- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Tax Law
- Date Filed: 03-10-2023
- Case #: 20-72416
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Murguia, C.J. for the court; Gould, J.; Christen, J.; Watford, J.; Benett, J.; Forrest, J.; Bumatay, J., dissenting; Sung, J.; Tomas, J.; Mendoza, Jr., J.; Desai, J.
- Full Text Opinion
The United States Tax Court rejected a petition filed by Seaview Trading, LLC ("Seaview") challenging the disallowment of its 2001, $35.5 million loss. In 2001, Seaview claimed a $35.5 million loss on its partnership. In 2005, Seaview was informed that the IRS had no record of its return in 2001. In 2007 the IRS audited Seaview and found that the Form 1065 was mailed to an IRS attorney in Minnesota and not the Service Center in Ogden, Utah as required. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6031(a)-1(e)(1) (2001); see also IRS, Instructions for Form 1065 at 4 (2001). In 2010, the IRS issued a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, disallowing the $35.5 million loss. On appeal, Seaview argued that it was not required to meticulously comply with § 1.6031(a)-1(e)(1). "[A] partnership's return 'shall be filed . . . at such a time, in such a manner, and at such a place as may be prescribed in regulations.'" 26 U.S.C. § 6230(i). Regarding limitations statutes that bar the collection of taxes, there must be, “meticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation.” Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 249 (1930) (emphasis added). The Court rejected Seaview's arguments. The Court held that Seaview was required to comply with § 1.6031(a)-1(e)(1). The Court found that neither the IRS revenue agent nor the IRS attorney to whom Seaview sent copies of its 2001 return qualified as a designated place-for-filing. Therefore, Seaview did not meticulously comply with the regulation’s place-for-filing requirement. Further, at no point was Seaview's return provided to the correct designated place-for-filing. AFFIRMED.