Chief Counsel Advice 201526013 Released June 26, 2015 Advice

Late return preserved three-year refund lookback

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 concluded that a refund claim filed as part of the taxpayer's return was timely because the claim and return were the same filing. Under section 6511(a), the claim was therefore filed within three years of the return. Section 6511(b)(2)(A) provided a lookback period of three years plus the four-month filing extension, even if the taxpayer did not actually file during the extension period. Levy payments collected within that lookback could be recovered. A substitute for return under section 6020(b) did not change the section 6511 analysis.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Was the refund claim timely, and how far back could the taxpayer recover levy payments?
  • Outcome: Advice given that the claim was timely and the lookback included the four-month filing extension.
  • Key authorities: IRC §§ 6020(b), 6511(a), and 6511(b)(2)(A).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2015060211232954 [Third Party Communication:

UILC: 6511.00-00 Date of Communication: Month DD, YYYY]

Number: 201526013
Release Date: 6/26/2015
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:23:29 AM
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: FW: CF5710718 - RSED issue

After much additional research and discussion with one of the section 6511 experts in
Counsel, it turns out that the TAS point of view is correct – because the refund claim
and the return were one and the same, the refund claim was filed within 3 years from
the return and therefore timely under section 6511(a). Then under section
6511(b)(2)(A), the look-back period is the 3 years and 4 months. Consequently,
payments collected via levy between ------------------------- (3 years and 4 months) can be
recovered. It doesn’t matter if the taxpayer actually filed within the 4-month extension
period – the taxpayer still gets the benefit of the extension period for purposes of the
look-back.

The SFR was a red herring – notwithstanding that section 6020(b) says the SFR is good
and sufficient for legal purposes, there is caselaw that says you ignore the SFR for
section 6511 purposes.

The relevant entry in IRM 25.6.1.10.2.7 says:

    Return filed after the due date and claim filed within 3 years from filing of return –
    refund is limited to “[t]ax paid during the period immediately preceding filing of
    claim equal 3 years plus any extensions of time for filing can be refunded.
    Section 6511(b)(2)(A).”

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I have let ------- Counsel know that their
original advice was incorrect.

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

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


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.