CCA 200448045: Overstated withholding credits and the tax assessment deadline

Number
200448045
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Assessment Authority
Code sections
§ 6201, § 6213, § 6501, § 7206
Ruling dated
July 8, 2004
Publicly released
November 26, 2004

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2004, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2004
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel generally agreed that the IRS could assess overstated withholding credits using the math error procedures, though the credits themselves were not math errors. It also cautioned that a conviction for filing a false return under § 7206(1) did not conclusively prove intent to evade tax. That intent would have to be established for the unlimited assessment period under § 6501(c)(1) to apply. The advice asked the recipient to contact Counsel if the taxpayer contested that point.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: How may overstated withholding credits be assessed, and does a false return conviction establish an unlimited assessment period?
  • Outcome: Advice given; math error procedures may be used, but intent to evade tax is a separate question.
  • Key authorities: IRC §§ 6201(a)(3), 6213(b), 6501(c)(1), 7206(1); Wright v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 636 (1985).

Full text (IRS public release)

Office of Chief Counsel

Memorandum
Internal Revenue Service

Number: 200448045
Release Date: 11/26/04
CC:PA:APJP:B02: NMGalib
POSTS-120107-04

UILC: 6201.00-00, 6201.03-00

date: July 08, 2004
to: Associate Area Counsel (Cleveland) (Small Business/Self-Employed)
CC:SB:4

from: Carol P. Nachman
Special Counsel, Administrative Provisions & Judicial Practice (Procedure & Administration)
CC:PA:APJP

subject: Advisory Opinion on Collection of Taxes

This Chief Counsel Advice responds to your request for assistance. This advice may not be used or cited as precedent.

We have reviewed the proposed memorandum entitled “Advisory Opinion on Collection of Taxes” and generally concur with your conclusion that I.R.C. § 6201(a)(3) allows the overstated withholding credits to be assessed using the math error procedures of I.R.C.
§ 6213(b). To reflect that the withholding credits are assessed in the same manner, but are not themselves math errors, we recommend reworking the concluding paragraph on page 5 to read:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, for the unlimited statute of limitations under I.R.C. § 6501(c)(1) to apply, the taxpayer must have had an “intent to evade tax.” Although the taxpayer’s conviction under I.R.C. § 7206(1) conclusively establishes that the taxpayer filed a false return, it does not conclusively establish that the taxpayer had the requisite intent to evade tax.
See, e.g., Wright v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 636 (1985). We request that you contact this office if the taxpayer claims that the facts in this case, and the conviction under I.R.C. § 7206(1), are not sufficient to establish an intent to evade tax.

Please call 202 622-4940 if you have any further questions.

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace