Duty of Consistency Doctrine - Effective Sword for the IRS, but Not Likely a Shield for Taxpayers - Tax Update Volume 2016, Issue 3

by Pepper Hamilton LLP

Two recent cases illustrate the IRS’ ability to successfully argue that taxpayers should not benefit from their own mistakes if they result in less tax being paid.

Two recent cases highlight the most current view of the "duty of consistency doctrine" (DOCD) and how it can be used to collect tax even if a year relevant to the analysis is closed by the statute.1 The application of DOCD is based on an equitable doctrine that will generally prevent a taxpayer from benefiting from a change in facts or application of the law to a specific set of facts after certain tax positions have been taken by the taxpayer. It can be viewed as similar to those cases where a taxpayer has not been allowed to "argue against their own form" in determining the tax consequences arising from of a particular set of facts. However, DOCD is "an affirmative defense and the party asserting it — typically the IRS — bears the burden of establishing the facts."2

Duty of Consistency Doctrine

The DOCD "arises when the following elements are present (1) the taxpayer has made a representation or reported an item for tax purposes in one year, (2) the Commissioner has acquiesced in or relied on that fact for that year, and (3) the taxpayer desires to change the representation, previously made, in a later year after the statute of limitations on assessments bars adjustments for the initial year."3 Thus, the DOCD can apply for potential adjustments that might have arisen in a closed tax year, even in situations in which the taxpayer’s original representations as to the facts used in preparing that closed year’s tax return are found to be in error. It is also important to note that information used or asserted by a taxpayer in preparing its tax return is considered a representation as to the relevant items on that return for purposes of the DOCD test.


In Squeri, the taxpayers were S-Corp shareholders for the years 2009 to 2011, the years under audit, and for relevant prior years. The 2008 tax year was closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. For the years under review, the cash-basis S-Corp inappropriately used the deposits method to determine cash receipts for purposes of calculating its income and loss as a result of its business operations. For example, the S-Corp received checks in 2008 that were not deposited in its bank until January 2009. As a result of this impermissible method, the taxpayers treated the date of the bank deposits as the date of the receipt of income. The Service recalculated the income and loss for each of the years from 2009 to 2011 to treat the amounts received before the end of each of those years as income for the year of the receipt of the payment. However, because the 2008 tax year was not open, the Service accepted the taxpayer’s bank deposits in January 2009 as the receipt of the income from the checks that were provided to them in 2008. In finding for the Service, the Tax Court found that each of the three requirements for application of the DOCD was met: (1) the taxpayers filed their 2009 tax return using the date of the bank deposit as the date of the income; (2) the Service relied on the taxpayers’ filings on the bank-deposits method for purposes of the 2008 tax year because the tax year was allowed to close under the statute of limitations; and (3) the taxpayers’ attempts to allocate the January 2009 bank deposits to the 2008 tax year would prejudice the Commissioner because there was no authority to reopen the 2008 tax year to properly tax that income, and, thus, the January 2009 deposits essentially would have gone untaxed under the taxpayers’ requested relief.


In Horstemeyer, the taxpayer owned several entities through which he operated his medical business. In 2012, the taxpayer, his wife and the entities that he owned negotiated tax settlements in the Tax Court for tax years 2005 to 2008, and the Tax Court entered orders for these tax liabilities. In July 2014, the Service filed motions against the taxpayer, under the theory that the taxpayer was the "alter ego" of his operating entities, in order to collect the amounts due from those entities under the Tax Court’s orders. In August 2014, the taxpayer filed for bankruptcy and received his discharge in December 2014. In January 2015, the taxpayer/debtor filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to determine that his personal liability was fully discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding and that the Service was precluded from raising the "alter ego" theory in seeking to collect, from his personal assets, taxes due from the entities he owned under the 2012 Tax Court order. One of the assertions made by the taxpayer/debtor in advancing his motion was that the Service was barred by the DOCD from asserting an "alter ego" claim against him when that claim was arguably inconsistent with the position taken at the Tax Court by the Service. While finding that the case was not appropriate for summary judgment because of the factual issues at stake, the bankruptcy court discussed in detail whether the DOCD could be asserted against the Service. In a review of numerous cases applying the DOCD, the bankruptcy court concluded that "[i]t is unclear whether the duty of consistency doctrine applies to the IRS."4 In its review, the court did not identify any case in which a court applied the DOCD to the Service, but identified a Sixth Circuit case that found explicitly that "the duty of consistency only applies against the taxpayer."5

Pepper Perspective

The two recent cases addressing the potential application of the DOCD illustrate the general ability of the Service to successfully argue that taxpayers should not benefit from their own mistakes if they result in less tax being paid. In particular, even if a specific method of reporting income is incorrect under the applicable accounting method and recognition of income rules, the Service can follow the incorrect approach taken by the taxpayer if doing so results in the collection of what arguably was owed by that taxpayer. This issue needs to be considered, in particular, when taxpayers are under examination and are proposing to make adjustments to taxable income or deductions that potentially arise from closed tax years. Even though a legal argument may be available as to why the open tax years should be adjusted to the permitted method, the Service may still be free to argue for application of the unpermitted method in order to collect the amount of tax it believes is owed. In addition, even when the Service may not have asserted all potential arguments during a negotiation of the settlement of tax liabilities, taxpayers need to be aware that it is possible for other theories to be advanced by the Service and that taxpayers may not be in a good position to assert the DOCD against the Service to preclude alternative arguments that could result in the collection of tax.




1 In Squeri v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-116 (Tax June 15, 2016), the Tax Court found in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (the Service) based on its application of the DOCD. In Horstemeyer v. IRS, No. 15-80003 (Bankr. D. S.C. July 1, 2016), in a motion for summary judgement filed by the taxpayer/debtor, the bankruptcy court addressed a claim by the debtor that the Service must be held to the DOCD with respect to legal arguments made (or not made) by the Service in the Tax Court case involving the tax liabilities for certain years prior to the bankruptcy petition.

2 Horstemeyer v. IRS, No. 15-80003 (citing Cluck v. Comm’r, 105 T.C. 324, 331 (1995) and other authority).

3 Id. (citing Lecompte v. Comm’r, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1198, 2015 WL 1055081 at 6 (T.C. 2015)).

4 Id.

5 Id. (citing Temple v. Comm’r, 62 F. App’x 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2003)).



DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.