Schussel v. Comm'r

• Decision Date: 01 July 2015
• Docket Number: SJC–11807.
• Parties: George SCHUSSEL & another v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

472 Mass. 83

32 N.E.3d 1239

George SCHUSSEL & another¹

v.COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.

SJC–11807.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued March 3, 2015.

Decided July 1, 2015.

Francis J. DiMento, Boston, for the taxpayers.

John M. Stephan, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Revenue.

Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.

Opinion

LENK

, J.

Since the 1970s, George and Sandra Schussel² have owned property and business interests in Massachusetts, and have

had other close ties to the Commonwealth. The Schussels, who are married, filed no Massachusetts tax returns between 1989 and 2007. In 2007, George was convicted of Federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) then issued the Schussels a notice of failure to file Massachusetts income tax returns for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. When the Schussels subsequently filed tax returns for those years, the returns were determined by the commissioner to be “false or fraudulent,” or to have been filed “with a willful attempt ... to defeat or evade the tax.” See G.L. c. 62C, § 28

. Accordingly, the commissioner imposed a “double assessment” against the Schussels. The Schussels submitted a request for abatement of the double assessment, which the commissioner denied.

The commissioner's decisions were upheld by the Appellate Tax Board (board), and the Appeals Court affirmed. See Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 419, 431, 16 N.E.3d 1129 (2014)

. We allowed the Schussels' petition for further appellate review. Before us, the Schussels claim two errors. First, they contend that they were not properly subject to a double assessment. They note, in this context, that their tax returns were prepared for them by an attorney, and that they attached a “rider” to those returns, stating that the sums reported were the subject of Federal criminal proceedings against George. The Schussels' second claim is that they were entitled to relief from the double assessment under an amnesty program established by the commissioner in 2009, pursuant to St. 2008, c. 461 (2009 amnesty program). Although the 2009 amnesty program does not apply to “any taxpayer who ... was the subject of a tax-related criminal investigation or prosecution,” St. 2008, c. 461, § 1, the Schussels argue that this exception refers only to investigations or prosecutions arising from State, not Federal, tax offenses.

We affirm, concluding that the board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and that the Schussels' claim that the 2009 amnesty program applies to them is not properly before us.

1. Background. We summarize the facts essential to our analysis, as found by the board, reserving disputed issues for later discussion.

The Schussels settled in Lynnfield in 1971, purchasing a home

there. They subsequently acquired several additional Massachusetts properties. In 1979, George founded a Massachusetts corporation named Digital Consulting, Inc. (DCI), which he then ran with Sandra's assistance. At around the same time, the Schussels bought a residence in New Hampshire. They retained family ties and social relationships in Massachusetts, remained heavily involved with DCI, renewed their Massachusetts driver's licenses, and registered the vehicles they used most frequently in Massachusetts. From 1989 through 2007, the Schussels did not file Massachusetts tax returns, either as residents or as nonresidents.

In 2004, George was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on one count of conspiracy and two counts of tax evasion. The conspiracy charge concerned the years 1988 to 1998. One of the tax evasion charges was based on George's Federal tax return for 1995.³ In January, 2007, a jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. George appealed, and the conviction was affirmed. See United States v. Schussel, 291 Fed.Appx. 336 (1st Cir.2008)

.

In May, 2007, the commissioner issued the Schussels a notice of failure to file Massachusetts income tax returns for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. The Schussels subsequently filed returns for those years. In those returns, they classified themselves as nonresidents, and reported income amounts that, at least for the year 1995, were identical to the amounts deemed false in George's Federal criminal case. The commissioner assessed the amounts of tax due based on the Schussels' returns, and the Schussels paid the assessed amounts.

In August, 2007, relying on information that emerged in George's prosecution, the commissioner assessed additional taxes against the Schussels. The additional assessment increased the amount of revenue attributed to the Schussels, classified the Schussels as Massachusetts residents, and imposed a “double assessment” pursuant to G.L. c. 62C, § 28

.⁴

In February, 2009, the commissioner issued a tax amnesty

notice to the Schussels.⁵ The notice stated that the commissioner would waive certain penalties and interest—not including the double assessment—if the Schussels paid the full amount due from them by the end of April, 2009. The Schussels paid the balance demanded in the tax amnesty notice and received the benefit described in it.

The Schussels submitted to the commissioner a request for abatement of all of the additional taxes that had been imposed on them in August, 2007. The commissioner denied the request. The Schussels appealed to the board, arguing primarily that, during the tax years in question (1993 through 1995), they had not been residents of Massachusetts. The board upheld the commissioner's additional assessment, finding that the Schussels were Massachusetts residents during the relevant years, that they filed false tax returns “knowingly” and with an “intent to evade taxes,” and that they were not entitled to relief under the 2009 amnesty program.

The Appeals Court affirmed, and we allowed the Schussels' petition for further appellate review. In their appellate proceedings, the Schussels have abandoned the claim that they were nonresidents during the tax years at issue.

2. Standard of review. Appellate review of a decision of the board is limited in scope. By legislative mandate, “[t]he decision of the board shall be final as to findings of fact.” G.L. c. 58A, § 13

. Nevertheless, a decision of the board, like that of any administrative agency, see G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7) (e ), may be challenged on the ground that it is not supported by “substantial evidence.” See Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, 453 Mass. 1, 8, 899 N.E.2d 76, cert. denied, 557 U.S. 919, 129 S.Ct. 2827, 174 L.Ed.2d 553 (2009), quoting Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 443 Mass. 276, 285, 820 N.E.2d 792 (2005). “Substantial evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 721, 941 N.E.2d 595 (2011), quoting Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Assessors of Agawam, 428 Mass. 261, 262, 700 N.E.2d 818 (1998). See G.L. c. 30A, § 1(6). Otherwise put, a conclusion lacks a substantial evidentiary basis if “the evidence points to no felt or appreciable probability of the conclusion or points to an overwhelming probability of the contrary.”

Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, supra at 721–722, 941 N.E.2d 595

, quoting Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Assessors of Agawam, supra.⁶

We conduct an independent analysis of the board's rulings of law, according “some deference” to the board's “expertise in interpreting the tax laws of the Commonwealth.” See Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra; McCarthy v. Commissioner of Revenue, 391 Mass. 630, 632, 462 N.E.2d 1357 (1984)

, quoting French v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 481, 482, 419 N.E.2d 1372 (1981). “[W]e are precluded,” however, “from ‘consider[ing] any issue of law which does not appear to have been raised in the proceedings before the board.’ ” Commissioner of Revenue v. New England Power Co., 411 Mass. 418, 425, 582 N.E.2d 543 (1991), citing G.L. c. 58A, § 13.

3. Imposition of double assessment. General Laws c. 62C, § 28

, authorizes the commissioner to impose an assessment of “not more than double” the amount of tax he or she determines to be due in three situations: (a) where a person, after being notified of deficiencies in his or her tax return, “refuses or neglects within thirty days ... to file a proper return”; (b) where a person “has filed a false or fraudulent return”; or (c) where a person “has filed a return with a willful attempt in any manner to defeat or evade the tax.”

There is now no dispute that the Schussels' Massachusetts tax returns for the years from 1993 to 1995, filed in response to the commissioner's May, 2007, notice of failure to file, were incorrect in at least two ways. First, the returns classified the Schussels as nonresidents when they were, in fact, residents. Second, the amounts of income reported in the returns were lower than the amounts that the Schussels actually earned. For instance, in their 1995 tax return, the Schussels reported their total income as $1,057,361. This was essentially the same amount of income reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for that year. That report culminated in George's conviction of Federal tax evasion. The IRS since has determined that the Schussels' true income for 1995 was $3,341,868. The Schussels do not contest that determination.⁷

Not every inaccurate tax return represents a “false or fraudulent return” within the meaning of G.L. c. 62C, § 28

. As the board has said, “[f]raud cannot be shown by mere proof that a party made an error of fact. Rather, the [commissioner] must demonstrate ‘an actual intent to deceive.’ ” Food Serv. Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 26 Mass.App. Tax Bd. Rep. 438, 444 (2001), quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Burno, 309 Mass. 7, 10, 33...