Ezel / IRS Rulings / 201502014
Chief Counsel Advice 201502014 Released January 9, 2015 Advice

IRS may process late telephone-excise claim despite EIN error

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2015, which can't be cited as precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current Code and IRS guidance, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2015
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 resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, 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 advised that a telephone excise tax request and an amended request could be processed as timely under the IRS's administrative practice through July 27, 2012. The advice assumed that the claim would otherwise be allowable on its merits. Although the original request was legally late and therefore could not technically be supplemented, the IRS could process it as an administrative matter. Counsel also advised treating an incorrect employer identification number as harmless given the explanation for the error.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could the IRS process a late telephone excise tax claim and amended request despite an incorrect EIN?
  • Outcome: Advice given to process both as timely if the claim was otherwise allowable
  • Key authorities: IRC §§ 6402 and 6511

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2014122208220557 [Third Party Communication:

UILC: 6402.00-00, 6511.09-00 Date of Communication: Month DD, YYYY]

Number: 201502014
Release Date: 1/9/2015
From:
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 8:22:05 AM
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Telephone Excise Tax Procedure Issue

,

I agree. However, a critical step in my analysis is that the claim otherwise would be allowed. If
this is the case, then I would not make an issue of the incorrect EIN, especially given the
explanation for the error. Consistent with the Service’s practice of administering the program
through July 27, 2012, I would advise that the below-referenced request and amended request
be worked as if both were timely. The reason that I care about the merits of the claim, which
normally is irrelevant to the timeliness question, is that, as you know, even the first request was
by definition late (as a matter of law) and a claim denial could be defended on timeliness
grounds. Because the original request is not (at least technically) a “timely” claim in fact, there
is nothing that may be “supplemented.” But again, the Service is free as an administrative
matter to process the claim and to hold the EIN matter harmless.

Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or want to discuss further.

Regards,

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2015, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.