Odd Reason To Be In Tax Court

 

Not all accountants practice tax.

To the contrary, I suspect most accountants do not. The confusion, I suspect, has to do with the CPA license. One associates the license with practicing at a CPA firm, but that is not necessarily true. Most accountants do not practice at a firm, and just practicing at a firm does not mean that one works tax. I have worked with a firm my entire career, and there have been many CPAs – auditors, forensics, valuation experts and so on – who have little crossover with tax. Step outside a firm – say internal audit or accounting at a corporate employer – and those numbers only increase.

I am looking at a pro se case in the Tax Court.

We have discussed pro se many times. It is commonly described as a taxpayer representing himself/herself before the Court. That technically is not true. A taxpayer can have professional representation and still be considered pro se. What it means is that the representative does not have a license to independently practice before the Court. The representative can act as an agent, advocating for and advising a taxpayer, but without that license the taxpayer is still considered pro se.

That license requires one to pass an exam, and the Tax Court exam is commonly considered one of the more challenging exams in tax practice. The exam BTW is not about tax law; rather it is about rules and procedures at the Tax Court. I have been involved in this area for decades, and I admit that those rules and procedures can be a bit … arcane.

Eva Zaczek finds herself in Tax Court. There is only one issue: how much does she owe? The answer in turn depends on how much of her Affordable Care (that is, Obamacare) subsidy was overpaid and now has to be returned. The concept is straightforward: make little money and the subsidy might fully pay for the premiums; make too much money and there is no subsidy at all. The rub is that someone is applying for the subsidy early in the tax year, before knowing what income for the year will be. Take a promotion or job change or marriage – or just ignore the too-much-income issue altogether - and the numbers can swing hard.

The IRS sent Eva a Notice of Deficiency for $2,418.

COMMENT: Eva sent a handwritten tax return, and the IRS made mistakes reading her writing.  

To its credit, the IRS admitted its mistake and revised the balance due to $900.

Eva challenged the calculation.

The rub was line 11 of Form 8962 Premium Tax Credit.

Both Eva and the IRS agreed that the number in box 11(b) should be $7,294.

This box represents the maximum premium that can be subsidized.

Both agreed that box 11(c) should be $9,057.

This amount represents the amount of premium the taxpayer is expected to pay himself/herself, without subsidy.

Eva calculated box 11(d) as $1,763 ($9,057 - $7,294).

Eva got the numbers reversed. Box 11(d) should be minus $1,763 ($7,294 - $9,057).

So?

If you read the instructions, box 11(d) cannot go below zero ($-0-).

Eva was convinced she owed the IRS $1,763.

The IRS said no, no: you only owe us $900.

And Eva was in Court arguing that she owed the $1,763 and not the $900 the IRS was seeking.

Here is the Court:

      

I will spare both of us the difference in tax law between a “deficiency” and a “balance due,” other than to point out the IRS notice that got Eva into Tax Court is called a Notice of Deficiency.

Pro se cases have a reputation for being entertaining, and we have looked at a number of them over the years.

But to go to Tax Court to argue that one owes more than the IRS wants? And this action from an accountant?

I consider this to be shade: 

I truly, truly hope that Eva doesn’t practice anywhere near a tax return.

This time we talked about Eva Zaczek v Commissioner, docket 4667-25S, filed 7/15/26.

A School And Obamacare Penalties

 

How would you like to get the following notice in the mail?

 

Believe it or not, the IRS sent this to a public school system in Virginia. I am looking at the Tax Court petition as I write this.

This notice is for a Section 6721 penalty, assessed for failure to file certain information forms with the IRS. Common information forms include:

·      Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement)

·      Forms(s) 1099 (Interest, Dividends, and numerous others)

·      Form 8027 (Tip Income and Allocated Tips)

·      Forms(s) 1094 & 1095 (Health Insurance)

There is a virtually automatic companion to this penalty - Section 6722 – which assesses another penalty for failure to provide an information form to the recipient.

Combined we are talking over $2.2 million.

To a school?

Let’s go through this.

The school (Arlington) received the above notice dated June 13, 2022.

The second notice (for Section 6722 penalties) was dated June 27, 2022.

The IRS wanted payment by July 12, 2012.

COMMENT: Arlington had an issue. While they knew the IRS was assessing penalties for information returns, they had no idea which information forms the IRS was talking about.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy on July 12, 2022.

COMMENT: The same day?  I have been leaving messages with a Revenue Agent for over two weeks now concerning an individual tax audit, and this RO issued a FINAL on the same day stated in the notice?

COMMENT: There is also a procedural error here. The IRS must issue notices in a certain order, and the RO is not entitled to jump the line and go straight to that FINAL notice.

We learn that this specific RO had previously assessed penalties (without explanation) and filed liens (again, without explanation) on a middle school in the Arlington school system. These miraculously went away before an Appeals hearing could occur.

COMMENT: Sounds like something personal.

On August 10, 2022, Arlington requested a collection due process hearing on the June 13 and June 27 notices. It faced a formidable obstacle, however, as it did not know what the IRS was talking about.

The IRS sent a letter dated December 5, 2022, scheduling an Appeals conference on January 18, 2023. That letter also suggested that Arlington had not filed Forms 1042, which concerns withholding on payments to foreign persons.

COMMENT: Seems an odd one. I would have thought Forms W-2, if anything.

It turns out that the 1042 reference was mistaken.

COMMENT: Clown show.

Arlington (more specifically, Arlington’s attorneys) tried repeatedly to contact the Appeals Officer (AO). It appears that he inadvertently answered his phone one time, and the Appeals conference was moved to January 31, 2023. Arlington still wanted to know what form was costing them over $2.2 million.

The attorneys marched on. They contacted the IRS Practitioner Line, which told them that the penalties might relate to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They also sent a written request to IRS Ogden for explanation and copies of any correspondence concerning the matter.

COMMENT: I’ve done the same. Low probability swing, in my experience.

The attorneys also contacted the Taxpayer Advocate.

Receiving nothing, the attorneys again requested to postpone the Appeals hearing. They learned that two additional penalties had been added. What were the two penalties about? Who knows.

The two late penalties were “abated” before the Appeals hearing on February 10, 2023.

The AO failed to show up to the Appeals hearing on February 10, 2023.

COMMENT: That sounds about right.

At the re-rescheduled hearing on February 24, 2023, the AO wanted to know what Arlington intended to do. Arlington replied that they were still trying to figure out what the penalties were for, and that a little help would be welcome.

That however would require the AO to – gasp – actually work, so he attempted to transfer the case to another AO. He was unsuccessful.

COMMENT: Fire the guy.

On June 30, 2023, the AO sent the attorneys re-generated IRS notices (not copies of originals) proposing $1,1113,000 in penalties for failure to send Forms 1094-C to the IRS and an additional $1,113,000 for failure to provide the same 1094-C to employees.

COMMENT: Finally, we learn the mystery form.

Arlington (really, its attorneys) learned that the IRS had listed a “Lang Street” address for correspondence. Lang Street was never Arlington’s address and was only one of the middle schools in the district. It was, however, the middle school which the RO had liened earlier in our story.

While talking to the AO on June 30, 2023, the attorneys requested additional time to submit a penalty abatement request.  The AO allowed 14 days.

COMMENT: Really? This is the school’s summer recess, no one is there, and you expect people to dig up years-old paperwork in 14 days?

Once again, the AO refused to answer numerous calls and faxes.

The attorneys – frustrated – contacted the AO’s manager. The manager gave them additional time.

On August 21, 2023, Arlington received a mysterious IRS letter about a claim filed on or about February 23, 2023. Problem: Arlington had not filed any such thing.

The attorneys sent a copy of the mystery notice to the AO.

On September 13, 2023, the AO told the attorneys that he had closed the case and issued a Notice of Determination.

COMMENT: This is the “90-day letter” and one’s entrance ticket to the Tax Court.

The attorneys asked why the NOD. The AO explained that he could not provide a penalty abatement while the underlying Obamacare forms remained unfiled.

Uh huh.

By the way, while the AO verbally communicated that a NOD had been issued, Arlington never received it. It appears - best I can tell – that the NOD is stuck at a processing facility.

COMMENT: Fits the rest of the story.

So, what happened with those forms?

It turns out that Arlington sent employees their copies of the Obamacare forms on or about February 28, 2020.

COMMENT: Well, there goes one of the two penalties.

Arlington was going to send the IRS copies on March 16, 2020.

What happened at this point in 2020?

The Governor of Virginia closed all schools for two weeks over COVID-19.

He then closed the schools through the rest of the school year.

On March 30, 2020, Arlington requested an extension of time to file those Obamacare forms with the IRS.

Virtually no one was at the school. People were working remotely, if possible. The school was trying to figure out how to even pay its employees when everyone was remote.

Yeah, I suspect those forms were never sent.

Heck of a reasonable cause, I would say.

And fire the guy.

The Obamacare Subsidy Cliff

 

I am looking at a case involving the premium tax credit.

We are talking about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Obamacare uses mathematical tripwires in its definitions. That is not surprising, as one must define “affordable,” determine a “subsidy,” and - for our discussion – calculate a subsidy phase-out. Affordable is defined as cost remaining below a certain percentage of household income. Think of someone with extremely high income - Elon Musk, for example. I anticipate that just about everything is affordable to him.

COMMENT: Technically the subsidy is referred to as the “advance premium tax credit.” For brevity, we will call it the subsidy.

There is a particular calculation, however, that is brutal. It is referred to as the “cliff,” and you do not want to be anywhere near it.

One approaches the cliff by receiving the subsidy. Let’s say that your premium would be $1,400 monthly but based on expected income you qualify for a subsidy of $1,000. Based on those numbers your out-of-pocket cost would be $400 a month.

Notice that I used the word “expected.” When determining your 2022 subsidy, for example, you would use your 2022 income. That creates a problem, as you will not know your 2022 income until 2023, when you file your tax return. A rational alternative would be to use the prior year’s (that is, 2021’s) income, but that was a bridge too far for Congress. Instead, you are to estimate your 2022 income. What if you estimate too high or too low? There would be an accounting (that is, a “true up”) when you file your 2022 tax return.

I get it. If you guessed too high, you should have been entitled to a larger subsidy. That true-up would go on your return and increase your refund. Good times.

What if it went the other way, however? You guessed too low and should have received a smaller subsidy. Again, the true-up would go on your tax return. It would reduce your refund. You might even owe. Bad times.

Let’s introduce another concept.

ACA posited that health insurance was affordable if one made enough money. While a priori truth, that generalization was unworkable. “Enough money” was defined as 400% of the poverty level.

Below 400% one could receive a subsidy (of some amount). Above 400% one would receive no subsidy.

Let’s recap:

(1)  One could receive a subsidy if one’s income was below 400% of the poverty level.

(2)  One guessed one’s income when the subsidy amount was initially determined.

(3)  One would true-up the subsidy when filing one’s tax return.

Let’s set the trap:

(1)  You estimated your income too low and received a subsidy.

(2)  Your actual income was above 400% of the poverty level.

(3)  You therefore were not entitled to any subsidy.

Trap: you must repay the excess subsidy.

That 400% - as you can guess – is the cliff we mentioned earlier.

Let’s look at the Powell case.

Robert Powell and Svetlana Iakovenko (the Powells) received a subsidy for 2017.

They also claimed a long-term capital loss deduction of $123,822.

Taking that big loss into account, they thought they were entitled to an additional subsidy of $636.

Problem.

Capital losses do not work that way. Capital losses are allowed to offset capital losses dollar-for-dollar. Once that happens, capital losses can only offset another $3,000 of other income.

COMMENT: That $3,000 limit has been in the tax Code since before I started college. Considering that I am close to 40 years of practice, that number is laughably obsolete.

The IRS caught the error and sent the Powells a notice.

The IRS notice increased their income to over 400% and resulted in a subsidy overpayment of $17,652. The IRS wanted to know how the Powells preferred to repay that amount.

The Powells – understandably stunned – played one of the best gambits I have ever read. Let’s read the instructions to the tax form:

We then turn to the text of Schedule D, line 21, for the 2017 tax year, which states as follows:

         If line 16 is a loss, enter ... the smaller of:

·      The loss on line 16 or

·      $3,000

So?

The Powells pointed out that a loss of $123,822 is (technically) smaller than a loss of $3,000. Following the literal instructions, they were entitled to the $123,822 loss.

It is an incorrect reading, of course, and the Powells did not have a chance of winning. Still, the thinking is so outside-the-box that I give them kudos.

Yep, the Powells went over the cliff. It hurt.

Note that the Powell’s year was 2017.

Let’s go forward.

The American Rescue Plan eliminated any subsidy repayment for 2020.

COVID year. I understand.

The subsidy was reinstated for 2021 and 2022, but there was a twist. The cliff was replaced with a gradual slope; that is, the subsidy would decline as income increased. Yes, you would have to repay, but it would not be that in-your-face 100% repayment because you hit the cliff.

Makes sense.

What about 2023?

Let’s go to new tax law. The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act extended the slope-versus-cliff relief through 2025.

OK.

Congress of course just kicked the can down the road, as the cliff will return in 2026.

Our case this time was Robert Lester Powell and Svetlana Alekseevna Iakovenko v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-19.

It’s A Cliff, Not A Slope

It is one of my least favorite areas of individual tax practice.

We are talking about health insurance. More specifically, health insurance purchased through the exchanges, coupled with advance payment of the premiums.

Why?

Because there is a nasty tax trap in there, and I saw the trap again the other day. It caught a client who gets by, but who is hardly in a position to service heavy tax debt.

Let’s set it up.

You can purchase health insurance in the private market or from government-sponsored marketplaces – also called exchanges. The exchanges were created under the Affordable Care Act, more colloquially known as Obamacare.

If you purchase health insurance through the exchange and your income is below a certain level, you can receive government assistance in paying the insurance premiums. Make very little income, for example, and it is possible that the insurance will be free to you. Make a little more and you will be expected to contribute to your own upkeep. Make too much and you are eliminated from the discussion altogether.

The trap has to do with the dividing line of “too much.”

Let’s look at the Abrego case.

Mr and Mrs Abrego lived in California. For 2015 he was a driver for disabled individuals, and he also prepared a few tax returns (between 20 and 30) every year. Mrs Abrego was a housekeeper.

They enrolled in the California exchange. They also did the following:

(1)  They provided an estimate of their income for 2015. Remember, the final subsidy is ultimately based on their 2015 income, which will not be known until 2016. While it is possible that someone would purchase health insurance, pay for it out-of-pocket and eventually get reimbursed by the IRS when filing their 2015 tax return in 2016, it is far more likely that someone will estimate their 2015 income to then estimate their subsidy. One would use the estimated subsidy to offset the very real monthly premiums. Makes sense, as long as all those estimated numbers come in as expected.

(2)  They picked a policy. The monthly premiums were $1,029.

(3)  The exchange cranked their expected 2015 numbers and determined that they could personally pay $108 per month.

(4)  The difference - $ 1,029 minus $108 = $921– was their monthly subsidy.

The Abregos kept this up for 10 months. Their total 2015 subsidy was $9,210 ($921 times 12).

Since the Abregos received a subsidy, they had to file a tax return. One reason is to compare actual numbers to the estimated numbers. If they guessed low on income, they would have to pay back some of the subsidy. If they guessed high, the government would owe them for underestimating the subsidy.

The Abregos filed their 2015 return.

They reported $63,332 of household income.

How much subsidy should they have received?

There is the rub.

The subsidy changes as income climbs. The subsidy gets to zero when one hits 400% of the poverty line.

What was the poverty line in California for 2015?

$15,730 for a married couple.

Four times the poverty line was $62,920.

They reported $63,332.

Which is more than $62,920.

By $412.

They have to pay back the subsidy.

How much do they have to pay back?

All of it - $9,210.

Folks, the tax rate on that last $412 is astronomical.

It is frustrating to see this fact pattern play out. The odds of a heads-up from the client while someone can still do something are – by the way – zero. That leaves retroactive tax planning, whose success rate is also pretty close to zero.

Our client left no room to maneuver. Why did her income go up? Because she sold something. Why did she not call CTG galactic command before selling – you know: just in case? What would we have done? Probably advised her to NOT SELL in the same year she is receiving a government subsidy.

How did it turn out for the Abregos?

They should have been toast, except for one thing.

Remember that he prepared tax returns. He did that on the side, meaning that he had a gig going. He was self-employed.

He got to claim business deductions.

And he had forgotten one.

How much was it?

$662.

It got their income below the magic $69,920 level.

They were on the sliding scale to pay back some of that subsidy. Some - not all.

It was a rare victory in this area.

Our case for the homegamers was Abrego v Commissioner.