Tax Debt

Change in Offer-In-Compromise Refund Seizure Policy May Help With Your Tax Problems

January 6, 2022 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Offer in Compromise (OIC) program is a valuable

tax problem resolution tool. Taxpayers eligible for an OIC suffer from financial hardship that makes paying the total amount owed and financially surviving impossible. For many, an OIC offers the only path to eliminating tax debt and becoming solvent.

However, the OIC program has come with a requirement that devastates taxpayers living on the edge: They must agree to forfeit a tax refund upon which they depend.

Our Tax Attorneys Have Good News if you Didn’t Apply for a PPP Loan by the Deadline of June 30, 2020.

July 7, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

PPP Loans are an excellent way for small businesses with Covid-19 related financial issues to obtain a very low (one percent) interest loan from the government. Unfortunately, if you haven’t applied yet the time period for submitting an application expired on June 30^th. The good news is that the Senate and the House have passed a bill which extends the deadline to apply to August 8, 2020. President Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, 2020. While it seems that large businesses are the usual recipients of government money, this program reaches the smallest of businesses.

At the time of this writing it appears that there was still about $130 billion in loans still available. With an average loan size (the precise number keeps changing) of about $110,000 that means that up to about another 1.2 million businesses could take advantage of the PPP loan program.

If handled properly, the loan will be forgiven by the government. Therefore, it is essentially a grant by the government. When the loan is forgiven there will no discharge of debt income to take into account. However, businesses will be unable to deduct expenses paid with the forgiven loans on their income tax returns.

IRS Suspends Most Collection Activities due to COVID-19 Pandemic

April 17, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, the IRS has provided relief to taxpayers by extending filing and other deadlines. Now, in an internal memorandum from Fred Schindler the Director of Headquarters Collection (SBSE), the IRS continues to provide relief to taxpayers with tax debt by suspending most tax collection activities. These changes mirror the previous relief provided by the IRS, and restates the relief contained in the People First Initiative. Our tax litigation attorneys are advising our clients that they can expect enforced tax collection activities to be suspended unless there is an exigent circumstance including the loss of the opportunity for the government to collect taxes due. The expiration of the statute of limitations is one example.

The importance of the memo is that while it mostly repeats and fleshes out the People First Initiative, it is a direct “order” from the head of SBSE Collection to all Collection Executives. The People First Initiative is a bit more nebulous in terms of its actual impact on the activities of rank and file employees. The collection activities outlined in the memo include most activities related to the collection process such as meeting with taxpayers, filing new Notices of Federal Tax Liens (NFTL), issuing levies, taking or scheduling seizures actions, and pursuing civil suit proceedings. Automated tax levy programs are also suspended. The memorandum also directs Collections not to default installment agreements for missed payments due between April 1 and July 15, 2020 (the suspension period). Due to the ongoing and ever changing nature of the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States, the IRS may extend the suspension period and the incorporated relief provisions further.

It is important for taxpayers and their advisors to remember that even though collection enforcement activity will be rare from now through July 15^th, once the suspension period ends the IRS may begin filing liens and levies with a vengeance. Our tax lawyers are therefore recommending to our clients that, to the extent practicable, they position themselves to take appropriate action to forestall collection after the suspension period ends. This includes submitting offers in compromise, and requesting installment agreements now.

Not Just Another Covid-19 Announcement (Part II)

March 19, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

On Tuesday evening our tax lawyers sent out an announcement discussing some of the tax filing and payment implications of the Covid-19 virus. We indicated that Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin had announced payment and filing extensions for the 2019 income tax returns.

Mnuchin was quoted as saying “We encourage those Americans who can file their taxes to continue to file their taxes on April 15,” Mnuchin said. “Because for many Americans, you will get tax refunds.”

We took that to mean that the filing deadline as well as the payment deadline was extended. This is the problem with tax guidance by Tweet and press conference. On Wednesday morning the IRS issued an announcement which states that there is no filing extension.

Not Just Another Covid-19 Announcement

March 17, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

Some of you may be concerned about the impact of the Coronavirus aka Covid-19 outbreak on your taxes, and those of your clients. The news from the IRS has been slow in coming. On Friday of last week President Trump declared a National Emergency. At the same time, he directed Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to provide relief from “tax deadlines” to Americans who are adversely impacted by the emergency. This allows the IRS to extend various deadlines for up to a one-year period. This authority is not, however, self-executing. That is, the IRS must specify exactly which due dates, and for how long they are being extended.

Prior to President Trump’s announcement Secretary Mnuchin had told reporters that most deadlines would be extended for “small businesses” and most individuals other than the “super rich.” Our tax lawyers couldn’t find a definition of super rich anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. Finally, this morning, Tuesday March 17^th, after partnership and certain LLC returns were already due, Mnuchin stated in a press conference that the filing deadline for the 2019 income tax return would be extended by 90 days. For individuals that would mean July 14^th. Presumably, the IRS will actually extend the date to July 15^th just to make things a touch easier. Individuals living overseas already have an extension to June 15^th so presumably they would have until September 15^th to file.

In addition to stating that the income tax filing deadline would be extended, Mnuchin also stated that the 2019 payment deadline for income taxes owed of less than $1 million dollars for individuals or $10 million for corporations. This would be an interest and penalty free extension. For those who are over the thresholds it is unclear whether the entire amount due would be subject to interest and penalties or just that amount over the threshold. It is also not clear whether the filing extension would apply to those who owe taxes in excess of the cut-off amount.

Don’t Jump at the Chance to go to IRS Appeals Directly from a Tax Audit

January 30, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

In a 2019 U.S. Tax Court case, Palmolive Building Investors, LLC v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. No. 4, (2019) (Palmolive II), the Tax Court held that both penalties determined by the Revenue Agent in a tax audit and additional penalties later determined by an Appeals Officer in the IRS Independent Office of Appeals met the written approval requirements of I.R.C. § 6751; thus making Palmolive Building Investors, LLC (Palmolive) a two-time loser. Palmolive was initially in Tax Court in 2017 (Palmolive I) over a disallowed charitable deduction for a façade easement. As the owner of a historical building in Chicago, it had donated a façade easement to a conservation organization and took a large charitable deduction for the easement. In addition to questioning the $33,410,000 valuation of the easement, the IRS argued that the mortgages on the building limited the easement’s protection in perpetuity. The Tax Court agreed and concluded that the façade easement was not protected in perpetuity and therefore failed to qualify for a charitable deduction under I.R.C. § 170(h)(5)(A).

Following the disallowance in Palmolive I, the taxpayer returned to the Tax Court to dispute whether the penalties assessed by the IRS complied with the provisions of IRC Section 6751(b)(1). During a tax audit, a Revenue Agent had asserted in a 30-day letter that Palmolive was responsible for a 40% penalty for a gross valuation misstatement and a 20% negligence penalty. These two penalties were approved on Form 5701 by the Revenue Agent’s supervisor. Subsequently, a 60-day letter was issued. The taxpayer took its case to the IRS Office of Appeals. The Appeals Officer assigned to the case proposed four penalties: the two assessed by the Revenue Agent and the Substantial Understatement and Substantial Valuation Misstatement penalties. The Appeals Officer’s immediate supervisor approved all of these penalties on Form 5402-c. In Tax Court, Palmolive argued that the initial determination of penalties was made by the Revenue Agent who did not assert the Substantial Understatement and Substantial Valuation Misstatement penalties; therefore the penalties asserted by the Appeals Officer were not approved as part of the first determination of the penalties.

In examining the validity of the penalty assessments, the court cited I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1) which states that penalties can only be assessed when the initial determination of such penalties are approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the person making the determination. The court also pointed out that the Congressional motive behind enacting this provision was to make sure penalties were not used as bargaining chips. The court first noted that all penalties were approved in writing. The next issue was what defines an “initial determination” for the purposes if I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1). The court held that the initial determination is when the penalties were first communicated to the taxpayer. The court stated that the Revenue Agent’s 2008 mailing of the 30-day letter was the date of the initial determination and the Appeals Officer’s 2014 issuance of the Notice of Final Partnership Administrate Adjustment are both initial determinations. Since the IRS forms were signed by the respective supervisors prior to the time of the initial determinations, the penalties met the requirements of Section 6751(b) (1).

Dennis Brager Published in Fox News Article

January 22, 2020 | by Dennis N. Brager

Recently, Dennis was interviewed by Fox News on his thoughts on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s move to North America and how it may impact their taxes. Below is an excerpt of the quote:

“Basically speaking, the U.S. has a system of taxation which is different from the vast majority of countries in the world in that in the United States, if you’re a U.S. citizen, it doesn’t matter where you’re living in the world, you pay tax on all of your income wherever you earn it.”

He also went on to say, “So if Meghan takes a modeling job in the U.K., she still pays tax in the United States. She’s still subject to all the reporting requirements that U.S. citizens are.”

Sisyphus and the Tax Collector

September 16, 2019 | by Dennis N. Brager

In Greek mythology, King Sisyphus is punished by the gods and forced to roll a huge boulder up a hill only for it to roll down as it nears the top. No matter how much effort Sisyphus puts into attempting to push the boulder over the crest of the hill, it always come tumbling back down. He is doomed to push the boulder up the hill for all eternity. Sometimes collecting payroll taxes can be a “Sisyphean task” for the IRS. At least, that is what the 11^th Court of Appeals wrote in a recent decision.

United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopedics, involved a private medical practice which refused to pay payroll taxes. The IRS first tried to negotiate an installment agreement with the medical practice’s business owners, but the business owners would ultimately renege on any agreement. Then the IRS issued a tax levy on property held by the medical practice in various entities, but the business owners would simply shift property to new entities out of reach of the power of the levies. Believing it was out of options, the IRS requested a permanent injunction from the district court to compel the taxpayers to perform and pay their employment taxes now and into the future.

The district court rejected the IRS request because the court argued that the IRS had yet to suffer irreparable harm. The district court reasoned that the IRS could still sue for monetary damages once the taxpayers again failed to pay their employment taxes. This is in spite of the fact that the district court conceded that the taxpayers exhibited a pattern of unlawful conduct likely to persist. In other words, the taxpayers would continue to find ways to not pay their taxes.

Don’t Always Believe What the IRS Tells You About Your Trust Fund Taxes (or Anything Else)

November 19, 2018 | by Dennis N. Brager

A 2017 case is a stark $300,000 reminder that the IRS is not bound by statements made by its employees, such as Revenue Officers. Tommy Weder was a responsible officer of a corporation which failed to pay its payroll taxes, and as a result, he was assessed a trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) pursuant to IRC Section 6672. After he paid the $300,000, he filed suit in federal district court in Oklahoma requesting a refund. His theory was that the company had paid $300,000 towards the trust fund taxes, and that, therefore, his personal liability was reduced by that amount. In most cases, a taxpayer must pay any tax in full (not just a portion) before he or she can file a suit for a refund. However, under the so-called Flora rule, payroll taxes are divisible taxes, therefore, the taxpayer must only pay the tax due for one employee for one quarter.

The IRS took the position that the payment was not properly designated toward the trust fund, and that it was therefore entitled to, and did, apply the payment towards non-trust fund taxes owed by the company, which of course doesn’t reduce the trust fund recovery penalty. Weder didn’t dispute that there hadn’t been a written designation of tax. The payment had been made through the IRS’ EFTS system, and there was no designation. Weder argued, however, that the Revenue Officer that had been assigned to collection had met with representatives of the company, including its CPA, and that the Revenue Officer had demanded that the payment be made through EFTPS, and represented that the payment would be applied to the trust fund taxes.

The court ruled that absent a WRITTEN designation by the company, the IRS was free to apply the payment in the “best interest” of the government. The Court relied on Rev. Proc. 2002-26, which provides that absent written directions, the IRS “will apply payments to periods in the order of priority that the Service determines will serve the Service’s best interest.” It pointed out that prior to Rev. Proc. 2002-26 being promulgated, the prior IRS guidance was contained in Rev. Rul. 73-2. CB 43. That Revenue ruling only required that taxpayers give “directions.”

IRS to Begin Revoking Passports in January for Seriously Delinquent Tax Debts

January 18, 2018 | by Dennis N. Brager

The IRS has issued a notice stating it will begin the process of revoking passports of individuals with “seriously delinquent tax debts.” Seriously delinquent tax debts are those totaling more than $50,000 indexed for inflation. According to the Internal Revenue Manual the threshold is now $51,000. The amount includes not just the tax, but penalties and interest as well. However, the statute refers to “assessed” liabilities, and there are many instances where the IRS doesn’t assess all of the accrued interest and penalties so it is possible to owe the IRS more than $50,000, and still not meet the threshold. Notably, FBAR penalties are not counted towards the threshold.

Revocation of passports is not new. It was authorized by Congress in December of 2015 pursuant to new Internal Revenue Code Section 7345. However, the IRS has not implemented the program until now.

Although most tax attorneys and tax accountants refer to the IRS revoking passports, what actually happens is the IRS sends a certification to the State Department, and the State Department will take action to revoke the passport. The IRS will notify taxpayers in writing at the time of certification using IRS Notice CP 508C. The IRS will send the notice by regular mail to the taxpayer’s last known address. Since they will not be sending it by certified mail, there will be no way to prove that the IRS didn’t send it in cases where the notice is not received.