Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, issued her annual report to Congress in which she lists the 20 most serious tax problems as required by Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(III). They are:
1. The Complexity of the Tax Code
2. The IRS Needs to More Fully Consider the Impact of Collection Enforcement Actions on Taxpayers Experiencing Economic Difficulties
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hasn’t been doing a very good job collecting payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are amounts that employers withhold from employee wages for federal income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare (so called trust fund taxes) as well as the employer’s matching contributions. The willful failure to pay these payroll taxes is a violation of the criminal tax law, a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7602.
The GAO study found that over 1.6 million businesses owed over $58 billion dollars in uncollected payroll taxes. The GAO concluded that the IRS didn’t file tax liens quickly enough, and that it didn’t go after the owners of businesses for the trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) fast enough. The report also suggested that the IRS wasn’t seizing business assets often enough, pointing out that there were only 667 seizures in fiscal 2007, down from over 10,000 in 1997. The report was a rather scathing indictment of the IRS, and various U.S. Senators were quick to jump on the “bash the IRS bandwagon.” Senator Norm Coleman called on the IRS to “ratchet up its efforts” to recover billions in unpaid payroll taxes, and to hold “tax cheats” accountable.
The IRS responded that among other efforts it is developing and testing streamlined procedures to file injunctions against business with repeat payroll tax problems, and shut them down quickly. Apparently this would include employers whose principals were previously assessed a trust fund recovery penalty, as well as those who have operated multiple entities with payroll tax problems.
One of the important protections from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is a taxpayer’s right to obtain a hearing with the IRS Appeals Division before an IRS collection officer can issue a tax levy. This hearing is known as collection due process, or CDP hearing. CDP hearings are permitted by virtue of Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC) Section 6330. Congress thought that some taxpayers were abusing the CDP hearing process to delay the collection of payroll taxes. As a result Section 8243(a) of the “Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007” amended IRC 6330(f) to permit a tax levy without first giving a taxpayer owing payroll taxes a pre-levy CDP notice if the levy is a “disqualified employment tax levy.” A “disqualified employment tax levy” is defined in IRC section 6330(h) as a tax levy served to collect the payroll tax liability of a taxpayer if that taxpayer or a predecessor requested a CDP hearing under IRC section 6330 for unpaid employment taxes arising in the two-year period prior to the beginning of the taxable period to be collected by the tax levy.
Earlier this year the IRS issued an internal memorandum intended as a temporary guidance to IRS revenue officers until the Internal Revenue Manual can be updated to reflect these changes. The memo is helpful in that it contains a chart to help determine whether a tax period is subject to the disqualified employment tax levy rules.
If you have a payroll tax problem contact California Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager for a consultation.
Last month, the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) overturned an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) ruling, and granted innocent spouse status to the widow of former San Francisco Mayor Joe Alioto. Alioto v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2008-185. Innocent spouse relief was allowed pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6015(f)
which allows relief if “taking into account all the facts and circumstances it is inequitable to hold the individual liable.” One of the tests that the Tax Court, and the IRS looks at in determining whether an individual is entitled to equitable innocent spouse relief is whether payment of the tax would cause an economic hardship. It is sometimes difficult to convince the IRS that anyone living at anything above the poverty level is suffering economic hardship, and this case was no different.
At the time of trial, Mrs. Alioto had about $100,000 in a retirement account, and little else in the way of assets. She was earning about $121,000 per year. The IRS determined that no economic hardship would ensue if Mrs. Alioto was forced to pay the approximately $2 million dollars that she owed as a result of filing a joint income tax return with the Mayor. The Tax Court took a more liberal view of things holding that indeed she would suffer economic hardship, and went on to allow innocent spouse relief.
The United States Tax Court (Tax Court) has held that in innocent spouse cases under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6015 it will consider evidence at trial that was not part of the administrative record. Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. No. 10 (2008). The innocent spouse ruling in Porter was consistent with the Tax Court’s earlier ruling in Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32 (2004), vacated on unrelated jurisdictional grounds 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
Ms. Porter submitted a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief to the IRS. Ultimately, the IRS granted innocent spouse relief as to a portion of the tax liability, but denied innocent spouse relief with respect to the remainder. Ms. Porter filed a Petition with the Tax Court to dispute the Internal Revenue Service’s unfavorable determination. When she got to the Tax Court, the IRS tried to prevent Ms. Porter, who was not represented by a tax attorney, from presenting all of her evidence. The IRS tax attorneys argued that judge could only here evidence that had previously been submitted to the IRS. The Tax Court held that in cases where someone is requesting innocent spouse relief, he or she is entitled to a trial de novo. That is she is entitled to present all of her evidence without regard to whether it was previously provided to the IRS.
If you believe that you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief contact the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California upheld a decision of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) denying innocent spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally spouses filing joint income tax returns are both liable for any taxes due. In certain circumstances, however, one spouse may be entitled to so-called innocent spouse relief. One of the keys to obtaining innocent spouse relief, however, is making the request in a timely manner. There are a number of different deadlines which must be met, or else innocent spouse relief will be lost. In Huynh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-180 the taxpayer ran afoul of Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) . Not surprisingly the tax law requires that if a taxpayer wishes to claim innocent spouse relief it must be asserted in the same Tax Court case in which the taxpayer is disputing an income tax deficiency. However, Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) creates an exception if the innocent spouse claim was not an issue in the Tax Court proceeding. The exception to the exception, however, is that if the putative innocent spouse “participated meaningfully” in the proceeding than she can not later claim innocent spouse status.
The Tax Court noted that Mrs. Huynh participated in the prior tax deficiency proceeding by among other things, being present at meetings with the IRS’ Appeals Office, as well participating in pre-trial preparations, and settlement negotiations. Under these circumstances the Tax Court refines to allow Mrs. Huynh to later claim innocent spouse relief. Ms. Huynh was not represented by a tax attorney in either the first or second proceeding. Had she been properly advised by a tax attorney she would have raised her innocent spouse claim in the first proceeding.
If you believe you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager, Esq.
Continue Reading ›
In Kennedy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-33, the United States Tax Court determined that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could not serve a tax levy on the taxpayer’s assets since it failed to send the collection due process (CDP) notice to the taxpayer’s last know address. Generally in order for the IRS to issue a tax levy it must first mail a Notice of Intent to Levy, and Right to Request Hearing, commonly referred to as a CDP Notice, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In Kennedy, the IRS mailed its notices to two different addresses. However, Mr. Kennedy never received them. Apparently this was because both addresses were incorrect. In fact the way Mr. Kennedy found out about the collection due process notice was when the IRS served a tax levy on his bank.
The Tax Court pointed out that Internal Revenue Code § 6330(a)(2) provides that the CDP notice must either be given in person, left at the person’s dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail to the person’s last known address. Since the IRS failed to send the CDP notice to Mr. Kennedy’s last known address the CDP notice was invalid. By the time the case got to the Tax Court the IRS realizing this and had refunded the money seized by the tax levy. That, however, was not sufficient. In order for the IRS to serve any additional tax levies the Tax Court required that the IRS issue a new CDP notice, and give Mr. Kennedy an opportunity for a hearing first in the IRS’ Appeals Division, and then if Mr. Kennedy was not satisfied with the result he would be entitled to a brand new hearing in the Tax Court.
If you have received a tax levy, have tax debts, or other tax problems call the tax controversy lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.
Sometimes taxpayers want to be “creative” in filling out IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals). Stephen Miller got too creative, and he was found guilty of tax evasion in violation of Internal Revenue Code § 7201. He was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Stephen Miller (No. 06-11078) (5th Cir. 2008). Miller, who owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about 2 million dollars filed an offer in compromise with the IRS in which he stated he had insufficient assets and income to pay the tax debt. The IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals) he filed stated he only had $40,000 in assets including an IRA with a balance of $25,000. What he didn’t tell the IRS was that he had withdrawn $1,000,000 from his IRA, and transferred it offshore. When the IRS asked about the money taken out of the IRA he responded that the money had been used to pay off a loan Euromex Leasing Corporation in the Isle of Mann. As it turned out Euromex was a shell corporation controlled and formed by a financial planner that Miller consulted to hide his money from the IRS. And how did the IRS find out that it was all a lie? Simple, the financial planner turned Miller in when he wound up with his own tax fraud problems with the IRS.
If you have tax debts and don’t want to be convicted of tax evasion call the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Publication 971 on Innocent Spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally, individuals who sign joint tax returns with their spouses are both jointly and severally liable for any taxes not paid with the return without regard to which spouse created the tax problem. Under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code § 6015, however, some spouses may be able to get out from under their tax problems. Publication 971 gives the IRS take on innocent spouse relief. If you want to read the opinions of our tax lawyers on innocent spouse relief you can see the innocent spouse articles on our website.
Publication 971 points out the time periods for filing for innocent spouse relief. Requests for innocent spouse relief must be filed on IRS Form 8857 no later than two years from the date the IRS first attempts to collect the tax due. IRS attempts to collect the tax due are limited to:
• The filing of a claim for by the IRS in a court proceeding, including a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The United States Tax Court held that the IRS did not abuse its discretion when the Appeals Division upheld a notice of intent to levy issued under Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In West v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2008-30, the Wests had obtained an offer in compromise from the IRS, but then violated its terms by failing to pay estimated taxes, failing to timely file tax returns, and failing to pay multiple tax penalties assessed against them during the 5 year period following the acceptance of their offer in compromise.
To make matters worse the IRS tried to notify the Wests about the impending default of the their offer in compromise, but the Wests had moved, and failed to notify the IRS of their new address. The Wests tried to rely on the failure of the IRS to notify their representative that their offer in compromise was in danger, but the Tax Court held that the IRS had no duty to notify their representative.
Points to Remember:
Tax Problem Attorney Blog