Emmons v. C.I.R.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-4414,89-4414 |
| Citation | 898 F.2d 50 |
| Parties | -997, 90-1 USTC P 50,217 Gary M. EMMONS and Martha C. Emmons, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William C. Waller, Jr., Waller, Mark & Allen, Denver, Colo., for petitioners.
Gary R. Allen, Chief, Appellate Section, David M. Moore, Steven W. Parks, Richard Farber, Kimberly S. Stanley, William S. Rose, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, William Nelson, Chief Counsel, IRS, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court.
Before GEE, GARZA and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Gary M. Emmons and Martha C. Emmons (the taxpayers) appeal the tax court's order sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (the Commissioner's) determination of tax deficiencies. We affirm.
The taxpayers sought review in the tax court for deficiencies the Commissioner assessed against them for their 1981 and 1982 returns. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies.
The only issue on appeal is whether the statute of limitations had run on the Commissioner's ability to assess deficiencies. The returns at issue were due on April 15, 1982 and April 15, 1983. They were postmarked May 5, 1983 and were received by the IRS on May 9, 1983. The notice of deficiency was sent on May 8, 1986.
A three-year statute of limitations applies to the IRS's mailing of a notice of deficiency. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6501(a). The period begins to run on the date the return is "filed." Id. The resolution of this appeal turns on our determination of the filing date of the returns. If the returns were "filed" when the taxpayers mailed the returns, the limitations period expired on May 5, 1986 and the notice of deficiency was not effective. If the returns were "filed" when the IRS received the returns, the deficiency notice was timely.
The general rule is that a return is filed when it is "delivered" to the IRS. Phinney v. Bank of the Southwest National Assoc., 335 F.2d 266, 268 (5th Cir.1964); Hotel Equities Corp. v. C.I.R., 546 F.2d 725, 727 (7th Cir.1976). However, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7502 provides that certain documents are to be considered "delivered" on the date of the postmark. In 1966, Sec. 7502 was amended to include tax returns within the category of documents that may be "delivered" on the date of the postmark. The parties agree that a document is filed for purposes of triggering the Sec. 6501(a) statute of limitations on the date it is considered delivered by Sec. 7502. See Hotel Equities, 546 F.2d 725.
The plain language of Sec. 7502(a)(2) indicates that the provision making delivery effective when the document is posted only applies to returns that are mailed on or before the day on which they are due:
(2) Mailing requirements.--This subsection shall apply only if--
(A) the postmark falls within the prescribed period on or before the prescribed date--
(i) for the filing ... of the return ...
Therefore, Sec. 7502 establishes that timely filings are delivered and, thus, filed on the postmark date but late filings are not considered delivered or filed until they are received by the IRS.
Appellants contend that, despite the clear language of the statute, Congress could not have intended such an inconsistency and that Hotel Equities calls for the same rule to be applied to both timely and late returns.
Congress' reasons for amending Sec. 7502 do not support appellants' argument. In 1966 Congress amended the tax code to allow the IRS to require taxpayers to file returns directly with one of the seven regional service centers. Previously, taxpayers filed their returns at one of 58 district director's offices. S.Rep. No. 1625, reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News, 3676, 3676-77. Because many taxpayers had to file returns at locations that were a significant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A v. Hills
...the return. In such a case, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that the IRS received the return. Emmons v. Comm'r, 898 F.2d 50, 51 (5th Cir.1990). Winters's 1998 return was late; it was not signed until April 3, 2000. Winters testified that he mailed it on the same day tha......
-
Mendes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...underpayment equals the entire tax liability. Emmons v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 342, 348–349, 1989 WL 11482 (1989), affd. on another issue 898 F.2d 50 (5th Cir.1990). When an underpayment is caused by the taxpayer's failure to timely file an income tax return, the underpayment is due to negli......
-
Mendes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 16032-95 (U.S.T.C. 12/11/2003)
...and the underpayment equals the entire tax liability. Emmons v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 342, 348-349 (1989), affd. on another issue 898 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1990). When an underpayment is caused by the taxpayer's failure to timely file an income tax return, the underpayment is due to negligence ......
-
Lucia v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1892-87.
...sufficient evidence of negligence. See Emmons v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,490], 92 T.C. 342, 349 (1989), affd. [90-1 USTC ¶ 50,217] 898 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1990). We found there was no reasonable excuse or justification for Mrs. Lucia's failure to file the returns. For the same reasons, we find ......