Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

An Intelligence Site, A Tax Treaty, and a Closing Agreement

I am looking at a case involving IRS closing agreements and the U.S. Pine Gap facility in Australia.

It gives us a chance to talk about closing agreements, an uncommon topic.

It also gives a chance to talk about Pine Gap, which is a U.S. Intelligence-gathering facility in the Northern Territory of Australia. It started decades ago as a monitoring station for Soviet ballistic testing, and with the years it has acquired several new roles. Think of drone attacks in Pakistan, and you have an idea of what happens at Pine Gap.

FIRST ACT: we have a spooky intelligence site.

Let’s move on to a treaty.

Under general tax rules, Australia would be able to tax American workers at Pine Gap. They are - after all – working in Australia. This was not the desired result, so a treaty in the 1960s exempted American workers at Pine Gap from Australian tax. There was a requisite, though: to be exempt, the wages had to be taxed by the U.S.

Got it. There was a one-bite-at-the-apple rule. Australia would back off if the U.S. got the first bite.

But U.S. tax law also includes a foreign earned income exclusion, whereby an American worker overseas could exempt some (or all) of his/her wages from tax, if certain requirements were met.  

How could Australia be sure that the wages were being taxed by the U.S.? Mind you, the alternative was for Australia to apply the default rule, meaning that both Australia and the U.S. would tax the wages. Sure, the worker could claim a foreign tax credit on his/her U.S. tax return, but the tax consequences of working at Pine Gap would have escalated unappealingly.  

The treaty was revised in the 1980s to allow American workers at Pine Gap to relinquish their foreign earned income exclusion by entering into a closing agreement with the IRS.

SECOND ACT: we have an income tax treaty.

Cory was a U.S. Air Force veteran and engineer. In 2009 he received a job offer from Raytheon to work at Pine Gap. He was informed that Australia would not tax him, but to get there he would have to sign a closing agreement with the IRS. The agreement was straightforward: he would not claim the foreign earned income exclusion.

Mind you, he did not have to sign a closing agreement. Australia would then tax him, and his U.S. return would get a little more complicated.

Cory signed the agreement.

The point behind a closing agreement is finality. Both sides agree, settle, and move on. Excepting fraud or malfeasance, there are no “do-overs.” That is - as you would expect - the reason that one requests one. An example is the wrap-up of a taxable estate. The tax practitioner does not want that estate resurrecting later, causing headaches when all parties considered the matter closed.

Cory wanted out of his closing agreement.

Problem.

Closing agreements arise under a Code section. This means that the Court would be reviewing statutory law (that is, the Code as statute on the matter) and not just the general principles of contract law (offer, acceptance, and all that).

That Code section doesn’t let one off the hook without showing malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact.

Cory argued that he met that standard. Somebody somewhere at the IRS did not have appropriate signature authority; the IRS committed malfeasance by sharing information with his employer, Raytheon; he was induced to sign by false representations.

I think Cory was grasping at straws.

The Court apparently thought the same way. The Court decided Cory was stuck with the agreement. He signed it; he owned it.

THIRD ACT: we have a closing agreement.

This is a specialized case pulling-in several different areas of the Code.

I get Cory’s point. He wanted exemption both from Australian tax AND some/all U.S. tax.

Me too, Cory. Me too.

Our case this time was Cory H Smith v Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3 (Aug 25,2022).

Giving The IRS A Reason To Reject Your Offer In Compromise

 

Can the IRS turn down your offer in compromise if the offer is truly the best and most you are able to pay?

My experience with OICs and partial payment plans has generally involved disagreement with the maximum a client can pay. I do not recall having the IRS tell me that they agreed with the maximum amount but were going to reject the OIC anyway. Some of that – to be fair – is my general conservatism with representing an OIC.

COMMENT: There are tax mills out there promising pennies-on-the-dollar and inside knowledge of an IRS program called “Fresh Start.” Here is inside knowledge: the IRS Fresh Start program started in 2011, so there is nothing new there. And if you want pennies on the dollar, then you had better become disabled or fully retired with no earning power, because it is not going to happen.

Today we are going to talk about James O’Donnell.

James did not believe in filing tax returns. Sometimes the IRS would prepare a substitute return for him; it did not matter, as he had no intention of paying. This went long enough that he was now dragging over $2 million in back taxes, penalties and interest.

I suppose his heart softened just a bit, as in May, 2016, he submitted an offer in compromise for $280,000. He attached a check for $56,000 (the required 20% chop) and simultaneously filed 12 years’ worth of tax returns.

When reviewing an OIC, the IRS will also review whether one is up-to-date with his/her tax compliance. The IRS did not see estimated tax payments for 2016 or 2017. In September, 2017 the IRS rejected the offer, saying that it would reconsider when James was in full compliance.

Bummer, but those are the ropes.

James must have hired someone, as that someone told the IRS that James did not need to pay estimated taxes.

Odd, but okay. The IRS decided to reopen the case.

The pace quickened.

In October, 2017 the IRS wanted to lien.

James requested a CDP hearing as he - you know – had an offer out there.

I agree. Liens are a bear to remove. It is much better to avoid them in the first place.

In March, 2018 the IRS rejected the offer.

In April, 2018 James appealed the rejection. His representative was still around and made three arguments:

(1)  The unit reviewing the offer erred in concluding the offer was not in the government’s best interest.

(2)  James was in full compliance with his tax obligations.

(3)  James was offering the government all he could realistically afford to pay.

There was paperwork shuffling at the IRS, and James’ case was assigned to a different settlement officer (SO). The SO sent a letter scheduling a telephone conference on May 15, 2018.

James skipped the call.

Sheeesshhh.

James explained that he never received the letter.

The SO rescheduled another telephone conference for June 14, 2018.

Two days before the hearing – June 12 – Appeals sustained the rejection of the offer, reasoning that acceptance of James’ offer was not in the government’s best interest because of his history of “blatant disregard for voluntary compliance.”

James made the telephone conference on June 14. The SO broke the bad news about the offer and encouraged James to resubmit a different collection alternative by June 26.

James filed with the Tax Court on August 20, 2018.

On July 30, 2019 (yes, almost a year later) the IRS filed a motion to return the case to the agency, so it could revisit the offer and its handling. The Tax Court agreed.

The IRS scheduled another conference call, this one for January 28, 2020. The IRS presented and James verbally agreed to a partial-pay with monthly payments of $2,071, beginning March, 2020.

COMMENT: This strikes me as a win for James. Failing the OIC – especially given the reason for the fail – a partial-pay is probably the best he can do.

The SO sent the partial-pay paperwork to James for his signature.

James blew it off.

He now felt that the SO had not considered all his expenses, making $2,071 per month unmaintainable.

OK. Send the SO your updated numbers – properly substantiated, of course – and request a reduction. Happens all the time, James.  

Nope. James wanted that OIC. He did not want a partial-pay.

It would be all or nothing in Tax Court.

COMMENT:  A key difference between the OIC and a partial-pay is that the IRS can review a partial-pay at a later point in time. As long as the terms are met, an OIC cannot be reviewed. If one’s income went up during the agreement period, for example, the IRS could increase the required payment under a partial-pay. This is the downside of a partial-pay compared to an offer.

James was betting all his chips on the following:

Appeals calculated the reasonable collection potential of $286,744. James had offered $280,000. Both sides agreed on the maximum he could pay.

The Tax Court pointed out that – while correct – the IRS is not required to accept an offer if there are other considerations.

Offers may be rejected on the basis of public policy if acceptance might in any way be detrimental to the interest of fair tax administration, even though it is shown conclusively that the amount offered is greater than could be collected by any other means.”

What other consideration did James bring to the table?

For two decades (if not longer) petitioner failed to file returns and failed to pay the tax shown on SFRs that the IRS prepared for him. During this period he was evidently a successful practitioner in the insurance and finance business. As of 2016 his outstanding liabilities exceeded $2 million, and he offered to pay only a small fraction of these liabilities. Because of his lengthy history of ignoring his tax obligations, the Appeals Office determined that acceptance of his offer could be viewed as condoning his ‘blatant disregard for voluntary compliance’ and that negative public reaction to acceptance of his offer could lead to ‘diminished future voluntary compliance’ by other taxpayers.”

The Tax Court bounced James, but it was willing to extend an olive branch:

We note that petitioner is free to submit to the IRS at any time, for its consideration and possible acceptance, a collection alternative in the form of an installment agreement, supported by the necessary financial information.”

Accepted OICs are available for public review. It is one thing to compromise someone’s taxes because of disability, long-term illness and the similar. That is not James’ situation. The Court did not want to incentivize others by compromising for fourteen (or so) cents on the dollar with someone who blew-off the tax system for twenty years.

Our case this time was James R. O’Donnell v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-134

IRS To Review Partial Pay Installment Agreements

I am looking at a TIGTA  (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) report on partial pay installment agreements. Let’s talk about what these are, and how the report may matter to you.

If you pay the IRS over time, you are in an “installment agreement.” It may be that you do not have money to pay your 2012 tax in full, but you can pay it over 12 months. This is a vanilla payment plan, and you are paying all the tax – plus interest and penalties.

If you finances are truly pinched, the IRS may agree to a partial payment plan. The “partial” means that you will not – assuming the payments remain constant  – fully pay off your tax, interest and penalties. Say that you have 7 years left on a tax liability of $42,000. The most you can pay is $300 per month. Perhaps there has been a business reversal, a divorce, or a medical misfortune. The most you will repay at $300 per month is $25,200, which is far short of $42,000. The IRS knows going in that you will not be able to pay the liability in full.

How do you get the IRS to agree to this? You have to submit detailed personal financial information. Think bank statements, copies of W-2s, copies of household bills. Then there are tables, which the IRS will use. If your expenses exceed table amounts, the IRS will either disallow the excess or ask you for more detail. A common example is pet expenses. Little Bow-Wow may be your pride and joy, but good luck persuading the IRS for an additional allowance to feed Bow-Wow or take him/her to the veterinarian.

There is one more thing: the IRS is supposed to review your financial information every two years. There is a computerized first sweep against your tax information. If your financial situation shows improvement, then an IRS employee will physically review your file. If things have actually improved, you can expect a love letter asking for more.

TIGTA found that the IRS is not always performing these two-year reviews. It also found cases of insufficient financial information as well as missing manager sign-offs. The IRS agreed with TIGTA and stated its intention to beef-up its two-year review process, as well as its documentation and sign-off policies.

TIGTA also talked about the IRS “uncollectible” status, and recommended that the IRS try to bring some of those people into partial pay status. Also known as “CNC”, this status is supposedly reserved for the most broke of the broke. These are  individuals who cannot pay anything, so the IRS suspends all collection activity for a while. TIGTA recommended that the IRS review its CNC caseload to see if any of the CNC people could be transferred to partial pay. Interestingly, this was the one recommendation with which the IRS disagreed. The IRS felt that it had tried a comparable program, which failed to yield any significant results.

Can we expect more timely IRS reviews of partial-pays and CNC’s? I would normally say yes, but remember that Congress may yet decrease funding for the IRS pursuant to its 501(c)(4), Congressional obstruction and Fifth Amendment scandals. Consider also that the IRS will be hip-deep in ObamaCare starting next year - another explosive political issue. There may just be too many fires for the IRS to put out.

IRS Offers Penalty Relief for 2011

The IRS last week expanded its relief provisions for financially distressed taxpayers. Effective immediately, the IRS will abate its failure- to-pay penalties for 2011 taxpayers, as long as all taxes are paid by October 15, 2015. To qualify for this relief, you have to be:

·        A W-2 employee and unemployed for at least 30 consecutive days in 2011 or during the 3 ½ months ending April 15,2012, or

·        Self-employed and experiencing a contraction of at least 25% in 2011 business income.

The IRS was very quick to point out that this abatement is for the failure- to-pay penalty only. You still have to file a return by April 15, 2012.

NOTE: There are two “big” penalties when you do not file a return. The first is the failure-to-file penalty. The second is the failure-to-pay. Most tax advisors will counsel you to always file, even if you cannot pay. The failure-to-file penalty is 5% a month, ten times the failure-to-pay penalty of 1/2% a month.

There is a new form to request the abatement (Form 1127-A). The relief is also limited to incomes of $100,000 if you are single and $200,000 if you are married.

The other thing the IRS did is to double the income limitation for a streamlined installment agreement. The streamlined is a payment plan with the IRS. You now qualify if your assessed taxes are $50,000 or less. This is an increase from $25,000, which itself had recently been raised from $10,000. The advantage to the streamlined is that you do not have to provide financial information to the IRS.

The payment term for the streamlined was also increased – from five years to six.