Can A Taxpayer Be Responsible For Tax Preparer Fraud?

 

We are familiar with the statute of limitations. In general, the SoL means that you have three years to file a return, information important to know if you are due a refund. Likewise, the IRS has three years to audit or otherwise adjust your return, important to them if you owe additional tax.

The reason for the SoL is simple: it has to end sometime, otherwise the system could not function.  Could it be four years instead of three? Of course, and some states use four years. Still, the concept stands: the ferris wheel must stop so all parties can dismount.

A huge exception to the SoL is fraud. File a fraudulent return and the SoL never starts.

Odds are, neither you nor I are too sympathetic to someone who files a fraudulent return. I will point out, however, that not all knuckleheaded returns are necessarily fraudulent. For example, I am representing an IRS audit of a 2020 Schedule C (think self-employed). It has been one of the most frustrating audits of my career, and much of it is self-inflicted. I know the examiner had wondered how close the client was to the f-word; I could hear it in her word selection, pausing and voice. We spoke again Friday, and I could tell that she had moved away from that thought. There is no need to look for fraud when being a knucklehead suffices.

Here is a question for you:

You do not commit fraud but your tax preparer does. It could be deductions or credits to which you are not entitled. You do not look at the return too closely; after all, that is why you pay someone. He/she however did manage to get you the refund he/she had promised. Can you be held liable for his/her fraud?

Let’s look at the Allen case.

Allen was a truck driver for UPS. He had timely filed his tax return for the years 1999 and 2000. He gave all his tax documents to his tax preparer (Goosby) and then filed the resulting return with the IRS.

Mr. Goosby however had been juicing Allen’s itemized deductions: contributions, meals, computer, and other expenses. He must have been doing quite a bit of this, as the Criminal Investigations Division (CID, pronounced “Sid”) got involved.

COMMENT: CID is the part of the IRS that carries a gun. You want nothing to do with those guys.

Allen was a good guy, and he agreed with the IRS that there were bogus numbers on his return.

He did not agree that the tax years were open, though. The IRS notice of deficiency was sent in 2005 – that is, outside the normal three years. Allen felt that the tax years had closed.

He had a point.

However, look at Section 6501(c):

§ 6501 Limitations on assessment and collection.

(c)  Exceptions.

(1)  False return.

In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

The Court pointed out that the law mentions a “false or fraudulent return.” It does not say that the fraud must be the taxpayer’s.

The year was open, and Allen owed the additional tax.

I get it. There is enough burden on the IRS when fraud is involved, and the Court was not going to add to the burden by reading into tax law that fraud be exclusively the taxpayer’s responsibility.

The IRS had helped its case, by the way, and the Court noticed.

How?

The IRS had not assessed penalties. All it wanted was additional tax plus interest.

I wish we could see more of that IRS and less of the automatic penalty dispenser that it has unfortunately become.

Allen reminds us to be careful when selecting a tax preparer. It is not always about getting the “largest” refund. Let’s be honest: for many if not most of us, there is a “correct” tax number. It is not as though we have teams of attorneys and CPAs sifting through vast amounts of transactions, all housed in different companies and travelling through numerous foreign countries and treaties before returning home to us. Anything other than that “correct” number is … well, a wrong number.  

Our case this time was Allen v Commissioner, 128 T.C. 4 (U.S.T.C. 2007).

A Current Individual Tax Audit

 

We have an IRS audit at Galactic Command. It is of a self-employed individual. The self-employeds have maintained a reasonable audit rate, even as other individual audit rates have plummeted in recent years.

I was speaking with the examiner on Friday, lining up submission dates for records and documents. We set tentative dates, but she reminded me that Congress was going into budget talks this weekend.  Depending on the resolution, she might be furloughed next week. No prob, we will play it by ear.

This is a relatively new client for us. We did not prepare the records or the tax returns for the two years under audit. We requested underlying records, but there was little there for the first year and only slightly more for the second. We then did a cash analysis, knowing that the IRS would be doing the same.

COMMENT: The IRS will commonly request all twelve bank statements for a business-related bank account. The examiner adds up the deposits for the twelve months and compares the total to revenues reported on the tax return. If the tax return is higher, the IRS will probably leave the matter alone. If the tax return is lower, however, the IRS will want to know why.

We had a problem with the analysis for the first year: our numbers had no resemblance to the return filed. Our numbers were higher across the board: higher deposits, higher disbursements, higher excess of deposits over disbursements.

Higher by a lot.

The accountant asked me: do you think …?

Nope, not for a moment.

Implicit here is fraud.

There are two types of tax fraud: civil and criminal. Yes, I get it: if you have criminal, you are virtually certain to have civil, but that is not our point. Our point is that there is no statute of limitations on civil fraud. The IRS could go back a decade or more - if they wanted to.

I do not see fraud here. I do see incompetence. I think someone started using a popular business accounting software, downloading bank statements and whatnot to release their inner accountant. There are easy errors to one not familiar: you do not download all months for an account; you do not download all the accounts; you fail to account for credit cards; you fail to account for cash transactions.

OK, that last one could be a problem, if significant.

The matter reminded me of a famous tax case.

It is easy to understand someone committing fraud on his/her tax return. Put too much in, leave too much out. Do it deliberately and with malintent and you might have fraud.

Question: can you be responsible for your tax preparer’s fraud?

Vincent Allen was a UPS driver in Memphis. He used a professional preparer (Goosby) for 1999 and 2000.  Allen did the usual: he gave Goosby his W-2, his mortgage interest statement, property taxes and whatnot. Standard stuff.

Goosby went to town on miscellaneous itemized deductions; He goosed numbers for a pager, computer, meals, mileage and so forth. He was creative.

The IRS came down hard, understandably.

They also wanted fraud penalties.

Allen had an immediate defense: the three-year statute had run.

The IRS was curt: the three years does not apply if there is fraud.

Allen argued the obvious:

How was I supposed to know?

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court looked at the following Code section:

 § 6501 Limitations on assessment and collection

(c)  Exceptions.

(1)  False return.

In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

The Court noted there was no requirement that the “intent to evade” be the taxpayer’s.

The statute was open.

Allen owed tax.

The IRS - in a rare moment of mercy - did not press for penalties. It just wanted the tax, and the Court agreed.

The Allen decision reminds us that there is some responsibility when selecting a tax preparer. One is expected to review his/her return, and – if it seems too good …. Well, you know the rest of that cliche.

Do I think our client committed fraud?

Not for a moment.

Might the IRS examiner think so, however?

It crossed my mind. We’ll see.

Our case this time was Allen v Commissioner, 128. T.C. 37.

Bill And The Gig Economy

I am inclined to title this post “Bill.”

I have known Bill for years. He lost his W-2 job and has made up for it by taking one or two (or three) “independent contractor” gigs.

However, Bills get into tax trouble fast. Chances are they burned through savings upon losing the W-2 job. They turned to that 1099 gig when things got tight. At that point, they needed all the cash they could muster, meaning that replenishing savings had to wait.

The calendar turns. They come to see me for their taxes.

And we talk about self-employment tax for the first time.

You and I have FICA taken from our paycheck. We pay half and our employer pays half. It becomes almost invisible, like being robbed while on vacation.

Go self-employed and you have to pay both sides of FICA – now called self-employment tax – and it is anything but invisible. You are paying approximately 15% of what you make – off the top - and we haven’t even talked about income taxes.

You find yourself in a situation where you probably cannot pay – in full, at least – the tax from your first contractor/self-employment year.

We need a payment plan.

But there is a hitch.

What about taxes on your second contractor/self-employment year?

We need quarterly estimated taxes.

You start to question if I have lost my mind. You cannot even pay the first year, so how are you going to pay quarterly taxes for the second year?

And there you have Bill. Bills are legion.

We arrange a payment plan with the IRS.

You know what will likely blow-up a payment plan?

Filing another tax return with a large balance payable.

All right, maybe we can get the first and second year combined and work something out.

You know what will probably blow-up that payment plan?

Filing yet another tax return with a large balance payable.

Depending upon, the IRS will insist that you make estimated tax payments, as they have seen this movie too.

A taxpayer named Allen ran into that situation.

Allen owed big bucks – approximately $93,000.

The IRS issued an Intent to Levy.

He requested a CDP (Collections Due Process) hearing.

COMMENT: The CDP process was created by Congress in 1998 as a means to slow down a wild west IRS. The idea was that the IRS should not be permitted to move from compliance and assessment (receive your tax return; change your tax return) to collection (lien, levy and clear out your bank account) without an opportunity for you to have your day.  

Allen submitted financial information to the IRS. He proposed paying $500 per month.

The IRS reviewed the same information. They thought he could pay $809 per month.

COMMENT: You would be surprised what the IRS disallows when they calculate how much you can repay. You can have a pet, for example, but they will not allow veterinarian bills.

There was a hitch. Monthly payments of $809 over the remaining statute of limitations period would not sum to $93,000. The IRS can authorize this, however, and it is referred to as a partial-pay installment agreement (PPIA).

EXPLANATION: Any payment plan that does not pay the government in full over the remaining statutory collection period is referred to as a “partial pay.” The IRS looks at it more closely, as they know – going in – that they are writing-off some of the balance due.

The IRS settlement officer (SO) read the Internal Revenue Manual to say that a taxpayer could not receive a partial pay if he/she was behind on their current year estimated taxes. Allen of course was behind.

Allen said that he could not pay the estimate.

The SO closed the file.

Allen filed with the Tax Court.

Mind you, Allen was challenging IRS procedure and not the tax law itself. 

He had to show that the IRS “abused” its discretion.

It would be easier to get a rhinoceros on a park swing.

I get it, I really do. Take two SO’s. One denies you a partial pay because you are behind on estimated taxes; the other SO does not. That however is the meaning of “discretion.”

Did Allen’s SO “abuse” discretion?

The Tax Court did not think so.

Allen lost.

But there is something here I do not understand.

Why didn’t Allen make the estimated tax payment, revise his financial information (to show the depletion of cash) and forward the revised financials to the SO?

I presume that he couldn’t: he must not have had enough cash on hand.

If so, then abuse of discretion makes more sense to me: someone in Allen’s situation could NEVER meet that SO’s requirement for a payment plan.

Why?

Because he/she could never make that estimated tax payment.