May v. United States, 2:14-cv-00910

May filed his 2004 federal income tax return on July 22, 2005 and later acknowledged omitting $165,000 of pass-through income in 2011.
The omitted item involved a listed transaction (Challenged Transaction) for purposes of § 6707A; the amount and transaction details are not central to the ruling.
IRS sought penalties under § 6707A; disagreements arose over the statute of limitations for assessing the penalty.
Section 6501(c)(10) governs listed transactions and provides a one-year window once information is furnished or a material advisor meets § 6112 requirements.
May signed multiple Form 872 extensions in 2010–2011; the government argues they extended the 6707A period, the plaintiff argues no mutual assent for 2004.
The IRS assessed the § 6707A penalty on February 6, 2012, and May paid the amount in 2013; suit for refund was filed in 2014.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §6501(c)(10) start the one-year window when information is furnished, not only upon Form 8886?	May argues information furnished triggers 6501(c)(10)(A) even without Form 8886.	United States argues only filing Form 8886 triggers the period.	§6501(c)(10)(A) information-furnished triggers the period; Form 8886 not required.
Were there valid mutual assent extensions for the 2004 §6707A period via Form 872?	May contends the forms did not extend the 2004 6707A period.	Government asserts forms were intended to extend and were executed by both parties.	No valid mutual assent to extend the 2004 §6707A period.
Is the 2004 §6707A penalty untimely based on §6501(c)(10) given information was available before assessment?	Information was available by Feb 6, 2011, enforcing a 1-year window to assess.	Other regulatory hurdles could bar the timing, but the primary issue is the extension failure.	Assessment untimely; May entitled to refund.

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (Supreme Court 2011) (agency interpretation not required when Congress directly addressed the question)
Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (mutual assent required for contract-like extensions under §6501(c)(4))
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; reasonable inferences from the evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (material facts question; evidence viewed in light favorable to nonmoving party)