Can Your Tax Preparer Expose You To Fraud?

We have talked about the statute of limitations many times.

In general, the IRS has three years to challenge your tax return and assess additional taxes. Reverse the direction and you likewise have three years to request refund of a tax overpayment.

The intent is clear: at some point the back and forth must stop.

Mind you, if the IRS assesses additional tax within that period, then the three-year statute for assessment transmutes to a ten-year statute for collection.

There are exceptions to the three years, of course. Here are some exceptions from Section 6501(c):

Let’s do a little tax practice today. Reread (c)(1) above. I have a question for you:

          Must the intent to evade tax be the taxpayer’s?

On first impression, the answer appears to be “yes.” Who - other than the taxpayer - stands to benefit from filing a false or fraudulent return?

Let’s talk about Stephanie Murrin.

For years 1993 to 1999 the Murrins used a tax preparer for their joint individual income tax return, as well as two partnerships in which Ms. Murrin was a general partner. Unbeknownst to the Murrins, the preparer placed false or fraudulent information on those returns with the intent to evade tax.

Why? We are not told.

The Murrins were not aware of the preparer’s actions, nor did they intend to evade tax.

The IRS (somehow) caught up to this and in 2019 (twenty years later) issued a statutory of deficiency for the years at issue. The IRS argued that the years were still open under the statute of limitations pursuant to Section 6501(c).

Mr. Murrin died before the case went to Tax Court.

Mrs. Murrin ran into a formidable obstacle: stare decisis.

The Tax Court had previously decided (in Allen) that Section 6501(c) did not look solely at the taxpayer to find intent.

Mrs. Murrin argued that Allen was wrongly decided. She based her argument on a Federal Circuit Court decision (BASR) disagreeing with the Tax Court decision in Allen.

She had an argument.

The Tax Court noted that each judge in BASR wrote separately, meaning that it was unclear which interpretation of Section 6501(c) prevailed. When everyone has an opinion, there is no standard for precedence.

With that backdrop, the Tax Court stated:

The Federal Circuit’s position on the precise point before us is not clear. We further note that ‘there is no jurisdiction for appeal of any decision of the Tax Court to the [Federal Circuit]’ in any event. Stare decisis principles thus would seem to weigh against our reconsideration of our precedent in light of BASR.”

The Tax Court had two arguments to support its position:

• By its own terms, this provision does not restrict its application to cases where taxpayers personally had intent to evade tax. Instead, Congress showed itself agnostic as to who had to have the intent to evade tax, choosing to ‘key [the extension of the limitation period] to the fraudulent nature of the return’ rather than tie it to taxpayer intent.”

• There are other Code sections (which we will skip for our discussion) where Congress explicitly limited required intent to the taxpayer. The fact that it did not do so here is a tell that Congress did not mean to limit the meaning of “intent” for purposes of this Section.

Mrs. Murrin lost before the Tax Court.

She appealed to the Third Circuit, and I read last week that she lost there also.

Is it fair? My first reaction is no, as taxpayer is the tax return and vice versa. Who else can have a closer connection to that return that the person filing it? It seems to me that the judicial wordsmithing here is drivel and prattle. Still, I acknowledge the necessity and persuasion of stare decisis, although poor drafting of tax law and stare decisis is a bad brew for common sense.

Our case this time was Murrin v Commissioner, No 23-1234 (3^rd Cir, August 18, 2025).

   

Proving A Timely Tax Filing

 

I admit that I am biased, but I am not a fan of filing late tax returns.

Call it Murphy’s Law:

If anything can go wrong, it will.”

I am looking at a Tax Court order. An order takes place while the case is at trial. Somebody makes a motion, the Court reviews and decides. That decision is called an order, and they are common.

The IRS filed a motion that it sent a timely Notice of Deficiency to a taxpayer.

COMMENT: A Notice of Deficiency (also called a 90-day letter, a NOD or SNOD) is the IRS determining that you owe additional tax and wanting to reduce it to assessment. Why an assessment? For one thing, the IRS (usually) has 3 years to examine and adjust your return. It has 10 years to collect an assessment. That alone is a powerful incentive.

There are rules, of course. The IRS has only so much time to send the SNOD, and you have only so much time to respond to it. In general, the IRS has three years from when you filed the return or when the return was originally due, whichever is later. There are exceptions. A key one, and one will talk about today, is if you never file a tax return.

Milton Thomas Roberts failed to file a timely return for 2014. He received a notice from the IRS in 2015 asking about it. In February 2016 he went to the post office and mailed four packages: two to the IRS and two to New York state.

COMMENT: He was filing his 2013 and 2014 taxes with the IRS and New York – hence four packages. He did so correctly: he used certified mail. Yes, it costs a few dollars, but – if you ever must prove the mailing – those are the best dollars you ever spent.

About a week later the IRS acknowledged receiving his 2013 return.

COMMENT: Having the benefit of hindsight, one wonders why the IRS did not confirm 2014. To his credit, Roberts went online and confirmed that all four packages had been delivered.

For 2016 through 2019 Robers received notices from the IRS about this tax year or that, but he never received a notice about 2014.

That changed in October 2019, when the IRS sent a notice saying it never received a 2014 return.

Roberts did not immediately respond.

In February 2020, the IRS issued a SNOD showing over $275 grand of tax due.

That caught his attention.

Roberts (re)prepared his 2014 return and sent it to the IRS on or around June 2020. It showed adjusted gross income of $587 grand and a small refund of $804.

What happened to his copy of the original 2014 sent in 2016?

No idea.

Having attracted unwanted attention, Roberts was now audited for 2014. The IRS issued a second SNOD in January 2022 for $79 grand in additional tax, along with the usual interest and penalties.

You already know they are in Tax Court. Both sides agree that Roberts filed a 2014 return. Roberts argues that he filed twice – once in 2016 and again in 2020. The IRS says: nay, nay; he filed only once and that was in June 2020.

Does it matter?

Oh, yes it does.

Remember that the IRS has three years (barring oddities) to adjust his return and assess additional taxes. Roberts asserts that he filed 2014 in February 2016. Add three years and the IRS had until February 2019 to adjust and assess.

Roberts received nothing from the IRS in 2019.

Roberts says the IRS is too late. The second SNOD is incorrect and without effect.

The IRS disagrees. They say they never received the 2014 return until June 2020. Add three years and they had until June 2023 to adjust and assess. They were easily within the window.

The IRS just filed a motion requesting the Tax Court to determine that 2014 was within the window and they had filed a correct and effective SNOD.

Judge Toro denied the motion.

Why?

There is enough doubt as to what happened. Roberts had certified mail receipts, confirmation from New York of receiving 2013 and 2014 returns, confirmation from the delivery company that all four packages had been delivered, as well as a conspicuous absence by the IRS for three ½ years concerning the 2014 tax year.

Judge Toro was not going to say that the IRS had proved their case.

Mind you, that does not mean that Roberts proved his case either.

It does mean that the case revolves on whether there was a 2014 filing in 2016.

The IRS usually has the upper hand in such matters.

But Roberts brings the receipts.

You may wonder: does the IRS sometimes lose returns?

Oh yes. They have done so with me. I remember one client specifically because it impacted a scheduled real estate closing. We resolved the matter, but it involved considerable time and stress.

I will be keeping an eye out for the resolution of the Roberts story.

My hunch: he will win.

But he is in Tax Court. He is not pro se, so he is paying for an attorney. And he will keep paying, as a motion has been decided but the case itself marches on.

Which makes me wonder: could he have avoided this by simply filing a timely tax return?

As I said, I am biased.

Our case (or motion, actually) this time is from Milton Thomas Roberts v Commissioner, Tax Court docket 7011-22.

New Rules for 2026 Charitable Contributions

 

I have been going through the provisions of the new tax bill (One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which I refer to as OB3 (Oh Bee Three). I like the Star Wars reverb to it.

You ever wonder how the tax Code gets so complicated?

I can understand if one is already in a complex area to begin with. Take an international conglomerate, sprinkle in some treaty relief, add transfer pricing creativity and bake off for FDDEI minutes and it makes sense.

But what about something routine – something like charitable contributions?

Let’s talk about OB3 and contributions.

We will separate our discussion into two sections: contributions for C corporations and contributions for individuals.

C Corporations

For years, the rule for C corporation contributions has been simple: there is a limit of 10% of taxable income before any charitable deduction.

EXAMPLE ONE:

Blue Sky Corp has taxable income of $1 million before a charitable deduction of $105,000. Blue Sky can deduct $100,000 ($1 million times 10%). The $5,000 balance carries forward to the next tax year.

Let’s call that 10% the ceiling. It has been tax law since I came out of school.

OB3 has introduced a floor. The new law is that C corporation contributions are allowed only to the extent they exceed 1% of taxable income before any charitable deduction.

EXAMPLE TWO:

Let’s return to Blue Sky, which made charitable contributions of $9,000. Well, 1% of $1 million is $10 grand. $9 grand is less than $10 grand, so Blue Sky gets no deduction at all.

But wait, it gets better.

There is a macabre dance between the ceiling and the floor.

·       Contributions in excess of the 10% ceiling may be carried forward.

·       Contributions cut off at the knees by the 1% floor may be carried forward, BUT ONLY IF the corporation’s contributions exceed the ceiling.

What are they talking about?

The ceiling (sub) rule has been with us for decades. In Example One, the $5,000 may be carried forward up to five years.

The floor (sub) rule is … peculiar.

Let’s go back to Example Two. Blue Sky did not clear the floor and did not exceed the ceiling. Blue Sky loses that $9 grand as a deduction forever. Blue Sky is grey.

Let’s tweak Example Two and call it EXAMPLE THREE:

Blue Sky makes contributions of $125,000.

Blue Sky loses the first 1%, which is $10 grand ($1 million times 1%).

At this point we still have $115,000 at play.

To be cut off at $100 grand, leaving $15,000.

However, since Blue Sky exceeded BOTH the ceiling (by $15 grand) and the floor, it gets to carryforward both the $15 grand (ceiling) and the $10 grand (floor) for a total carryforward of $25 grand.

Another way to say this is: if you clear both the floor and the ceiling, you are back to the old rule ($125,000 minus $100,000).

But look at the hoops you must go through to get back to where you were.

Congress has malintent, methinks.

Individuals

We also have a shiny new contribution floor for individuals. The floor is ½ of 1%, so it is less than a corporation.

The new rule for Individual contributions works solely off the floor, so we avoid the double Dutch dilemma of Example Three.  

On to EXAMPLE FOUR:

Bo Runs-Like-A-Gazelle plays in the NFL and makes $7 million.

Bo’s charitable floor is $7 million times .005 = $35 grand.

Bo makes contributions of $33,000 grand.

Bo did not clear the floor, so Bo gets no charitable deduction.

However, does Bo at least get to carryforward the $33 grand?

No, Bo does not.

Bo is hosed.

Let’s tweak for EXAMPLE FIVE:

Same as Example Four but Bo donates $50 grand.

His floor is still $35 grand.

Bo has a deduction of $15 grand.

However since Bo cleared the floor, he gets to carry over the $35 grand (the floor) to future tax years.

Bo is less hosed.

There is another grenade from OB3 that might also affect Bo: if his tax rate ever exceeds 35%, the tax benefit from a charitable contribution will stop at 35%. We will leave that tax twister for another day.

There is a positive provision in OB3 for nonitemizers: beginning in 2026 one will be able to deduct $1,000 (if single) or $2,000 (if married) for cash contributions. Yep, you will be able to claim the standard deduction and another grand (or two), assuming you made contributions. It's something.  

Congress continues to add complexity to the Code, and not just for heavy hitters like Bo. Unfortunately, these rules might (in fact, they probably will) affect you and me – average folk. So why did Congress do it?  Same reason junkies steal: Congress is addicted. There is no other reason for nonsense like this.

How will tax advisors react? We will educate clients on ceilings and floors, and we will continue to emphasize “bunching.” Bunching means that you make an oversized donation in one year and a much smaller (or no) donation the following year. It can be rough on the receiving charity (can you imagine budgeting), but what are you (as a donor) to do?

A Skeleton Return And Portability

 

The amount for 2025 is $13.99 million.

This is the lifetime exclusion amount for combined gift and estate taxes. You can give away or die with assets up to this amount and owe neither gift nor estate tax. This amount is per person, so – if married – you and your spouse have a combined $27.98 million.

Next year that amount resets to $15 million, or $30 million for a married couple.

Let’s say it: most of us do not need to sweat. This is a high-end issue, and congrats if it impacts you.

What I want to talk about is the portability of the lifetime exclusion amount.

Tax practice brings its own acronyms and (call it) slang.

Here is one: DSUE, pronounced Dee-Sue and referring to the transfer of the lifetime exclusion amount from the first spouse-to-die to the second.

Let’s use a quick example to clarify what we are talking about. 

• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have been married for years.
• They have not filed gift tax returns in the past, either because they have not made gifts or gifts made have been below the annual gift exclusion. The exclusion amount for 2025 is $19,000, for example, so only a hefty gift would be reportable.
• Mr. and Mrs. CTG have a combined net worth of $20 million.
• For simplicity, let’s assume that all CTG marital assets are owned jointly.

 At a net worth of $20 million, one might be concerned about the estate tax.

Except for one thing: we said that all assets are owned jointly.

Let’s say that Mr. CTG passes away in 2026 when the lifetime exclusion amount is $15 million. His share of the joint estate is $10 million ($20 million times ½), well within the safety zone. There is no estate tax due.

Let’s go further. Let’s say that Mrs. CTG dies later in 2026.

Her net worth would be $20 million ($10 million - her half - and $10 million from Mr. CTG).

Could she have an estate tax issue?

First impression: yes, she could. She exceeded the lifetime exclusion amount by $5 million ($20 million minus $15 million).

In income tax we are used to numbers being combined when filing as married-filing-jointly. This is estate tax, though. That MFJ concept … does not apply so neatly here.

We can even create our own tax headache by having the first-to-die leave all assets to the surviving spouse.

And there is the point of the DSUE: whatever lifetime exclusion amount the first-to-die doesn’t use can be transferred to the surviving spouse. In our example, $5 million ($15 million minus $10 million) could be transferred. If Mrs. CTG dies shortly after Mr. CTG, her combined exclusion amount would be $20 million (her $15 million and $5 million from Mr. CTG). Since combined assets were $20 million, there would be no estate tax due. It’s not quite the simplicity of married-filing-jointly, but it gets us there.

Moving that $5 million from Mr. CTG to Mrs. CTG is called “portability,” and there are rules one must follow.

The main rule?

          A complete and properly prepared estate return must be filed.

Practitioners who work in this area know how burdensome a complete and properly prepared estate tax return can be. The return requires full disclosure of assets and liabilities, including descriptions and values, not to mention documentation to support the same. Here are a few examples:

•  Do you own stock? If yes, then each stock position must be valued at the date of death (or six months later, an alternative we will skip for this discussion). How do you do this? Perhaps your broker can help. If not, there is specialized software available.
•  Do you own 401(k)s or IRAs? If so, one needs to know who the beneficiaries are.
•  Do you own a business? If so, you will need a valuation.
•  Do you own real estate? If so, you will need an appraiser.

Let’s be blunt: there are enough headaches here that someone could (understandably) pass on filing that first-to-die estate tax return.

Fortunately, the IRS realized this and allowed a special rule when filing an estate tax return solely for DSUE portability.

Yes, we see the usual tax gobbledygook, but the IRS is spotting us a break when preparing the Form 706. 

• You can use (good faith) estimates. You do not have to hire appraisers and valuation specialists, for example.
• However, the special rule only applies if all property goes to the surviving spouse (the marital deduction), to charity (the charitable deduction), or a combination of the two.

Can you fail the special rule?

Yeppers.

Let’s look at the Rowland case.

Fay Rowland passed away in April 2016. She did not have a taxable estate.

The surviving spouse (Billy Rowland) passed away in January 2018. He did have a taxable estate.

Note the fact pattern: they will want to transfer Faye’s unused lifetime exemption (that is, the DSUE) to Billy, because he is in a taxable situation.

Fay’s Trust Agreement (effectively functioning as a will) instructed the following:

• 20% to a foundation
• 25% to Billy
• The remainder to her grandchildren

Fay filed an estate tax return reporting everything under the special rule: showing zero for individual assets but a total for all combined assets.

Billy’s estate return reported a DSUE (from Fay) of $3.7 million.

The IRS bounced Billy’s DSUE.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court agreed with the IRS.

Why?

Take a look at the special rule again.

• Assets passing to Billy qualify as a marital deduction.
• Assets passing to the foundation qualify as a charitable deduction.
• Assets passing to the grandchildren …. do not qualify for the special rule.

Fay’s estate tax return showed all assets as qualifying for the special rule. This was incorrect. The return should have included detailed reporting for assets passing to the grandchildren, with simplified reporting for the assets passing to Billy or the foundation.

Fay did not file a complete and properly prepared estate return.

The failure to do so meant no DSUE to port to Billy.

Considering that the estate tax rate reaches 40%, this is real money.

What do I think?

I have seen several DSUE returns over the last year and a half. Some have been straightforward, with all assets qualifying for the special rule. We still had to identify assets and obtain estimated values, but it was not the same amount of work as a full Form 706.

COMMENT: Practitioners sometimes refer to this special-rule Form 706 as a “skeleton” return. Skeleton refers to one providing just enough information on which to drape a portability election.

Then we had returns with a combination of assets, some qualifying for the special rule and others not. This is a hybrid return: nonqualifying assets are reported in the usual detail, while assets qualifying for the special rule are more lightly reported.

Fay’s estate tax return should have used that hybrid reporting.

Our case this time was Estate of Billy S Bowland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-76.

An Intrafamily Loan, A Death And A Reportable Gift

 

Let’s talk about a (somewhat) high-end tax strategy: intrafamily loans.

At its core, it involves wealth and the transfer of wealth within a family.

Let’s walk through an example.

You want to help out your son. Your attorney or CPA mentions that one way is to loan money and charge your son as low an interest rate as possible. The fancy word for this is arbitrage, and it is how a bank makes money.

Let’s go with an easy example:

·       You loan the money at 2.45%.

·       Your son can invest in a CD at 5.45%

We are arbitraging 3 points, meaning $3 grand per $100 thousand.

Lend $1 million and you have moved $30 grand.

What is the term of the loan?

Coincide it with the term of the CD.

Let’s say 5 years.

I am seeing you move $150 grand ($30,000 times 5 years).

Then what?

He pays you back $1 million when the CD matures.

How does the IRS view intrafamily loans?

With suspicion. The IRS has multiple points of interest here.

·       Are you reporting the interest income for income tax purposes?

·       Is there a gift component to this? If so, have you filed a gift tax return?

·       If you die with the loan outstanding, is the loan properly reported and valued on the estate tax return?

·       If the loans involve grandchildren, are there generation-skipping tax considerations? If so, have you filed that return?

The IRS’ primary line of attack will be that the debt is not bona fide. How do you know if it is or isn’t? The landmark case in this area is Miller v Commissioner, and the Tax Court looked at nine factors:

·       Is there a written promissory note?

·       Is adequate interest being charged?

·       Is there security or collateral for the loan?

·       Is there a maturity date?

·       Is there a believable demand for repayment?

·       Is the loan being repaid?

·       Can the borrower repay the debt?

·       Have you created and maintained adequate records?

·       Have you properly reported the loan for tax purposes?

The closer you get to a bank loan, the better your odds of defeating an IRS challenge. There is tension in this area, as courts will tell you that an intrafamily loan does not need to rise to the underwriting level of a bank loan while simultaneously testing whether an actual loan exists by comparing it to a bank loan.

Let’s go through our CD example. What can we do to discourage an IRS challenge?

·       We can create a written promissory note.

·       We will look at the Galli case in a moment to discuss adequate interest.

·       We probably will not require collateral.

·       The loan is due when the CD matures.

·       It is not our example, but a common way to show repayment intent is to amortize the debt: think monthly payments on a house or car.

·       The loan will be repaid when the CD matures.

·       Probably. Your son never had a chance to spend the loan amount.

·       Let’s say you have good records.

·       Let’s say you use a competent tax practitioner.

Let’s review the Estate of Barbara Galli case to discuss adequate interest.

In 2013 Barbara Galli lent $2.3 million to her son Stephen. They paid attention to the Miller factors above: a written note, paying 1.01% interest and due in nine years. Stephen paid the interest reliably and Barbara reported the same as income on her tax return.

Barbara passed away in 2016.

The IRS challenged the loan for both estate and gift tax purposes. The two cases (one for gift and another for estate) were consolidated by the Tax Court for disposition.

Here is the IRS:

·       The loan was unsecured and lacked a legally enforceable right to repayment reasonably comparable to the loans made between unrelated persons in the commercial marketplace.

·       It has not been shown that the borrower had the ability or intent to repay the loan.

·       It has not been shown that the decedent had the intent to create a legally enforceable loan, or that she expected repayment.

·       The decedent did not file a gift tax return relating to the loan.

·       The estate valued the note for tax purposes at $1,624,000.

The IRS points are predictable.

Note that Barbara did not file a gift tax return. This is because she did not consider herself as having made a gift. She instead had made a loan, with interest and repayment terms. In retrospect, she should have filed a gift tax return, if only to start the statute of limitations. The return might look odd if the loan were the only item reported, as the amount of reportable gifts would be zero. It happens. I have seen gift tax returns like this.

I suspect however that it was the last factor - the difference in values - that caught the IRS’ attention. The IRS saw a loan of $2.3 million. It then saw the same loan reported on an estate tax return at $1.624 million.

Now the IRS was in Tax Court trying to explain why and how they saw a gift rather than a loan.

The amount by which the value of money lent in 2013 exceeds the fair market value of the right to repayment set forth in the note is a previously unreported and untaxed gift. 

The Court was confused. Its reading (and mine) of the above is that the IRS wanted the difference between the two numbers to be the gift and not the original $2.3 million.

How can we get to the IRS position?

The easiest way would be to charge inadequate interest. The inadequate interest over the life of the loan would be a gift.

Bad argument, however. There used to be endless contention between the IRS and taxpayers on loans and adequate interest. In some cases, the IRS saw additional compensation; in others it saw reportable gifts. In all cases, taxpayers disagreed. There was constant litigation, and Congress addressed the matter during the Reagan administration with Section 7872.

    26 U.S. Code § 7872 - Treatment of loans with below-market interest rates

              

This Section introduced the concept of minimum interest rates, which the IRS would publish monthly. Think of it as a safe harbor: as long as the loan used (at least) the published rate, Congress was removing the issue of adequate interest from the table.

Let’s look at these rates for February, 2013.

                       REV. RUL. 2013-3 TABLE 1

 

           Applicable Federal Rates (AFR) for February 2013

  _____________________________________________________________________

                                       Period for Compounding

                          _____________________________________________

  

                         Annual    Semiannual  Quarterly    Monthly

  _____________________________________________________________________

  

                              Short-term

  

      AFR                 .21%        .21%        .21%        .21%

 

                               Mid-term

  

      AFR                1.01%       1.01%       1.01%       1.01%

 

Barbara made a nine-year loan, which Section 7872 considers “mid-term.” The published rate is 1.01%.

What rate was Barbara was charging Stephen?

1.01%.

Coincidence? No, no coincidence.

 Here is the Court:

We reiterated the point later … by concluding that ‘Congress indicated that virtually all gift transactions involving the transfer of money or property would be valued using the current applicable Federal rate …. Congress displaced the traditional methodology of valuation of below-market loans by substituting a discount methodology.'

To sum up, the issue on these motions are whether the transaction was a gift, a loan, or a partial gift. We determine that the Commissioner is not asserting that the transaction was entirely a gift and would lose on the proof if he were. This leave us to apply section 7872, and under that section, this transaction was not a gift at all.”

The IRS lost. I would say that Section 7872 did its job.

Our case this time was Estate of Galli v Commissioner, Docket Nos 7003-20 and 7005-20 (March 5, 2025).