visit or call the organization each individual was screened to determine the area of law involved from the list of attorneys maintained by the organization an attorney specializing in the appropriate area of law was selected from within the geographical area selected by the client the organization arranged an appointment for the individual with the attorney and the individual was asked to pay a nominal fee substantially less than the normal fee charged for a half-hour appointment any attorney who was a member of a local bar association could apply for placement on the referral list attorney applicants were required to pay an application fee although the referral service described in revrul_80_287 provided some public benefit a substantial purpose of the program was promotion of the legal profession accordingly the organization did not qualify for exemption as a charitable_organization described in sec_501 of the code in 326_us_279 the supreme court held that the presence of a single non-exempt purpose if substantial in nature will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes the court found that the trade_association had an underlying commercial motive that distinguished its educational program from that carried out by a university effective date sec_508 of the code provides that an organization shall not be treated as an organization described in sec_501 unless it has given notice to the service that it is applying for recognition of exempt status sec_1_508-1 of the regulations requires an organization seeking exemption from taxation under sec_501 of the code to file the notice described in sec_508 within months from the end of the month in which the organization was organized subject_to certain exceptions such notice must be filed by submitting a properly completed and executed form_1023 exemption application with the service if this notice is timely made tax exemption is normally retroactive to the applicant’s date of organization otherwise exemption is effective the date the form_1023 is filed sec_1_508-1 of the regulations provides exceptions to this notice requirement that include an organization that is not a private_foundation and the gross_receipts of which are normally not more than dollar_figure in each taxable_year for purposes of this dollar_figure gross_receipts exception an organization must file the required notice within days after the end of the first taxable_year in which it does not qualify for the exception see sec_1 a ii of the regulations sec_301_9100-2 of the regulations provides an automatic 12-month extension of the 15-month form_1023 filing deadline burden_of_proof revproc_90_27 1990_1_cb_514 requires an applicant to submit sufficient information during the application process for the service to conclude that the organization is in compliance with the organizational and operational requirements of sec_501 before it must issue a ruling sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations assigns the burden_of_proof to an applicant organization to show that it serves a public rather than a private interest and specifically that it is not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests an organization that serves a private interest other than incidentally is not entitled to exemption under sec_501 thus although an organization’s operations may be deemed to be beneficial to the public if it also serves private interests other than incidentally it is not entitled to exemption see american campaign academy v commissioner supra rationale organizations described in sec_501 of the code must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes specified in the regulations which include charitable or educational_purposes see sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations operational_test to be operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes an organization must engage primarily in activities that accomplish one or more of these exempt purposes however if more than an insubstantial part of the organization’s activities is not in furtherance of an exempt_purpose it is not engaged primarily in activities that accomplish an exempt_purpose see sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations you indicate that your f program is promoted primarily to individuals and families who are medically challenged disenfranchised or disadvantaged particularly those without health insurance however your f services are not restricted to these individuals or families but are open to any member of the community who is able to pay an annual fee you have not provided any demographic or other studies showing that your f members are exclusively or primarily low- income individuals or families who are financially unable to purchase adequate health insurance therefore you have failed to establish that your f program primarily serves charitable purposes see sec_1_501_c_3_-1 and sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations see also revproc_90_27 supra the f program serves a substantial non-exempt purpose to promote your f members’ interests in particular the interests of your f practitioner members who are private for-profit health care providers in exchange for a fee you promote each of your practitioner members’ services to other f members and the community and provide practitioner members with various discounts and coupons for community businesses you also provide f members with insurance-type benefits shifting and distributing their health cost risks among other paying members and provide reimbursements for their health-related expenses you also provide the opportunity for some f members to apply for interest-free loans for their dental care expenses you promote your practitioner members and their services through various publications distributed to your other f members and to community groups in this way you are similar to the organizations described in revenue rulings and supra which promoted their associates’ services and thereby served a substantial non-exempt private purpose thus you have failed to establish that you are not serving private interests pursuant to sec_1_501_c_3_-1 ii of the regulations see american campaign academy supra see also revproc_90_27 supra furthermore your activities are not primarily educational within the meaning of sec_1 c -1 d i of the regulations educational and outreach activities your principal activity has been operation of the fe health care reimbursement and discount program although you have engaged in some community because your non-exempt activities demonstrate the presence of a substantial non- exempt_purpose and represent more than an insubstantial portion of your total activities and because you have failed to establish that you are not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests you do not qualify for recognition of exemption under sec_501 of the code see sec_1_501_c_3_-1 and sec_1_501_c_3_-1 of the regulations better business bureau supra effective date even if you were to qualify for recognition of exemption under sec_501 of the code the effective date of exemption would not be earlier than date e sec_1_508-1 and sec_301_9100-2 of the regulations provide that for the effective date for exemption under sec_501 to be the date an organization was organized it normally must file its application_for exemption within months months plus an automatic 12-month extension from the end of the month in which it was organized or meet one of the exceptions to this 27-month filing rule you did not file the form_1023 until date e over months after your date of incorporation date b you qualified for an exception from this 27-month filing requirement for the first several years of your existence because your annual receipts during that period were less than dollar_figure annually see sec_1_508-1 of the regulations however you failed to file the form_1023 within days after the end of your taxable_year year d the first taxable_year in which you had gross_receipts over dollar_figure as required by sec_1_508-1 therefore under sec_1_508-1 the effective date of your exemption would not be the date on which you were organized therefore even if you were to qualify for recognition of exemption under sec_501 of the code the effective date of your exemption would not be earlier than date e accordingly contributions to you are not deductible under sec_170 of the code and you must file federal_income_tax returns you have the right to file a protest if you believe this determination is incorrect to protest you must submit a statement of your views and fully explain your reasoning you must submit the statement signed by one of your officers within days from the date of this letter we will consider your statement and decide if the information affects our determination your protest statement should be accompanied by the following declaration under penalties of perjury declare that have examined this protest statement including accompanying documents and to the best of my knowledge and belief the statement you also have a right to request a conference to discuss your protest this request should be made when you file your protest statement an attorney certified_public_accountant or an individual enrolled to practice before the internal_revenue_service may represent you if you want representation during the conference procedures you must file a proper power_of_attorney form_2848 power_of_attorney and declaration of representative if you have not already done so for more information about representation see publication practice_before_the_irs and power_of_attorney all forms and publications mentioned in this letter can be found at www irs gov forms and publications if you do not file a protest within days you will not be able to file a suit for declaratory_judgment in court because the internal_revenue_service irs will consider the failure to protest as a failure to exhaust available administrative remedies code sec_7428 provides in part that a declaratory_judgment or decree shall not be issued in any proceeding unless the tax_court the united_states court of federal claims or the district_court of the united_states for the district of columbia determines that the organization involved has exhausted all of the administrative remedies available to it within the irs if you do not intend to protest this determination you do not need to take any further action letter that letter will provide information about filing tax returns and other matters if we do not hear from you within days we will issue a final adverse determination please send your protest statement form_2848 and any supporting documents to this address internal_revenue_service te_ge se t eo ra t constitution ave n w washington dc you may also fax your statement to the person whose name and fax number are shown in the heading of this letter heading of this letter to confirm that he received your fax if you fax your statement please call the person identified in the if you have any questions please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter sincerely robert choi director exempt_organizations rulings agreements


internal_revenue_service number release date index numbers ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact -------------------- id no ------------- telephone number --------------------- refer reply to cc psi plr-111158-11 plr-111159-11 plr-111160-11 plr-111161-11 plr-111163-11 plr-111164-11 plr-111165-11 plr-111166-11 date date legend companya ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- countrya datea ---------------------- ------------------ companyb ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- countryb dateb1 dateb2 -------------- ------------------ ---------------------- companyc ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- countryc datec --------------------- ----------------------- plr-111158-11 companyd ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- countryd dated --------------------------- -------------------------- companye ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- countrye datee ----------------------------- ----------------------- companyf ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- countryf datef -------- -------------------------- companyg ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- countryg dateg ----------------------------- ------------------ companyh ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ countryh dateh ----------------------------- ------------------- companyj ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- countryj datej ----------------- --------------------------- plr-111158-11 dear -------------------- this letter responds to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of companya companyb companyc companyd companye companyf companyg companyh and companyj requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to file a late entity classification election facts companya was formed under the laws of countrya on datea companyb was formed under the laws of countryb on dateb1 companyc was formed under the laws of countryc on datec companyd was formed under the laws of countryd on dated companye was formed under the laws of countrye on datee companyf was formed under the laws of countryf on datef companyg was formed under the laws of countryg on dateg companyh was formed under the laws of countryh on dateh companyj was formed under the laws of countryj on datej due to inadvertence companya companyb companyc companyd companye companyf companyh and companyj failed to file a form_8832 entity classification election law and analysis sec_301_7701-3 provides in part that a business_entity that is not classified as a corporation under sec_301_7701-2 or an eligible_entity can elect its classification for federal tax purposes as provided in sec_301_7701-3 an eligible_entity with at least two members can elect to be classified as either an association and thus a corporation under sec_301_7701-2 or a partnership and an eligible_entity with a single owner can elect to be classified as an association or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner sec_301_7701-3 provides that except as provided in sec_301 b unless the entity elects otherwise a foreign eligible_entity is a a partnership if it has two or more members and at least one member does not have limited_liability b an association if all members have limited_liability or c disregarded as an entity separate from its owner if it has a single owner that does not have limited_liability sec_301_7701-3 provides in part that for purposes of sec_301 b i a member of a foreign eligible_entity has limited_liability if the member has no personal liability for the debts of or claims against the entity by reason of being a member sec_301_7701-3 provides in part that except as provided in sec_301_7701-3 and v an eligible_entity may elect to be classified other than as plr-111158-11 provided under sec_301_7701-3 or to change its classification by filing form_8832 with the service_center designated on form_8832 sec_301_7701-3 provides in part that an election made under sec_301_7701-3 will be effective on the date specified by the entity on form_8832 or on the date filed if no such date is specified on the election form the effective date specified on form_8832 can not be more than days prior to the date on which the election is filed and can not be more than months after the date on which the election is filed under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code code except subtitles e g h and i sec_301_9100-1 provides that the term regulatory election includes an election whose due_date is prescribed by a regulation published in the federal_register sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections sec_301_9100-3 provides extensions of time for making elections that do not meet the requirements of sec_301_9100-2 sec_301_9100-3 provides that requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides the evidence including affidavits described in sec_301_9100-3 to establish to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and the grant of relief will not prejudice the interests of the government conclusion based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied consequently companya is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to file a form_8832 with the appropriate service_center effective datea companyb companyc companye companyf companyg companyh and companyj are each granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to file a form_8832 with the appropriate service_center effective dateb2 companyd is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to file a form_8832 with the appropriate service_center effective dated a copy of this letter should be attached to the form_8832 except for the specific ruling above we express or imply no opinion concerning the federal tax consequences of the facts of this case under any other provision of the plr-111158-11 code in addition sec_301_9100-1 provides that the granting of an extension of time for making an election is not a determination that the taxpayer is otherwise eligible to make the election this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it according to sec_6110 of the code this ruling may not be used or cited as precedent under a power_of_attorney on file with this office we are sending a copy of this letter to your authorized representatives sincerely associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries by _____________________________________ richard t probst senior technician reviewer branch office of associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries enclosures a copy of this letter a copy for sec_6110 purposes


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury number release date index number washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc corp 6-plr-113870-01 date date legend taxpayer statex year1 individuala the relevant provisions of the law of statex date1 date2 date3 date4 this is in response to your authorized representative’s letter dated date requesting a ruling regarding a proposed transaction under sec_336 and sec_337 of the internal_revenue_code the code additional information was received subsequently by letter and facsimile the material information submitted for consideration is summarized below taxpayer is a statex nonprofit corporation subject_to u s federal_income_tax taxpayer was formed in year1 as a statex nonprofit corporation taxpayer has neither shareholders nor other private persons who stand in economic positions of owners and under the relevant provisions of the law of statex its net_earnings and assets cannot inure to the benefit of any such person taxpayer pursuant to an irs letter_ruling dated date1 became exempt from u s plr-113870-01 federal_income_tax as an organization described in the exemption was subsequently reaffirmed by a ruling dated date2 under which corresponds to sec_501 of the internal_revenue_code_of_1986 as amended on date3 taxpayer entered into a closing_agreement with the internal_revenue_service pursuant to which it agreed to the revocation of its tax-exempt status effective for tax years beginning after date4 taxpayer lost its exempt status as an organization described in sec_501 of the internal_revenue_code of the terms of the closing_agreement do not prevent taxpayer from subsequently applying for recognition as a tax-exempt_entity taxpayer as a corporation formerly described in sec_501 and formerly exempt from u s federal_income_tax under sec_501 proposes to regain the internal revenue service’s recognition as a corporation exempt from u s federal_income_tax under sec_501 effective no later than date subsequent to filing its request for this ruling taxpayer filed a form_1023 application_for recognition of exemption under sec_501 of the internal_revenue_code with the internal_revenue_service to regain its tax exemption under sec_501 in connection with this ruling_request the taxpayer has made the following representations under statex law the conversion of taxpayer from a federal taxable organization to a federal tax-exempt_organization described in sec_501 of the code will not result in a deemed liquidation_reincorporation of taxpayer nor in a deemed disposition of taxpayer’s assets other than asset dispositions in the ordinary course of its business and investment operations taxpayer has no plan or intention to dispose_of its assets based solely on the information submitted and representations made we rule that taxpayer is a corporation described in sec_1_337_d_-4 provided that taxpayer is tax-exempt under sec_501 within three years from date accordingly subject_to the proviso in the preceding sentence upon the change_of status of taxpayer to a tax-exempt_entity taxpayer will not be treated pursuant to sec_1_337_d_-4 as if it transferred all of its assets to a tax-exempt_entity immediately before the change in status becomes effective in a transaction to which sec_1 d - a applies the ruling contained in this letter is predicated upon the facts and representations submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalties of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party this office has not verified any of the plr-113870-01 material submitted in support of the request for rulings verification of the factual information representations and other data may be required as part of the audit process 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 no opinion is expressed as to whether the taxpayer may qualify for tax-exempt status under the code no opinion is expressed as to the tax consequences of any sale of assets by the taxpayer subsequent to the proposed transaction a copy of this letter must be attached to any income_tax return to which it is relevant this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer s 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 sincerely assistant chief_counsel corporate alfred c bishop jr branch chief cc corp b6


internal_revenue_service index no date number info release date the honorable leonard l boswell u s house of representatives washington d c dear mr boswell this letter is in response to your inquiry dated date your constituent is concerned that mileage reimbursements received by employees of non-profit organization are income to those employees your constituent believes such reimbursements would not be income to government or private sector employees the mileage reimbursement rules are the same for all employees whether they work for a non-profit organization the government or the private sector reimbursed business_expenses are not income to an employee if reimbursed under the rules imposed by the income_tax regulations to be excluded from income the reimbursed expenses must be deductible by the employee subject_to all the rules limiting that deduction the reimbursement cannot exceed the amount of the expenses if it does the employer must require the employee to return the excess the standard mileage rate system is a convenient way to determine the amount of reimbursements taxpayers may calculate the value by mileage of using an automobile for business moving medical or charitable purposes without keeping records of actual expenses but taxpayers must still keep records of the miles time place or use and purpose of mileage in order to substantiate the expenses an employee may be reimbursed at the current business standard mileage rate of cents per mile because the employee is incurring deductible business_expenses i hope this information is helpful if you have any questions please call me or john t sapienza identification_number at sincerely associate chief_counsel income_tax accounting by robert a berkovsky chief branch


department of thetreasury internal_revenue_service washington d c tax_exempt_and_government_entities_division feb 2ngg uic tt raty legend taxpayer a taxpayer b bank m ira x ira y amount s amount t date dear this is in response to your letter dated date and supplemented by a dated date in which you request a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement contained in sec_408 of the internal_revenue_code code letter the following facts and representations have been submitted under penalty of perjury in support of the ruling_request taxpayer a age and taxpayer b age represent that they received distributions from their individual iras taxpayer a and taxpayer b assert that their failure to page accomplish a rollover within the 60-day period prescribed by sec_408 of the code was due to their medical conditions and treatments which impaired their ability to accomplish timely rollovers they further represent that amount s and amount t have not been used for any other purpose on date taxpayer a received a distribution of amount s from ira x and taxpayer b received a distribution of amount t from ira y they intended to roll the amounts into new iras but placed the amounts in their checking accounts at bank m until they could find suitable iras during the 60-day period following the distribution taxpayer b was under treatment for complications from treatment for cancer she was required to use a feeding tube and pump that restricted her movement until her illness taxpayer b was primarily responsible for the family finances because taxpayer a was previously disabled due to recurring epileptic episodes and medication to control them both of which caused confusion and memory loss as a result of taxpayer b’s severe illness she relied on taxpayer a to manage their finances including completing the rollover of the iras however as a result of taxpayer a’s medical_condition he believed that the funds were already in iras and he did not complete the transactions during the 60-day rollover period based on the above facts and representations you request that the internal_revenue_service waive the 60-day rollover requirement contained in sec_408 of the code with respect to the distribution of amount s from ira x and the distribution of amount t from ira y sec_408 of the code provides that except as otherwise provided in sec_408 any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira shall be included in gross_income by the payee or distributee as the case may be in the manner provided under sec_72 of the code sec_408 of the code defines and provides the rules applicable to ira_rollovers sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 of the code does not apply to any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira to the individual for whose benefit the account is maintained if i the entire amount received including money and any other_property is paid into an ira for the benefit of such individual not later than the day after the day on which he receives the payment or distribution or ii the entire amount received including money and any other_property is other than an ira for the benefit of paid into an eligible_retirement_plan such individual not later than the day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion if the amount received which is includible in gross_income determined without regard to sec_408 page 2uu92005 sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 does not apply to any amount described in sec_40 d a i received by an individual from an ira if at any time during the one-year period-ending on the day of such receipt such individual received any other amount described in sec_408i from an ira which was not includible in gross_income because of the application of sec_408 sec_408 of the code provides a similar 60-day rollover period for partial rollovers sec_408 of the code provides that the secretary may waive the 60-day requirement under sec_408 and sec_408 of the code where the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience including casualty disaster or other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject_to such requirement only distributions that occurred after date are eligible for the waiver under sec_408 of the code revproc_2003_16 2003_4_irb_359 date provides that in determining whether to grant a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement pursuant to sec_408 of the code the service will consider all relevant facts and circumstances including errors committed by a financial_institution inability to complete a rollover due to death disability hospitalization incarceration restrictions imposed by a foreign_country or postal error the use of the amount distributed for example in the case of payment by check whether the check was cashed and the time elapsed since the distribution occurred the information and documentation presented by taxpayer a and taxpayer b is consistent with their assertion that their failure to accomplish a timely rollover was caused by the effects of their individual medical conditions which led to amount s and amount t being held in a non-ira checking account during and beyond the 60-day rollover period therefore pursuant to sec_408 of the code the service hereby waives the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to the distribution of amount s from ira x and the distribution of amount t from ira y taxpayer a and taxpayer are granted a period of days from the issuance of this ruling letter to contribute amount s and amount t into individual rollover iras provided all other requirements of sec_408 of the code except the 60-day requirement are met with respect to such contribution amount s and amount t will be considered rollover_contributions within the meaning of sec_408 of the code no opinion is expressed as to the tax treatment of the transaction described herein under the provisions of any other section of either the code or regulations which may be applicable thereto page this ruling is directed solely to the taxpayers who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited by others as precedent if you wish to inquire about this ruling please contact i d no at - se t ep ra t4 sincerely yours dene le loti o donzell4 littlejohn manager employee_plans technical group enclosures deleted copy of ruling letter notice of intention to disclose