Section of Taxation Publications

VOL. 63
NO. 2

Contents | TTL Home


Note: The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the article as published in The Tax Lawyer. Author citations have been omitted for brevity. Tax Section members may read the article in its entirety in Adobe Acrobat format.


Allnutt v. Commissioner: The Taxpayer's Responsibility

Cara M. Cotter

I. Introduction

Critics of the federal income tax frequently emphasize the Code’s complexity and the high costs associated with compliance. In 2005, for example, taxpayers spent over $111 billion on their efforts to comply with the federal income tax. Even for taxpayers with the best intentions, accurately and timely filing one’s tax returns is difficult and burdensome. Despite the costs of complying with the federal income tax system, the Service, courts, and Congress strictly insist that the responsibility for satisfying procedural requirements lies with the taxpayer.

In Allnutt v. Commissioner, the taxpayer argued that his situation merited an exception to the procedural requirements for filing a tax return. The taxpayer, relying on erroneous advice from counsel, failed to properly file his income tax returns. When the Service issued a notice of deficiency, the taxpayer cited his good faith reliance on the advice of counsel. The Tax Court and the Fourth Circuit denied relief, refusing to recognize individualized equities and insisting on the need for stern deadlines in the tax context.

The purpose of this Note is to elaborate upon the courts’ treatment of the taxpayer. Part II presents the relevant statutes and regulations in effect at the time of the taxpayer’s filing. Part III describes the facts of the taxpayer’s situation and the courts’ reasoning. Part IV summarizes the history of equitable tolling in the tax code, revealing that courts and Congress have historically been reluctant to recognize individualized equities in tax cases. Part V compares the courts’ approach in Allnutt to the analysis applied throughout other areas of the Code. Part VI concludes that the need for an administrable tax code justifies strict enforcement of procedural requirements. Finally, Part VII briefly discusses the likelihood of a similar result under the amended Regulation 6091, which provides instructions on how taxpayers may properly file tax returns.


Published by the
American Bar Association Section of Taxation
in Collaboration with the
Georgetown University Law Center


If you are an ABA member, you can receive The Tax Lawyer and the Section NewsQuarterly, both quarterly publications, when you join the Section of Taxation. Anyone can subscribe to The Tax Lawyer by contacting the ABA Service Center.