We’re taught that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. But sometimes it just doesn’t work.
Take the example of Warren Follum. Mr. Follum had asked the Tax Court to review the IRS’ decision to proceed with collecting tax from him for 1990 through 1993.
In those years the petitioner (Mr. Follum) included losses from sports-fishing. The IRS alleged that the petitioner wasn’t in a business but, rather, had non-deductible hobby losses of between $12,000 and $35,000 each year.
Let’s add some complicating factors. When the IRS originally sent Mr. Follum notices of deficiency to his (then) post office box, the mail was returned as undeliverable. Back in 1996, the Tax Court ruled that because Mr. Follum didn’t timely respond to the notice of deficiency (and the IRS did sent the notice to the petitioner’s last known address), the court didn’t have jurisdiction in the case. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Tax Court’s decision.
So in 2003 the petitioner filed yet another Tax Court case. The case was remanded back to the IRS appeals office in 2005 for consideration of potentially more liability. Then Mr. Follum brought suit against the IRS in the Western District of New York, asking that their be an injunction against the collection of his taxes. He lost, as that court held that it lacked jurisdiction (it had jurisdiction for a refund claim, but not an allegation of procedural irregularities).
Petitioner then brought a suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, claiming that the IRS had not sent the notice and demand to his last known address. He lost that suit, as it was dismissed under the doctrine of “res judicata” (when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound “not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.”).
Eventually, the second Tax Court case made its way back to the Tax Court, and today the decision was rendered. The Court had to decide (1) whether petitioner’s claim that the notice and demand were not sent to his last known address is barred by “res judicata”; (2) whether the period of limitations on assessment of the 1990 and 1991 taxes has expired; (3) whether the petitioner engaged in sports fishing for profit; and (4) whether the lien should remain in place.
First, because Mr. Follum had never been able to contest the underlying tax liability, the Court ruled it would look at the tax liability. The Court then upheld the underlying tax (a legal expert would note that “res judicata” appeared to apply; in any event, the Court found petitioner’s underlying arguments about owing the tax at issue to be wrong).
The Court then reviewed whether Mr. Follum was sports-fishing in tournaments for fun or profit. Mr. Follum didn’t keep separate books; he didn’t earn a profit in any year. It didn’t look like he had a plan to earn a profit in future years. It gave the appearance of a hobby, and that’s how the Court ruled.
Finally, the Court noted, “Having reviewed the underlying liability de novo, we find no error. Additionally, we find no error or abuse of discretion by respondent in determining to uphold the filing of the lien against petitioner.”
So the fourth try wasn’t any more satisfying than the first for Mr. Follum. The morale of this tale is that sometimes additional bites at the apple are just as unsatisfying as the first. Also, it pays to keep your address current with the IRS.
Case: Follum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-164
