Opinion
9061-19
04-03-2024
PAMELA CHAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This case was on the Court's October 19, 2020 trial calendar for New York City and began with a missing return that Ms. Chan said was a return she had mailed but the IRS had lost. Progress was very slow, although the parties did seem to finally reach a settlement. Ms. Chan promised to retrieve and send to respondent's counsel copies of her signed returns for 2013-2015; respondent promised to draft a stipulation agreeing to a deficiency for the 2014 tax year for her to review and sign. Respondent reported quite a while ago that she kept her promise, and respondent then processed those returns. But there continued to be problems in figuring out how to apply the refund from one year to a tax owed for another.
In a phone call with the parties this week, we learned that the gist of the problem is that Ms. Chan wants credit for an overpayment of her 2013 taxes. She says that in fact she mailed her 2013, 2014, and 2015 returns to the IRS within two years of her 2013 return's due date. And she says she has the certified-mail receipt to prove it. According to IRS counsel, the holdup in crediting Ms. Chan's 2013 refund as a payment of her 2014 tax bill is that the service center does not believe Ms. Chan.
The Court acknowledges, of course, that there has been no trial of this case. It has therefore made no credibility determination of Ms. Chan, who has not testified under oath about the certified mail receipt (and, indeed, the little green card that she says she got as proof of receipt) that she says she has.
But this is a case where the stakes involved would have enabled Ms. Chan to qualify her case as a "small" case. The Court suggested to the parties that this might not be a good case for the IRS to use to test the argument that the subjective perception of service-center employees trumps the language of 26 CFR § 301.7502-1(e) (2)(i) ("In the case of a document . . . sent by registered or certified mail, proof that the document was properly registered or certified mail, . . . and that the envelope was properly addressed to the agency, officer, or office constitutes prima facie evidence that the document was delivered to the agency, officer, or office.")
Respondent's counsel reasonably asked for 30 days to mull this problem over internally. It is therefore
ORDERED that on or before May 3, 2024 the parties shall submit settlement documents or respondent shall file a status report describing his progress.