Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
3albion
2lookingforthegoodwar
storyparadox3
2jesusandjohnwayne
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
1trap
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
storyparadox2
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
1albion
3defense
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
1confidencegames
Learned Hand 360x1000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
499
3paradise
1defense
2albion
4albion
9albion
lifeinmiddlemarch2
2gucci
4confidencegames
1paradide
8albion'
LillianFaderman
10abion
Gilgamesh 360x1000
14albion
1lafayette
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
12albion
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
6confidencegames
13albion
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
5confidencegames
2paradise
2confidencegames
1lauber
Storyparadox1
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
2defense
George F Wil...360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
399
2transadentilist
2falsewitness
299
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
6albion
11632
5albion
7confidencegames
2lafayette
1gucci
11albion
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
2trap
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
1empireofpain
2theleastofus
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
7albion
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
1madoff
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
3theleastofus
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
3confidencegames
1transcendentalist
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Edmund Burke 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
1theleasofus
199
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne

Originally published on Passive Activities and Other Oxymorons on May 23rd, 2011.
____________________________________________________________________________
CCA 201111005

This CCA provides a bit of a cautionary note for contracts involving the sale of most of the assets of a corporation.  A corporation sold most of its assets to another corporation.  Included in those assets was a refund of excise taxes.  The request was made to the IRS to pay the refund to the buyer when it was allowed, but they are not going to do it.  It’s worth reading the whole ruling.  I’ve left the blank spaces that have been scrubbed to preserve the air of mystery:

Release Date: 3/18/2011 Office: ——————- 







From: ——————————— Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 11:33:43 AM To: ————————- Cc: ——————————- Subject: POA inquiry ————— 



You forwarded an inquiry from an Appeals Officer who is considering a claim for refund of excise taxes for the fourth quarter of ——— and the third quarter of ——— made by —————————-—————————————————submitted the refund claim, but then sold most of its assets to ———— ———————————————— The sales agreement between ———————-and —————————— specifically includes “tax refunds” among the assets being sold. The Appeals Officer has been contacted by an attorney who purports to be the authorized representative of both ————————— and ———————-for the taxes in question. The attorney has requested that the refund be issued in the name of ———————, and forwarded to him. The Appeals officer plans to allow the refund, but is unsure of what name it should be issued in, and who it should be mailed to. According to the representative, ———————-has not been dissolved, because the state in which it was incorporated does not allow for dissolutions when the corporation has outstanding debts. There are Form 2848s, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, from both ————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————and ———————to the same individual. The 2848 from ———————-specifies that it covers several different excise tax periods, including the third quarter of ———, but not the fourth quarter of ——-———. The 2848 from ———————-states that it covers excise taxes from —————————. 



Generally, the Service issues refunds to the person who made the overpayment, I.R.C. § 6402, and the claimant of the refund, Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2(f)(1). In this case, ———————-was both the person who made the overpayment and the claimant of the refund. Although ——————-——- sold most of its assets after filing its refund claim, the sale was not sufficient to make the purchaser, ———————, the owner of the refund. The Anti-Assignment Act provides that an assignment of any claim, or an interest in any claim, against the United States Government “may be made only after a claim is allowed, the amount of the claim is decided, and a warrant for payment of the claim has been issued.” 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b). In this case, the purported sale of the refund took place on ——————————-, well before the claim was allowed, the amount of the claim was decided, or payment was authorized.
 Although the prohibitions of the Anti-Assignment Act are waivable by the Government, see, e.g., Schwartz v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 182 (1989), there are two reasons why the Government should not waive the Act in this case. First, the Service should be careful to prevent ———————-——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————, which we know has not been dissolved, from having any cause of action against the Service. Second, there may be other liabilities of ———————that could be satisfied by the overpayment at issue here. This would include other federal tax debts owed by ———————-that could be offset under I.R.C. § 6402(a), as well as other debts that could be offset under I.R.C. § 6402(c) through (f) by the Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). See also United States v. Shannon, 342 U.S. 288, 291-92 (1952) (“Other courts have found yet another purpose of the statute, namely, to save to the United States `defenses which it has to claims by an assignor by way of set-off, counter claim, etc., which might not be applicable to an assignee.’”) (quoting Grace v. United States, 76 F.Supp. 174, 175 (D. Md. 1948)). The Appeals Officer reports that ———————-may have an outstanding liability for excise taxes for the second quarter of ———. Any other debts that could be offset under I.R.C. § 6402(c) through (f) will be captured by TOP once the refund has been certified to FMS in ———————’s name and EIN. 



Given our conclusion that the check should be written out to ———————after any available offsets are made, we also conclude that this check should be delivered to ———————. The Power of Attorney for ———————-appears to be a properly completed 2848 fulfilling the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 601.503. It authorizes the representative to receive, but not endorse or cash, refund checks issued to ———————. See Treas. Reg. § 601.506(c). The regulations require that a power of attorney contain the type of tax involved, the Federal Tax form number, and the specific years or periods involved. While the 2848 from ————————— contains all these items, its list of tax periods involved includes only one of the tax periods at issue, namely the third quarter of ———. The refund attributed to this period may be sent directly to the representative. The other tax period at issue, the fourth quarter of ———, is not included on the 2848. The general rule is that powers of attorney are to be strictly construed such that the agent is granted only those powers which are specified by the instrument. See 3 Am. Jur.2d Agency § 28. Because of this rule of strict construction, as well as the specific regulatory requirement that has not been met, the existing 2848 is not sufficient for the fourth quarter of —— ———. 



At this time, the only information we have on the continuing existence of ———————-has come from the representative. Therefore, we recommend ——————————————————————————— ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-—————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————-———————————————————————————— ——————————————————————————————-—————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————-———————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ——-—————————— 



If you have any further questions, please contact me. 



Thanks,