Sometimes the IRS Just Doesn't Believe You

I was reading the following recently, and we will use it as a springboard for our discussion today:

In its continued assault on real estate investors, the Court held in Jafarpour and Prang v. Commissioner, …, the taxpayers were not actively involved in a real estate trade or business nor was she a real estate professional ….

Prang is just one more taxpayer to fall under the IRS’s aggressive assault on real estate investors.

That writer and I do not agree on Jafarpour and Prang (“Prang”).

We are talking today about the taxation of real estate activities. Ever since 1986 we have had the passive activity rules, which Congress used to address the problem of tax shelters. The overall concept is simple: if an activity is considered to be passive, then losses from the activity cannot be subtracted from income considered nonpassive. Here is an example: you will not be allowed to claim losses or tax credits from an Alpaca investment against your W-2 income and bonus.

There are exceptions for real estate activities. This is not surprising, considering how significant real estate is to the national economy. The exception that Prang wanted was the “real estate professional” exception. If she could attain that, then her real estate activities would be nonpassive. She could subtract losses to her heart’s content.

There are two basic requirements to being a real estate pro:

(1)   More than one-half of your work hours have to be real-estate related, and

(2)   You have to work more than 750 hours in real estate

We have several real estate pro clients. A builder or broker qualifies, for example. These guys work real estate full-time, so they are easy to identify. What if you mix real estate with non-real estate activities? Further, what if the total hours are close?  You had better keep good records. That gets us to Prang.

Jafarpour was the husband. He sold stock options in 2006.

Prang was the wife. She was a chiropractor. Unfortunately she got injured and sold her practice during the middle of 2006.

So Prang and her husband came into cash and were looking for something to do. They have some experience in real estate. They have rented a former residence in California for a decade, for example. She attended seminars on real estate investing, including a course at the community college. The community college instructor explained the additional depreciation available for Katrina-affected areas (referred to as the GO Zone).

Mrs. Prang liked the idea and they snapped up three properties in Louisiana and Alabama. They almost immediately signed contracts with management companies to handle the properties. After all, they live almost 2,000 miles away. They returned to California.

They claimed over $271,000 in real estate losses on their 2006 tax return. Surprisingly, this caught the IRS’ attention. They were audited.

Jafapour immediately admitted that he was not a real estate pro for 2006. Not a problem, as Mrs. Prang claimed that she was the real estate pro. The IRS said: let’s go through the math: how many hours did you work and how many hours were in real estate?

The way to prove this is to show a record or log, preferably kept contemporaneously, showing what you did and how long it took. Mrs. Prang had an appointment book at the chiropractic office, so that should establish the chiropractic hours. The IRS looked at it and had questions. Daily visits were often illegible. There were daily totals, but the IRS was unable to determine what the totals represented. The totals frequently did not coincide with the number of patients filled-in for the day or the hours Mrs. Prang was supposedly working. Prang deepened the hole by attesting that she left the practice after selling in June. However there were e-mails and notations that she was still involved.

The IRS moved over to the real estate logs. The log was divided into sections. Immediately they were curious because she wrote her activities in pen but the number of hours in pencil. Mrs. Prang explained that she did this so she could cross-reference her time with phone records and make adjustments. Flipping through, the IRS saw several times the same task recorded in multiple sections. More than once the amount of time seemed excessive for the task. For example, Prang noted that she spent one hour on November 8, 2006 reading the following e-mail:

Hi Lecia, I'm your loan processor and will be your main contact person from this point on. I received the FedEx package you sent back. I will review it and prepare the file for my underwriter to review. I will update you with the status within 3 business days."

So she was a slow reader. The IRS pressed on. They spotted several days where she said he worked 17 or more hours, which was impressive. Problem is that she noted the same tasks on more than one day. She described doing something while she was actually on a plane back to California, which would have been a Copperfield-worthy trick. Some of the e-mails she claimed to have sent were from her husband’s e-mail account - and electronically signed by her husband.

The IRS came to the conclusion that she manufactured the logs after-the-fact, which greatly weakened their credibility. She worked the logs to get the answer she wanted. The IRS trusted none of it, denied her real estate professional status and disallowed her loss.

Prang went to Tax Court. Here is the Court:

We would have to engage in complete guesswork to determine how much time Ms. Prang spent at her chiropractic business on a particular day during 2006, let alone the entire year. We decline to engage in such dubious speculation.”

We are not convinced that Ms. Prang contemporaneously recorded her actions in the real estate log. Petitioners' unreasonable assertions are so pervasive that the entire log is tainted with incredibility. Moreover, petitioners' appointment book is frequently illegible and generally ambiguous. While Ms. Prang may have invested a considerable amount of time in real estate activities during 2006, petitioners' records are simply too unreliable for us to draw any sound conclusion.”

The Tax Court found the logs unreliable. With them she couldn’t prove her real estate pro status. Without that status she could not claim losses. Without the losses she owed the IRS a lot of money. And she owed a big penalty.

My Take:  I have had a real estate pro audit before, and the IRS challenged the logs directly. I was younger and working under a partner at another firm. In that case, I felt that the examining agent and supervisor were being unreasonable. The client had maintained but had not assembled the data into a usable, calendar form.  The agent felt that fact impugned the log, whereas my argument was that the log was little more than an administrative compilation of existing data. The agent disallowed pro status, the group manager sided with the agent, we appealed and won in Appeals. Quite a hassle - and we had better facts than Prang. For all that the client fired us. It did not go as smoothly as he would have liked. I wasn’t too thrilled about it either.

I try to be blunter with clients these days about the hazards of tax representation. Lose the examiner’s trust, for example, and you may not convince him/her that the sun came up this morning. Catch the examiner on a pet peeve and he/she may raise the body more often than a Living Dead episode. You may have an examiner too green to realize that classroom examples rarely occur outside the classroom. You may run into a coordinated exam, in which a specialized group – not necessarily the examiner - is calling the shots.  A lot can go wrong.

Was Prang an “aggressive assault” on real estate investors? I do not see it. What I do see is someone gaming the system. They got caught. That’s all.

Senate Wants to Increase IRS Funding

Last Friday I had a meeting with an IRS Appeals officer downtown. Her name is Fran and I like her. I understand that she and I sit on opposite sides of the table, but she does and has done – in my opinion - a fair job balancing the interests of the government and taxpayers.

Fran is retiring this year. Presently there are two people in Cincinnati Appeals. This means that soon there will be one. There are a number of reasons for this, and one is the IRS budget.

I saw this morning that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government has marked up an appropriations bill that would increase IRS funding by 6%.

Perhaps I have been at this too long, but I take this as good news. Doing this every day, I have seen the decline of IRS administration. We have talked previously of IRS brain drain and the difficulty of working with their green and inexperienced replacements. We have also pointed out the blizzard of CP notices, which process often doesn’t work well and results in large amounts of wasted taxpayer (and my) time. Trying to settle an issue with ACS sometimes feels like the search for a starting New York Jets quarterback.

IDEA: Don’t issue these notices unless there is enough money to justify the time.

Collections can also do a better job. We have clients who have been laid-off and are now working where they can, perhaps as independent contractors. This creates the problem of making less money but owing more tax. Many times what they do earn is unpredictable. They are uncomfortable agreeing to a fixed monthly payment plan because they do not have reliable cash flow. Collections has a difficult time with a variable payment plan – one fluctuating as one’s income fluctuates. We presently have two of these clients in CDP Appeals.

OBSERVATION: This further increases the workload of Appeals, which will soon be down to one person in Cincinnati.

One of my non-profits received an $8,000 penalty notice for filing their Form 990 untimely. They have reasonable cause, as their bookkeeper became very ill and passed away. The Board did not know what to do, and by the time it came to us the return was late. I feel comfortable that the penalty will be abated. However, does $8,000 – for a small charity – seem reasonable to you?

OBSERVATION: If the penalty is not abated, we will go to Appeals, which again will soon be down to one person in Cincinnati.

On the other hand, I recognize the downside of increased IRS funding. This means they can look at more taxpayers, and I pay taxes too. Hopefully some of it will go to improved staffing and more experienced personnel.

I wish you the best, Fran. Enjoy your retirement.

CPAs Blow Their Own Tax Planning

Here is one of my favorite tax quotes thus far in 2012:

                That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

You can be sure that language isn’t going to make it to the firm’s brochure.

What happened? It started with compensation. There is a CPA firm in Illinois with three senior partners. These partners were making pretty good jack, enough so that they did not want the other partners to know the actual amounts. Considering that they are – you know, a CPA firm – that could be a tall order. So the three senior partners in turn started three other companies.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say you, me, and the guy in the elevator form three companies to hide our good fortunes from our partners. Let’s say company 1 paints and wallpapers CPA offices, company 2 shreds CPA firm files and company 3 provides door-to-door transportation to CPAs during busy season.  We will have our firm “pay” these companies for services and then we will split it up – behind the scenes, of course. Brilliant! What could go wrong?

The firm and tax case is Mulcahy, Pauritsch, Salvador & Co. They had approximately 40 employees and revenues between $5 and $7 million during the years at issue. The firm was organized as a C corporation. This technically made the partners “shareholders,” and the existence of a C corporation allowed for the possibility of dividends. The three shareholders had the following ownership:

                Edward Mulcahy                              26%

                Michael Pauritsch                            26%

                Philip Salvador                                  26%

For the years at issue they received W-2s as follows:

                                               

                                                              2001                       2002                       2003

                Mulcahy                           106,175                 103,156                 102,662                    

                Pauritsch                            99,074                  96,376                   95,048                         

                Salvador                           117,824                 106,376                 112,086

The firm paid consulting fees to the three companies of:

                2001                                   911,570                

                2002                                   866,143

                2003                                   994,028

The three companies then paid the three shareholders according to the hours each worked during the year.

The IRS comes in and asks the obvious question: what consulting services were provided?

Back to our example:

               

                IRS:  Steve, how many paints and wallpapers did you do?

                Me:  Er, none.              

                IRS:  How many files did you shred?

                You: None.

                IRS:  How many transportation clients did you drive?

                Elevator guy: None.

Truly folks, it does not require graduate school and years of study and practice in taxation to guess the IRS’ reaction. They disallowed the deduction and said that it was a disguised dividend to the three shareholders.

MPS is upset. If it is not consulting, they argue, then it is compensation.

The IRS says: please show us the W-2, the 1099, anything which indicates that this is compensation. MPS argues that it is “like” compensation. Heck, at the end-of-the-day the three companies paid the shareholders based on their hours worked. Doesn’t that sound like compensation? “Sounds like” is a childhood game, says the IRS, and is not recognized as sound tax planning. Surely MPS would know this, being a CPA firm and all.

MPS goes to Tax Court. MPS argues that its intent was to compensate, therefore the tax consequence should follow its intent. It brought in experts to prove that the shareholders were undercompensated, malnourished and in need of more sunshine. The Court listened to the argument, gave it weight and said the following:

               

There is no evidence that the ‘consulting fees’ were compensation for the founding shareholders’ accounting and consulting services. If they had been that—rather than appropriations of corporate income—why the need to conceal them?”

There is an important point here. There is a long-standing tax doctrine that you may select any form and structure you wish for a transaction, but once you do you are bound by that form and structure. The CPA firm was a C corporation and was transacting with its shareholders. A C corporation transacts in one of two ways with its shareholders: as compensation or as dividends/distributions. If the compensation was disallowed, you have the possibility of a dividend.

The Court did try to work with MPS. It noted that two tests for compensation are that (1) it must be reasonable and (2) it must be for services performed. This brought in the “independent investor test” of Exacto Spring, which precedent the Tax Court had used in the past. The idea is easy: what return would you need on your investment to pay someone a certain amount of compensation?

EXAMPLE: A hedge fund manager receives 20% of the fund’s capital gains. This is referred to as the “carry.” Why would an investor agree to this? What if the manager was returning 20% to 30% to you annually – even after deducting his/her 20%? Would you agree to this? Uh, yes.

So the Court looks at MPS’ taxable income for the years at issue:

                2001                                    11,249

                2002                                   (53,271)

                2003                                      -0-

The Court observed that the firm had money invested in its offices, technology, furniture, etc. It noted that – according to normal market expectations – that invested capital required a rate of return. It did not think that taxable income of zero was a reasonable rate of return. The Court was aware that the firm was zeroing-out its taxable income by paying consulting fees. This indicated to the Court that the firm was not concerned with a reasonable return on invested capital. MPS could not meet the Exacto standard. Without meeting that standard, the Court could not weave “compensation” out of “consulting fees” whole cloth. This was an unfortunate result because the firm received no deduction for dividends but the shareholders had to pay taxes on them. That is the double taxation trap of a C corporation. It is also a significant reason why many planners – including me – do not often use C corporations.

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. I believe that MPS would have substantially prevailed had it deducted the payments as compensation (and included on the W-2) and the IRS in turn argued unreasonable compensation. Why? Because I believe the Court might have disallowed some of the compensation but permitted the rest. MPS instead came from the other direction: it had to argue that the payments were compensation rather than something else. This changed the dynamic, and it now became an all-or-nothing argument. MPS lost the argument and got nothing.

MPS appealed the case but with the same result. It is here that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals gave us the quote:

                That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

The taxes were almost $980,000. Remember, the personal service corporation lost its deduction (and paid taxes) and the shareholders received dividends (and paid taxes). The penalties alone exceeded $190,000.

MY TAKE: This tax strategy borders on the unforgivable. There were so many ways to sidestep this result.  One way would have been working with disregarded entities, also known as single-member LLCs. The three shareholders performed services for and received W-2s from the accounting firm. The Court however did not agree that their three companies performed services for the accounting firm. A disregarded entity would have avoided that result by having the member’s activities attributed to the SMLLC.

How could the firm pay entities that provided no services? Was nobody in that tax department paying attention? I presume they were steamrolled by the three senior shareholders.

I was brought up with the technique of draining professional service corporation profit to zero by using year-end bonuses. That technique has frayed over recent years as new doctrines – such as Exacto Spring– have appeared. It is as though these MPS guys were stuck in a time warp.

Another way, and the obvious, would be to have just paid the founding partners more compensation. Yes, that would have given away the amount of actual compensation to the senior partners. Then again, this case has also given away that information.

The IRS May Allow Videoconferencing

I am just finished reading Nina Olson’s most recent blog post. Nina Olson is the National Taxpayer Advocate with the IRS. The Advocate’s office is independent from the IRS, although it works with the IRS to resolve tax problems. I have worked with the Advocate’s office before, and in general I have been pleased. Recent contacts have concerned me, though. It sounds to me that they are being overworked, at least here in Cincinnati. I suspect they are feeling IRS budget restrictions.

Ms Olson commented on taxpayer frustrations with “corr exams.” These are correspondence exams and frequently address areas using computer matching. You may get a “corr” notice concerning missing dividends or interest income, for example, or possibly the sale of stock. The corr notices are notorious and can frequently take multiple contacts to resolve. Why? Well, a key reason is that no single examiner is assigned to work on your case. Rather, it floats in a pool, and when you send a letter it gets randomly assigned to an examiner. Say that the letter resolves many, but not all, the issues. The IRS sends out another notice. You respond, but it will not go to the same person who earlier worked on your file. There is no continuity in the corr exam process.

Ms Olson is proposing the use of videoconferencing in conjunction with corr exams. Upon receiving a notice, a taxpayer would have the option of making an appointment for an online meeting. The taxpayer gets a PIN and logs on from his home or office computer. If the taxpayer does not have a computer, he/she could alternatively go to the local IRS office or perhaps to a specially designated room at another government building. With a high-resolution camera, the examiner could even read a document that the taxpayer brought to the videoconference. The examiner would retain the case, and all future correspondence would contain his/her name, phone number and e-mail address.

Here is how Ms Olson phrased it:

As anyone who has looked at both the literacy levels of the United States population and the poor quality of IRS exam notices can attest, there is not a whole lot of communicating going on in IRS correspondence exams.”

A virtual face-to-face meeting would allow for diversity in taxpayers’ ability to read, write and express themselves verbally. The taxpayer would be able to explain himself and the examiner could better explain any necessary documentation without the back-and-forth of a correspondence exam.

What does this tax CPA think? Great idea! I am becoming quite the fan of Nina Olson.

Why Is IRS Appeals So Busy?

Sheldon Kay, deputy chief of IRS Appeals, stated during a February webcast that the case inventory for IRS Appeals reached 148, 000 for fiscal 2011. This is the highest it has ever been. To be fair, Appeals case closures were also at a record level, but not enough to gain ground.

A tax CPA working representation will be quite familiar with Appeals. The normal process is that a taxpayer is selected for examination, i.e. the “audit.” The audit can be through the mail, which is called a correspondence audit. The audit can be at the IRS offices, in which case you go to them. A third type is when they come to you, also called the “field” audit. You are working with a revenue agent. If you disagree you can appeal the agent’s adjustments to the agent’s supervisor, also called the “group manager.”

If you have no settlement there, you are bound for Appeals.

The cases in Appeals fall into two types: collection and exam. What we described above is exam. A collections case has normally gone through exam, and now the IRS is pressing for money. Congress gave taxpayers more protection from IRS collections in 1998 with the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act. Collections have now become half or more of the cases in Appeals.

Back to Sheldon Kay. He explained that the situation has been aggravated by IRS budget constraints. We have seen that here in Cincinnati, as the Appeals office is becoming a ghost town. It is not just the budget, though. Some long-term IRS careerists have also been retiring, reflecting incentives to retire as well as the demographic march of the Baby Boom generation.

There is also another reason. Practitioners comment among themselves that exam is experiencing a brain drain. I agree that a new hire cannot replace the experience and judgment of a career examiner. In the past, the group manager provided some continuity and savvy, but today it is possible that group manager has been there only slightly longer than the examiner.  The “system” is – too often – just not working.

Whether responding to examination or collection frustrations, practitioners are taking their clients to Appeals. The frustration may be because of IRS budgetary constraints, inexperienced personnel, excessive automated collection practices, unrealistic Congressional demands or other reasons. Practitioners are seeking the more experienced personnel available in Appeals.

The Anschutz Company v. Commissioner

So what do you do when you own a fortune in stock but do not want to pay the tax man?

Let’s look at Philip and Nancy Anschutz and The Anschutz Company (TAC). Philip Anschutz (PA) began acquiring oil and mineral companies during the 1960s. He expanded his activities to include railroad, real estate and entertainment companies. This meant he owned large blocks of various companies’ stock, and he housed them in TAC. TAC was an S corporation, a fact which is important and to which we will return later.

Well, if you keep buying companies, eventually you wind up having a lot of money invested in those companies. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, PA and TAC began looking for ways to free up some of that invested cash.

In 2000 and 2001 TAC received approximately $375 million from a series of variable prepaid forward contracts with Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette (DLJ). The contracts involved shares of Union Pacific and Andarko Petroleum. DLJ later became part of Credit Suisse.

Let’s get into eye-rolling territory and talk about a “forward contract.” Here is an example:

You want to unload $250 million worth of AJ stock but delay any tax consequence. Tony Soprano (TS) wants to help you. You hire a firm (BADA BING) who proposes a business deal involving TS. You loan the stock to TS. No, instead you loan the stock to BADA BING and you grant TS a security interest in the shares. TS then sells the stock. TS sells short, though.

QUESTION: By selling short, TS is saying that he does not own the stock. This is consistent with the story so far, as you lent the stock to TS. TS has a security interest in the stock, but that interest is not the same as owning the stock. Therefore TS has to sell short. He is protected however because – if ever called upon – he can deliver your shares to close-out the trade. Remember, your shares are in his possession.

                What do you get out of this? Nothing so far.

But let’s say that TS gives you 75% the money from the short sale. Ah, now you have something – you have cash in your pocket. The transaction as described is now a “prepaid” forward contract. The “prepaid” means that you got money.

There is more. You get a 5% prepaid lending fee because, by golly, you are lending the use of your shares to TS.

Somewhere down the line this story has to end, however. Say that 8 or 10 years down the road you are obligated to deliver to TS either:

·         a (variable) number of AJ shares, or

·         cash, or

·         equivalent but not identical stock 

The variable number of shares permitted to settle the contract makes this a variable prepaid forward contract.

There is also a way to do this with puts and calls and is referred to as a collar. It is interesting in a train-wreck sort of way, but let’s spare ourselves that discussion.

Let’s give TS some incentive to do the deal. We can add the following:

·         If the stock appreciates over the term of the deal, you get the first 50% in appreciation but TS gets ALL the appreciation after that.

·         TS kept 25% of the cash. He could invest it over the term of the deal and keep the earnings.

·         TS did sell the stock short, so if the stock goes down, the short sale would earn TS additional profit.

·         Upon the occurrence of certain events (bankruptcy, material change in economic position), TS could accelerate the settlement date of the deal.

How could TS lose money? TS already sold all the stock and paid you 75% of the proceeds. TS kept the remaining 25% for a period of time. Granted, TS did sell the shares short, so TS would have the risk of the stock going up in price over the term of the deal. This is how one loses money on a short sale, as it would make it more expensive for TS to close out his short position. But wait, TS has physical possession of your stock. If you do not make TS whole, he will simply take your stock to cover the short sale. What if the stock goes down? Then TS has a profit on the short sale. TS dealt a pretty good hand for himself.

How could you lose money? You really can’t. If the stock goes down, you buy it at the lower price and deliver it to TS. If the stock goes up you participate in the gain. Not all the gain, but still a gain. You lose by not making as much money as you could have by holding on to the stock. I can live with that kind of loss.

What was the underlying tax law that drove this transaction? Under long-standing tax law, a taxpayer did not have a sale - for tax purposes – of securities until the taxpayer delivered shares from his/her long position. In a forward contract, the delivery is delayed for years, possibly many years. So a forward contract, even a prepaid forward contract, of securities was not considered a "sale.” The IRS changed this in 1997 with Section 1259, which provided tax rules for constructive sales of financial positions. You may remember that you used to be able to protect an appreciated stock position at year-end by something called a “short sale against the box.” Then one day your accountant told you that you could not do that anymore because the law had changed. Tax law now requires you to have some level of risk in the position. The question is: how much risk?

Since TAC entered into these transactions in 2000 and 2001, it at least had the warning of Section 1259. TAC did not however have clarification of how far it could push the “link” between a variable contract and a stock loan. Tax law takes time to evolve. This is an innovative tax area involving financial instruments and derivatives, and tax clarification takes time. In 2006 the IRS finally gave warning that it did not like this structure. Too late for TAC to close the barn door, of course.

The IRS went after TAC.

What was the IRS position? We can hear the IRS saying:

“TAC did not keep enough risk to avoid a constructive sale of the Union Pacific and Andarko stock.”

What was TAC’s position? We can almost hear them saying:

“What are you talking about? We entered into two transactions - a prepaid variable and a stock loan, not one. The prepaid variable did not rise to the level of a constructive sale. The loan was to Wilmington Trust Company as collateral agent and trustee. Last time we checked, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette was not Wilmington Trust Co.

In addition, is it fair to make tax law retroactive?”

In 2010 the Tax Court agreed with the IRS. TAC immediately appealed. The Appeals Court handed down its decision on Tuesday, December 27, 2011.

The 10^th Circuit Appeals Court noted that TAC effectively exchanged its shares for …

(1)    Upfront monies of 75% and 5%

(2)    the  potential to benefit to a limited degree if the pledged stock increased in value, and

(3)    the elimination of any risk of loss of value in the pledged stock

NOTE: Think about this for a moment. TAC transferred its shares to DLJ and DLJ relieved TAC of any risk of loss. What does this sound like?

The 10^th Circuit Appeals Court further reasoned that DLJ…

(1)    obtained all incidents of ownership in the shares, including the right to transfer them

(2)    acquired an interest in the property that it could not prudently abandon

(3)    had a present obligation to pay monies to TAC

(4)    had the right to sell or rehypothecate the shares

NOTE: DLJ had an immediate obligation to pay TAC and also had the right to sell the shares. What does that sound like?

Welcome to the new tax shelters. There was a time that shelters involved real estate or oil and gas and relied on nonrecourse loans or accelerated depreciation. Contemporary shelters use financial derivatives.

At the heart of this case is a metaphysical tax question: when is a sale a sale? The IRS did not challenge the substance of the deal. What it did challenge was this important detail: TAC lent its shares to DLJ to make the deal work. TAC argued that the stock loan and variable forwards were separate deals and that the stock was loaned to Wilmington Trust, not DLJ. The Tax Court in 2010 could not overcome the fact that, when TAC lent its shares, the shares were effectively gone and could not be recovered. A common factor of a sale is that the seller no longer has possession of the property sold.  

Why did TAC do this? TAC is an S corporation. S corporations can pay tax if they have a unique fact pattern called “built-in gains.” Sure enough, TAC had built-in gains in the Union Pacific and Andarko stock. The built-in gain had a clawback period of ten years. Sale of property with built-in gains within this period triggers the built-in gains tax. TAC was trying to avoid the double-taxation of built-in gains and then capital gains.

TAC lost big. The taxes were about $110 million. Oh, add on about another $30 million for penalties and taxes. Since TAC was an S corporation, all its income, deductions and credits flowed-through to PA and were reported on his individual income tax return. This means that PA lost big too.

The Collection Due Process Hearing

A client recently faxed me a Notice of Intent to Levy. His tax case is relatively simple, as we are not debating the amount of tax. Rather, he is in a position where he cannot pay-off his tax due. This requires a payment plan, which can blow up if the taxpayer misses a payment. He is self-employed with erratic income, so he is at ongoing risk of blowing up his payment plan. He unfortunately believes – or has believed – that we can reactivate a payment plan whenever he feels like missing a payment, but I believe we impressed upon him that this is not the case. The IRS becomes weary, and frankly so do we.

I thought this a good time to talk about the Collection Due Process hearing.

Once you receive a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) or Intent to Levy, you have 30 days to request a CDP hearing. If so, the levy action will be suspended for the duration of the hearing. IRS Appeals conducts the hearing. The taxpayer can appeal a CDP hearing, if so inclined.

What happens if you miss the 30 days? Not all is lost. You can request an Equivalent Hearing as long as you file within one year of the NFTL or levy notice. The difference is that you cannot appeal an Equivalent Hearing.

You have to file a form (Form 12153) and state a reason for the hearing. In our case, we will request a collection alternative, such as an installment agreement. Our client does not qualify for an offer in compromise, which is another valid reason. Other reasons include requests to release or subordinate a lien, request for innocent spouse and a dispute over the amount of unpaid taxes. An important reason in today’s economy is financial hardship, which can include heavy medical bills, unemployment, and taxpayer’s reliance on social security or unemployment benefits.

An unfortunate note is that – even if the IRS accepts the collection alternative – interest and penalties will continue to accrue.