IRS Collection Alternatives: Pay Attention To Details

 

I was glancing over recent Tax Court cases when I noticed one that involved a rapper.

I’ll be honest: I do not know who this is. I am told that he used to date Kylie Jenner. There was something in the opinion, however, that caught my eye because it is so common.

Michael Stevenson filed his 2019 tax return showing federal tax liability over $2.1 million.

COMMENT: His stage name is Tyga, and the Court referred to him as “very successful.” Yep, with tax at $2.1-plus million for one year, I would say that he is very successful.

Stevenson had requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. It must have gone south, as he was now in Tax Court.

Why a CDP hearing, though?

Stevenson had a prior payment plan of $65 grand per month.

COMMENT: You and I could both live well on that.

His income had gone down, and he now needed to decrease his monthly payment.

COMMENT: I have had several of these over the years. Not impossible but not easy.

The Settlement Officer (SO) requested several things:

·      Form 433-A (think the IRS equivalent of personal financial statements)

·      Copies of bank statements

·      Copies of other relevant financial documents

·      Proof of current year estimated tax payments

Standard stuff.

The SO wanted the information on or by November 4, 2021.

Which came and went, but Stevenson had not submitted anything.

Strike One.

The SO was helpful, it appeared, and extended the due date to November 19.

Still nothing.

Strike Two.

Stevenson did send a letter to the SO on December 1.

He proposed payments of $13,000 per month. He also included Form 433-A and copies of bank statements and other documents.

COMMENT: Doing well. There is one more thing ….

The SO called Stevenson’s tax representative. She had researched and learned that Stevenson had not made estimated tax payments for the preceding nine years. She wanted an estimated tax payment for 2021, and she wanted it now.

COMMENT: Well, yes. After nine years people stop believing you.

Stevenson made an estimated tax payment on December 21. It was sizeable enough to cover his first three quarters.

COMMENT: He was learning.

The SO sent the paperwork off to a compliance unit. She requested Stevenson to continue his estimated payments into 2022 while the file was being worked. She also requested that he send her proof of payments.

The compliance unit did not work the file, and in July 2022 the SO restarted the case. She calculated a monthly payment MUCH higher than Stevenson had earlier proposed.

COMMENT: The SO estimated Stevenson’s future gross income by averaging his 2020 and (known) 2021 income. Granted, she needed a number, but this methodology may not work well with inconsistent (or declining) income. She also estimated his expenses, using his numbers when documented and tables or other sources when not.

The SO spoke with the tax representative, explaining her numbers and requesting any additional information or documentation for consideration.

COMMENT: This is code for “give me something to justify getting closer to your number than mine.”

Oh, she also wanted proof of 2022 estimated tax payments by August 22, 2022.

Yeah, you know what happened.

Strike Three.

So, Stevenson was in Tax Court charging the SO with abusing her discretion by rejecting his proposed collection alternatives.

Remember the something that caught my eye?

It is someone not understanding the weight the IRS gives to estimated tax payments while working collection alternatives.   

Hey, I get it: one is seeking collection alternatives because cash is tight. Still, within those limits, you must prioritize sending the IRS … something. I would rather argue that my client sent all he/she could than argue that he/she could not send anything at all.

And the amount of tax debt can be a factor.

How much did Stevenson owe?

$8 million.

The Court decided against Stevenson.

Here is the door closing:

The Commissioner has moved for summary judgement, contending that the undisputed facts establish that Mr. Stevenson was not in compliance with his estimated tax payment obligations and the settlement officer thus was justified in sustaining the notice of intent to levy.”

Our case this time was Stevenson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2023-115.

Part Time Bookkeeper, Big Time Penalty

 

We filed another petition with the Tax Court this week.

For a client new to the firm.

Much of this unfortunately was ICDIM: I can do it myself. The client did not understand how the IRS matches information. There was an oddball one-off transaction, resulting in nonstandard tax reporting. Stir in some you-do-not-know-what-you-do-not-know (YDNKWYDNK), some COVIDIRS202020212022 and now I am involved.

I am looking at case that just screams YDNKWYDNK.

Here is part of the first paragraph:

This case is before the Court on a Petition for review of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2018 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) filing (NFTL filing) with respect to trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) under section 6672. The TFRPs were assessed against petitioner for failing to collect and pay over employment taxes owed by Urgent Care Center, Inc. (Urgent Care), for taxable quarters ending June 30 and September 30, 2014 (periods at issue), resulting in outstanding liabilities of $6, 184.23 and $4, 190.77, respectively.

That section 6330 is hard procedural, and it is going to hurt.

Mr Kazmi was a bookkeeper. He worked part-time at Urgent Care. Urgent Care did not remit employment taxes for a stretch, and unfortunately that stretch included the period when Mr Kazmi was there.

We are talking the big boy penalty, otherwise known as the responsible person penalty. The point of the penalty is to migrate the tax due to someone who had enough authority and responsibility to have paid the IRS but chose not to.

Mr Kazmi had no ownership interest in Urgent Care. He was not an officer. He was not a signatory on any bank accounts. He had no authority to decide who got paid. At all times he worked under the authority of the person who owned the place (Dr Senno). What he did have was a tax power of attorney.

Folks, I probably have a thousand tax powers of attorney out there.

Sounds to me like Mr Kazmi was the least responsible person (at least for payroll taxes) at Urgent Care.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) thought otherwise and on December 16, 2015 issued Mr Kazmi a letter 1153, a letter which said “tag, you are a responsible party; have a nice day.”

From what I am reading, this was a preposterous position. I generally have respect for ROs, but this one is a bad apple.  

Still, there are consequences.

Procedurally Mr Kazmi had 60 days to challenge the 1153.

He did not.

Why?

He did not know what he did not know.

A little time passed and the IRS came for its money. It wanted a lien. It also wanted a vanilla waffle ice cream cone.

Mr Kazmi yelled: Halt! He filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In the paperwork he included the obvious:

I am just a part-time bookkeeper. I am not responsible for collection or accounting or making payments for any tax payments for Urgent Care.

Makes sense.

Doesn’t matter.

He did not know what he did not know.

Let’s talk about the “one bite at the apple” rule.  In the current context, the rule means that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability if he/she already had a prior opportunity to do so.

One bite.

Mr Kazmi had his one bite when he received his letter 1153. You remember – the one he blew off.

He was now in CDP wanting to challenge the penalty. He wanted a second bite.

Not going to get it.

CDP was happy to talk about a payment plan and deadbeat taxpayers and whatnot. What it wouldn’t do was talk about whether Mr Kazmi deserved the penalty chop to begin with.

I am not a fan of such hard procedural. The vast majority of us will go a lifetime having no interaction with the IRS, excepting perhaps a minor notice now and then. It seems unreasonable to hold an average someone to stringent and obscure rules, rules that most attorneys and CPAs – unless they are tax specialists – would themselves be unaware of.

Still, it is what it is.

Does Mr Kazmi have any options left?

I think so.

Maybe a request for reconsideration.

Odds? So-so, maybe less.

A liability offer in compromise?

I like that one better.

Folks, it would have been much easier to pop this balloon back when the IRS trotted out that inappropriate letter 1153.

Mr Kazmi did not know what he did not know.

Our case this time was Kazmi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-13.

  

Talking Tax Levies

I don’t see it very often.

I am referring to an IRS bank levy.

However, when it happens it can be disrupting.

Let’s distinguish between a lien and a levy.

A lien is a claim against property you own to secure the payment of tax that you owe. The most common is a real estate lien, and I have one on my desk as I write this.

A lien means that you are fairly deep into the collection process. It does not necessarily mean that you have blown-off the IRS. Owe enough money and the IRS will file a lien as a matter of policy. It does not mean anything is imminent, other than the lien hurting your credit score. When I see one is when someone wants to either sell or refinance a property. In either case the lien has to be addressed, which – if you think about it – is the point of a lien.

A levy is a different matter. A levy takes your stuff.

The threat of a levy is a powerful inducement to come to a collection agreement with the IRS. Perhaps the agreement is to pay-off the liability over time (referred to as an installment agreement). There is a variation where one cannot – realistically – pay-off the full liability over time. The IRS settles for less than the full liability, and this variation is called a partial-pay agreement.  A cousin to the partial-pay is the offer in compromise, that of notorious (“pennies on the dollar”) middle-of-the-night TV fame. If one is in dire enough circumstances, there is also currently-not-collectible status. The IRS will not collect for a period of time (around a year). A code is posted on your account and further collection action will cease (again, for about a year).

What collection agreements do is put a stop to IRS levies – with one exception.

Let’s talk about the three most common levies that the IRS uses.

The first is the tax refund offset.

This happens when you file a tax return showing a refund. The IRS will not send you a refund check; rather they will apply it to tax due for other periods or years. It is a relatively innocuous way of collecting on the debt, and I have seen clients intentionally use the offset as a way of paying down (or off) their back taxes.

The offset, by the way, is the one exception to continued IRS levy action mentioned above.

The second is the garnishment. The most common is the wage garnishment. The IRS sends a letter to your employer, advising them to start withholding. Your employer will, because – if they don’t – they become responsible for any amounts that should have been garnished. I have heard of people who will then keep changing jobs, with the intent of staying one step ahead of the IRS.  

There are other types of garnishments, depending on the income source. An independent contractor can be garnished, for example. Even social security can be garnished.

In general, if you get to this type of levy, you REALLY want to work something out with the IRS. The tax Code addresses what the IRS has to leave for you to live on; it does not address how much it can take.

The third is the bank levy.

The IRS sends a notice to the bank, which then has to freeze your account. The notice can be mailed (probably the most common way) or it can be hand-delivered by a revenue officer. The freeze is for 21 days, after which the bank is (unless you do something) sending your balance (up to the amount due) to the IRS.

That is how it works, folks. It is not pretty, and it is not intended to be.

You may wonder what the 21 days is about. The IRS wants you to contact them and work-out a collection plan. Hit the ground running and you might be able to stop the levy. Delay and all hope is likely gone.

The risk of a bank levy is one reason why some taxpayers are hesitant to provide bank information with their tax returns. Granted, as private information becomes anything but and as tax agencies are mandating electronic bank payments this issue is receding into the distance.

Did you, for example, know that the IRS can ping your bank account, just to find out your balance?

Take a look at this:

         § 6333 Production of books.

If a levy has been made or is about to be made on any property, or right to property, any person having custody or control of any books or records, containing evidence or statements relating to the property or right to property subject to levy, shall, upon demand of the Secretary, exhibit such books or records to the Secretary.

There is something about a bank levy that you may want to know: it is a one-time shot.

An offset or wage levy is self-sustaining. It will continue month after month, payment after payment, until the debt is paid off or the levy expires.

The bank levy is different. It applies to the balance in your bank account when the levy is delivered.  This means that it cannot reach a deposit made to the account the following day, week or month. If the IRS wants to reach those deposits, it has to reissue the levy (the term is “renew”).

What got me thinking about bank levies is a Chief Counsel Advice I was reading recently. A bank received a levy, and, wouldn’t you know, the taxpayer made a deposit to the account the same day – but after the bank’s receipt of the levy. The bank had zero desire to mess with surrogate liability and asked the IRS what it should do with that later deposit.

Remember that a bank levy is a photograph – a frozen moment in time. The IRS said that the later deposit occurred after that moment and was not in the photograph. The bank was not required to withhold and remit that later deposit to the IRS.

Makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that the IRS would have/should have issued a blizzard of paperwork to the taxpayer, including an ominous “Notice of Intent to Levy” and “Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing.” Both those notices give one collection rights. I prefer the rights given under the “Final Notice,” but sometimes it takes a saint’s patience to explain to a client why we are not responding to the “Notice of Intent” and instead waiting on its sibling “Final Notice of Intent.”

Anyway, the taxpayer apparently blew-off these notices and kept depositing to the same bank account as if nothing was amiss in their world. Everything in the CCA made sense to me, with the exception of the taxpayer’s behavior.

This time we talked about Chief Counsel Advice 202118010.

Incompetent Employees And IRS Penalties

 

“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” Compania General De Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Taft, C.J.). For good reason, there are few lawful justifications for failing to pay one's taxes. Plaintiff All Stacked Up Masonry, Inc. (“All Stacked Up”), a corporation, believes it has such an excuse. It brings this suit to challenge penalties and interest assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) following its failure to file the appropriate payroll tax documents and its failure to timely pay payroll tax liabilities for multiple tax periods.

The above is how the Court decision starts.

Here are the facts from 30,000 feet.

·      The company provides masonry services.

·      The company got into payroll tax issues from 2013 through 2015.

·      The company paid over $95 thousand in penalties and interest.

·      It now wanted that money back. To do so it had to present reasonable cause for how it got into this mess in the first place.

Proving reasonable cause is not easy, as the IRS keeps shrinking the universe of reasonable cause.  An example is an accountant missing a timely extension. There is a case out there called Boyle, and the case divides an accountant’s services into two broad camps:

·      Advice on technical issues, and

·      Stuff a monkey could do.

Let’s say that CTG Galactic Command is planning a corporate reorganization and we blow a step, causing significant tax due. Reliance on us as your advisors will probably constitute reasonable cause, as the transaction under consideration was complex and required specialized expertise. Let’s say however that we fail to extend the corporate return – or we file it two days after its extended due date. Boyle stands for the position that anyone can google when the return was due, meaning that relying on us as your tax advisors to comply with your filing deadline is not reasonable.

As a practitioner, I have very little patience with Boyle. We prepare well over a thousand individual tax returns, not to mention business, nonprofit, payroll, sales tax, paper airplanes and everything in between. Visit this office during the last few days before April 15th, for example, and you can feel the tension like the hum from an electrical transformer. What returns are finished? What returns are only missing an item or two and can hopefully be finished? What returns cannot possibly be finished? Do we have enough information to make an educated guess at tax due? Who is calling the client?  Who is tracking and recording all this to be sure that nothing is overlooked? Why do we do this to ourselves?

Yeah, mistakes happen in practice. Boyle just doesn’t care. Boyle holds practitioners to a standard that the IRS itself cannot rise to. I have several files in my office just waiting, because the IRS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO. I brought in the Taxpayer Advocate recently because IRS Kansas City botched a client. We filed an amended return in response to a Notice of Deficiency the client did not inform us about. The amended must have appeared as “too much work” to some IRS employee, and we were informed that Kansas City inexplicably closed the file. This act occurred well before but was fortuitously masked by subsequent COVID issues. The after-effects were breathtaking, with lien notices, our requests for releases, telephone calls with IRS attorneys, Collection’s laughable insistence on a payment plan, and – ultimately – a delay on the client’s refinancing. IRS incompetence cumulatively cost me the better part of a day’s work. Considering what I do for a living, that is time and money I cannot get back

I should be able to bill the IRS for wasting my time over stuff a monkey could do.

The Advocate did a good job, by the way.

Let’s get back to All Stacked Up, the company whose payroll issues we were discussing.

The owner fell on ice and suffered significant injuries. This led to the owner relying on an employee for tax compliance. That reliance was misplaced.

·      The first two quarterly payroll returns for 2013 were filed late.

·      The fourth quarter, 2013 return would have been due January 31, 2014. It was not filed until July 13, 2015.

·      None of the 2014 quarterly returns were filed until the summer of 2015.

·      To complete this sound track, the payroll tax deposits were no timelier than the filing of the returns themselves.

Frankly, the company should just have let its CPA firm take care of the matter. Had the firm botched the work this badly, at least the company would have a possible malpractice lawsuit.

The company pleaded reasonable cause. The owner was injured and tried to delegate the tax duties to someone during his absence. Granted, it did not go well, but that does mean that the owner did not try to behave as a prudent business person.

I get the argument. All Stacked Up is not Apple or Microsoft, with acres and acres of lawyers and accountants. They did the best they could with the (clearly limited) resources they had.

The company appealed the penalties. IRS Appeals was willing to compromise – but only a bit. Appeals would abate 16.66% of the penalties and related interest. This presented a tough call: accept the abatement or go for it all.

The company went for it all.

Here is the Court:

Applying Boyle to this case, it is clear as a matter of law that retention of an employee or software to prepare and remit tax filings, make required deposits, and tender payments cannot, in itself, constitute “reasonable cause” for All Stacked Up’s failure to satisfy those tax obligations. The employee’s failures are All Stacked Up’s failures, no matter how prudent the delegation of those duties may have been.”

And there is full Boyle: we don’t care about your problems and you doing your best with the resources available. Your standard is perfection, and do not ask whether we hold ourselves to the same standard.

I wonder if that employee is still there.

I mean the one at IRS Kansas City.

Our case this time was All Stacked Up v U.S., 2020 PTC 340 (Fed Cl 2020).

The Freak Tackles The IRS

Let’s go hard procedural on this post.

He played defensive end in the NFL with the Tennessee Titans and Philadelphia Eagles from 1999 to 2010. At 6’4”, 260 pounds, 86-inch wingspan and 4.43 forty, NFL fans remember him as “The Freak.”

Jevon Kearse is in the tax literature.

It looks like a business deal went bad, because in 2010 he claimed a $1,359,000 bad debt deduction.

The IRS bounced it. The IRS now wanted over $430 thousand in tax. They issued a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) on May 11, 2012.

COMMENT: Procedurally, the IRS issues a NOD (also known as a SNOD) before it can officially assess the additional tax. Once assessed, the IRS can bring all its collection powers to bear.

Problem: Kearse says he never received the NOD.

Let us start our walk through IRS procedure.

Once assessed, the IRS sent Kearse a Notice of Federal Tax Lien.

COMMENT: One has the right to request a hearing (called a Collection Due Process hearing) in response.

Kearse requested a CDP hearing, at which he asserted that he never received the NOD and presented an offer in compromise (liability – for the home gamers) for $1.

COMMENT: There are three flavors of offer in compromise. The one we are talking about is when there is substantial doubt that the assessed tax is correct. At $1, that is exactly the point Kearse was making.

IRS Appeals tuned him down, and off to Tax Court they went.

A taxpayer has the right to challenge the underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing IF he/she never received the NOD or otherwise never had a chance to dispute the proposed assessment. This is a procedural requirement, and the Court can bring it up even if the taxpayer fails to.

Responsibility now shifted to the IRS. The Appeals officer had to prove that the IRS properly mailed the NOD. There are two general ways to do this:

(1) Reviewing an internal IRS document management system

(2) Reviewing a postal Form 3877 or an equivalent mailing list with date stamps and/or initials.

The IRS said they did the first option: they reviewed the internal system.

Kearse’s tax attorneys also got the Appeals officer to stipulate that she could not produce a Form 3877 or otherwise prove the mailing of the NOD.

NOTE: We will come back to the importance of a “stipulation” in a moment.

There is a second procedural issue here: the IRS can rely on its internal system unless the taxpayer alleges that the NOD was not properly mailed.

Which is what Jevon Kearse had done. The IRS could not rely on option (1).

Incredibly, the IRS finally found the Form 3877, explaining that the eventual success had resulted from an update to their systems.

The Court bounced the Form 3877.

What ….?

It has to do with the stipulation. You see, a stipulated fact is treated as conclusive evidence. It cannot be changed, barring extraordinary circumstances.

The IRS had to argue extraordinary circumstances.

And we have the third procedural issue: the IRS failed to do so.

Meaning the IRS was bound by its stipulation that it could not prove the mailing of the NOD.  

The IRS attorney flubbed.

Jevon Kearse won.

What a freak case.

Patents, Capital Gains and Hogitude

I have an acquaintance who has developed several patents.  He works for a defense contractor, so I suspect he has more opportunity than a tax CPA.

COMMENT: Did you know that tax advisors have tried to “patent” their tax planning? I suppose I could develop a tax shelter that creates partnership basis out of thin air and then pop the shelter to release a gargantuan capital loss to offset a more humongous capital gain…. Wait, that one has already been done. Fortunately, Congress passed legislation in 2011 effectively prohibiting such nonsense.

Let’s say that you develop a patent someday. Let’s also say that you have not signed away your rights as part of your employment package. Someone is now interested in your patent and you have a chance to ride the Money Train. You call to ask how about taxes.

Fair enough. It is not everyday that one talks about patents, even in a CPA firm.

Think of a patent as a rental property. Say you have a duplex. Every month you receive two rental checks. What type of income do you have?

You have rental income, which is to say you have ordinary income. It will run the tax brackets if you have enough income to make the run.

Let’s say you sell the duplex. What type of income do you have?

Let’s set aside depreciation recapture and all that arcana. You will have capital gains.

People prefer capital gains to ordinary income. Capital gains have a lower tax rate.

Patents present the same tax issue as your duplex. Collect on the patent - call it royalties, licensing fees or a peanut butter sandwich – and you have ordinary income. You can collect once or over a period of time; you can collect a fixed amount, a set percentage or on a sliding rate scale. It is all ordinary income.

Or you can sell the patent and have capital gains.

But you have to part with it, same as you have to part with the duplex. 

Intellectual property however is squishier than real estate, which make sense when you consider that IP exists only by force of law. You cannot throw IP onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Congress even passed a Code section just for patents:

§ 1235 Sale or exchange of patents.

(a)  General.

A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 1 year, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are-

(1)  payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee's use of the patent, or (2) contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.

The tax Code wants to see you part with “substantial rights,” which basically means the right to use and sell the patent. Limit such use – say by geography, calendar or industry line – and you probably have not parted with all substantial rights.

Bummer.

What if you sell to yourself?

It’s been tried, but good thinking, tax Padawan.

What if you sell to yourself but make it look like you did not?

This has potential. Your training is starting to kick-in.

Time to repeat the standard tax mantra:

pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered

Do not push the planning to absurd levels, unless you are Google or Apple and have teams of lawyers and accountants chomping on the bit to make the tax literature.

Let’s look at the Cooper case as an example of hogitude.

James Cooper was an engineer with more than 75 patents to his credit. He and his wife formed a company, which in turn entered into a patent commercialization deal with an independent third party.

So far, so good. The Coopers got capital gains.

But the deal went south.

The Coopers got their patents back.

Having been burned, Cooper was now leery of the next deal. Some sharp attorney advised him to set up a company, keep his ownership below 25% and bring in “independent” but trusted partners.

Makes sense.

Mrs. Cooper called her sister to if she wanted to help out. She did. In fact, she had a friend who could also help out.

Neither had any experience with patents, either creating or commercializing them.

Not fatal, methinks.

They both had full-time jobs.

So what, say I.

They signed checks and transferred funds as directed by the accountants and attorneys.

They did not pursue independent ways to monetize the patents, relying almost exclusively on Mr. Cooper.

This is slipping away a bit. There is a concept of “agency” in the tax Code. Do exactly what someone tells you and the Code may consider you to be a proxy for that someone.

Maybe the tax advisors should wrap this up and live to fight another day.

The sister and her friend transferred some of the patents back to Cooper.

Good.

For no money.

Bad.

The sister and her friend owned 76% of the company. They emptied the company of its income-producing assets, receiving nothing in return. Real business owners do not do that. They might have a career in the House of Representatives, though.

Meanwhile, Cooper quickly made a patent deal with someone and cleared six figures.

This mess wound up in Tax Court.

To his credit, Cooper argued that the Court should just look at the paperwork and not ask too many questions. Hopefully he did it with aplomb, and a tin man, scarecrow and cowardly lion by his side.

The Tax Court was having none of his nonsense about substantial rights and 25% and no-calorie donuts.

The Court decided he did not meet the requirements of Section 1235.

The Tax Court also sustained a “substantial understatement” penalty. They clearly were not amused. 

Cooper reached for hogitude. He got nothing.

Not Filing Because You Expect A Refund

I received a call from a client this past week. He is keen on getting his taxes caught-up.

Mind you, he is not a timely filer.  He files every two or three years, at best.

How does he get away with it?

He has the ultimate tax shelter: a net operating loss (NOL).

You have to have a business to have an NOL. It means a business loss so large that it overwhelms whatever other sources of income you may have. It leaves behind a net negative number, and you can use that negative to recoup taxes paid in a prior year (2 prior years, to be exact) or you can use it to reduce your taxes going forward (up to 20 years).

It makes tax planning easy.

Say you have a $1 million NOL carryforward. You anticipate earning $400,000 next year. What tax planning advice would you give?

Here’s one: stop the withholding on that $400,000, if you can.

Why?

$400,000 - $1,000,000 = ($600,000).

There is no tax on minus $600,000. There is no point in withholding.

And that is why my client is somewhat lackadaisical about filing his taxes.

Won’t there be penalties for late filing?

Most likely: No. Penalties are normally calculated on any taxes due. No taxes due = no penalties. This is not always true, but it is true enough in his case.

A more common variation on this theme is a taxpayer who always gets a refund. A refund = no taxes due = no penalties. One has to be careful with this, however, because once enough years go by (more specifically: 3 years), the government will keep your money.

I was looking at the Parekh case this week. Here is the Tax Court:

… we conclude that petitioners did not exercise ordinary business care and prudence and that they have not established reasonable cause for failing to file their 2012 tax return timely.”

COMMENT: if you see the words “ordinary business care and prudence” or “reasonable cause,” rest assured that someone is being penalized. Those are code words when one is trying to remove or reduce penalties.

What did Parekh get into?

Let’s see:

• Mr and Mrs Parekh filed 2009 only after the IRS prepared a substitute tax return for them.
• They were late in filing 2010 and 2011.
• They did not extend their 2012 return. They eventually filed it in 2014.

Wouldn’t you know the IRS decided to audit 2012?

Who cares, right? They are always overpaid.

There was something different in 2012: retirement plan distributions. The IRS determined that they owed over $8 grand of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Now that there was tax due the IRS also assessed a penalty.

Parekh went to Appeals. He wanted the penalty for late filing abated.

His reason?

He always had refunds. How was he supposed to know that 2012 was different?

Here is Parekh:

I figured, reasonably so I thought, that since I’d be getting a refund it was OK to file late ***. In fact, I had considered the de facto deadline for filing to be three years if one is getting a refund since after that the refund is forfeited. As I take a quick look at some tax advice websites that is pretty much what they say.”

Here is the IRS:

The Appeals officer noted that petitioners had also been delinquent in filing their 2009-2011 returns and that, as of […], they had not filed a return for 2013 or 2014 either.”

One they got to Tax Court – and hired an attorney - the Parekhs added another reason for filing late: his mom was ill and he was routinely travelling to India in 2013 and 2014 to help his father care for her.

The Court did not like the attorney slapping the India thing into the record at the last minute.

Even if we were to credit petitioner husband’s testimony about his heavy travel schedule, it is inconceivable that he could not have found two days in which to fulfill petitioners’ filing obligation, as opposed to filing that return 15 months late.”

The Court said no reasonable cause for not extending and not filing on time. They had to pay the penalty.

Did Parekh’s track record with the IRS hurt him with the Court?

No doubt.

And there is the risk if you routinely file your returns late – perhaps because you expect a refund or because you have always gotten refunds. Have your taxes spike unexpectedly, and it is unlikely you will avoid the penalties that will come with them.

How Choosing The Correct Court Made The Difference

I am looking at a District Court case worth discussing, if only for the refresher on how to select a court of venue. Let’s set it up.

ABC Beverage Corporation (ABC) makes and distributes soft drinks and non-alcoholic beverages for the Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. Through a subsidiary it acquired a company in Missouri. Shortly afterwards it determined that the lease it acquired was noneconomic. An appraisal determined that the fair market rent for the facility was approximately $356,000 per year, but the lease required annual rent of $1.1 million. The lease had an unexpired term of 40 years, so the total dollars under discussion were considerable.

The first thing you may wonder is why the lease could be so disadvantageous. There are any number of reasons. If one is distributing a high-weight low-value product (such as soft drinks), proximity to customers could be paramount. If one owns a franchise territory, one may be willing to pay a premium for the right road access. Perhaps one’s needs are so specific that the decision process compares the lease cost to the replacement cost of building a facility, which in turn may be even more expensive. There are multiple ways to get into this situation.

ABC obtained three appraisals, each of which valued the property without the lease at $2.75 million. With the lease the property was worth considerably more.

NOTE: Worth more to the landlord, of course. 

ABC approached the landlord and offered to buy the facility for $9 million. The landlord wanted $14.8 million. Eventually they agreed on $11 million. ABC capitalized the property at $2.75 million and deducted the $6.25 million difference.

How? ABC was looking at the Cleveland Allerton Hotel decision, a Sixth Circuit decision from 1948. In that case, a hotel operator had a disastrous lease, which it bought out. The IRS argued that that the entire buyout price should be capitalized and depreciated. The Circuit Court decided that only the fair market value of the property could be capitalized, and the rest could be deducted immediately. Since 1948, other courts have decided differently, including the Tax Court. One of the advantages of taking a case to Tax Court is that one does not have to pay the tax and then sue for refund. A Tax Court filing suspends the IRS’ ability to collect. The Tax Court is therefore the preferred venue for many if not most tax cases.

However and unfortunately for ABC, the Tax Court had decided opposite of Cleveland Allerton (CA), so there was virtually no point in taking the case there. ABC was in Michigan, which is in the Sixth Circuit. CA had been decided in the Sixth Circuit. To get the case into the District Court (and thus the Circuit), ABC would have to pay the tax and sue for refund. It did so.

The IRS came out with guns blazing. It pointed to Code Section 167(c)(2), which reads:

            (2) Special rule for property subject to lease

If any property is acquired subject to a lease—

(A) no portion of the adjusted basis shall be allocated to the leasehold interest, and

(B) the entire adjusted basis shall be taken into account in determining the depreciation deduction (if any) with respect to the property subject to the lease.

The IRS argued that the Section meant what it said, and that ABC had to capitalize the entire buyout, not just the fair market value.  It trotted out several cases, including Millinery Center and Woodward v Commissioner. It argued that the CA decision had been modified – to the point of reversal – over time. CA was no longer good precedent.

The IRS had a second argument: Section 167(c)(2) entered the tax Code after CA, with the presumption that it was addressing – and overturning – the CA decision.

The Circuit Court took a look at the cases. In Millinery Center, the Second Circuit refused to allow a deduction for the excess over fair market value. The Sixth Circuit pointed out that the Second Circuit had decided that way because the taxpayer had failed its responsibility of proving that the lease was burdensome. In other words, the taxpayer had not gotten to the evidentiary point where ABC was.

In Woodward the IRS argued that professional fees pursuant to a stockholder buyout had to be capitalized, as the underlying transaction was capital in nature. Any ancillary costs to the transaction (such as attorneys and accountants) likewise had to be capitalized. The Sixth Circuit pointed out the obvious: ABC was not deducting ancillary costs. ABC was deducting the transaction itself, so Woodward did not come into play.

The Court then looked at Section 167(c)(2) – “if property is acquired subject to a lease.” That wording is key, and the question is: when do you look at the property? If the Court looked before ABC bought out the lease, then the property was subject to a lease. If it looked after, then the property was not. The IRS of course argued that the correct time to look was before. The Court agreed that the wording was ambiguous.

The Court reasoned that a third party purchaser looking to acquire a building with an extant lease is different from a lessee purchaser. The third party acquires a building with an income stream – two distinct assets - whereas the lessee purchaser is paying to eliminate a liability – the lease. Had the lessee left the property and bought-out the lease, the buy-out would be deductible.

The Court decided that the time to look was after. There was no lease, as ABC at that point had unified its fee simple interest. Section 167(c)(2) did not apply, and ABC could deduct the $6.25 million. The Court decided that its CA decision from 1948 was still precedent, at least in the Sixth Circuit.

ABC won the case, and kudos to its attorneys. Their decision to take the case to District Court rather than Tax Court made the case appealable to the Sixth Circuit, which venue made all the difference.