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.

  

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

Owing Partnership Tax As A Partner

 

We have wrapped-up (almost) another filing season here at Galactic Command. I include “almost” as we have nonprofit 990s due next month, but for the most part the heavy lifting is done.

Tax seasons 2020 and 2021 have been a real peach.

I am looking at a tax case that mirrors a conversation I was having with one of our CPAs two or three days ago. He was preparing a return for someone with significant partnership investments. The two I looked at are commonly described as “trader” partnerships.

The tax reporting for trader partnerships can be confusing, especially for younger practitioners. A normal investment partnership buys and sells stocks and securities, collects interest and dividends and has capital gains or losses along the way. The tax reporting shows interest and dividends and capital gains and losses – in short, it makes sense.

The trader partnership adds one more thing: it actively buys and sells stocks and securities as a business activity, so to speak. Think of it as a day trader as opposed to a long-term investor. The tax issue is that one has interest, dividends and capital gains and losses from the trader side as well as the nontrader side. The trader partnership separates the two, with the result that trading dividends (as an example) might be reported somewhere different on the Schedule K-1 from nontrading dividends. If you don’t know the theory, it doesn’t make sense.

The two partnerships pumped out meaningful taxable income.

What they did not do was pump out equivalent cash distributions. In fact, I would say that the partnerships distributed approximately enough cash to pay the taxes thereon, assuming that the partner was near the highest tax bracket.

The client had issues with the draft tax return.

Why?

There was no way he could have that much income as he did not receive that much cash.

And therein is a lesson in partnership taxation.

Let’s take a look at the Dodd case.

Dodd was the office manager at a D.C. law firm. The firm specialized in real estate and construction law.

She in turn became a 33.5% member in a partnership (Cadillac) transacting in – wait on it – the purchase, leasing and sale of real property. The other 66.5% partner was an attorney-partner in the law firm.

Routine so far.

Cadillac did well in 2013. Her share of gains from property sales was over a $1 million. Her cash distributions were approximately $200 grand.

Got it: 20 cents on the dollar.

When she prepared her individual return, she included that $1 million-plus gain as well as partnership losses. She owed around $170 grand with the return.

She did not send a check for the amount due.

The case has been bogged-down in tax procedure for several years. The IRS wanted its tax, and Dodd in turn requested Collections (CDP) hearings. We have had three rounds of back-and-forth, with the result that we are still talking about the case in 2021.

Her argument?

Simple. She had never received the $1 million. The money instead went to the bank to pay down a line of credit.

This is going to turn out badly for Dodd.

At 30 thousand feet, partnership taxation is relatively intuitive. A partnership does not pay taxes itself. Rather it files a tax return, and the partners in the partnership are allocated their share of the income and are themselves responsible for paying taxes on that share.

The complexity in partnership taxation comes primarily from how one allocates the income, as tax attorneys and CPAs have had decades to bend the rules.

Notice that I did not say anything about cash distributions.

Mind you, it is bad business to pump-out taxable income without distributing cash to cover the tax, but it is unlikely that a partnership will distribute cash exactly equal to its income. Why? Here are a couple of reasons that come immediately to mind:

·      Depreciation

The partnership buys something and depreciates it. It is likely that the depreciation (which follows tax rules) will not equal the cash payments for whatever was bought.

·      Debt

Any cash used to repay the bank is cash not available to distribute to the partners.

There is, by the way, a technique to discourage creditors of a partner from taking a partner’s partnership interest. Why would a creditor do this? To get to those distributions, of course.

There is a legal issue here, however. Let’s say that you, me and Lucy decided to form a partnership. Lucy has financial difficulties, and one of her creditors takes over her partnership interest. You and I did not form a partnership with Lucy’s creditor; we formed a partnership with Lucy. That creditor cannot just come in and force you and me to be partners with him/her. The best the creditor can do is get a “charging order,” which means the creditor receives only the right to Lucy’s distributions. The creditor cannot otherwise vote, demand the sale of assets or force the termination of the partnership.

What do you and I do in response to the new guy?

The creditor will have to report Lucy’s share of the partnership income, of course.

We in turn make no distributions to Lucy - or to the new guy. The partnership distributes to you and me, but that creditor is on his/her own. Sorry. Not. Go away.

As you can guess, creditors are not big fans of going after debtor partnership interests.

Back to Dodd.

What did the Court say?

No matter the reason for nondistribution, each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share.”

To restate:

Each partner is taxed on the its distributive share of partnership income without regard to whether the income is actually distributed.”

Dodd had no hope with this argument.

Maybe she would have better luck with her Collections appeal, but that is not the topic of our discussion this time.

We have been discussing Dodd v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-118.

Becoming Personally Liable For An Estate’s Taxes

 

I had lunch with a friend recently. He is executor for an estate and was telling me about some … questionable third-party behavior and document discoveries. I left the conversation underwhelmed with his attorney and recommending a replacement as soon as possible. There are two other beneficiaries to this estate, and he has a fiduciary responsibility as executor.

Granted, all are family and get along. The risk - it seems to me - is minimal.

It is not always that way. I have a client whose family was ripped apart by an inheritance. I shake my head, as there was not enough money there (methinks) to spat over, much less exact lifelong grudges. However, he was executor and so-and-so received such-and-such back when Carter first started making liver pills and he should have offset someone for … oh, who knows.

Being executor can be a thankless job.

It can also get one into trouble.

Let’s take a look at the Lee estate.

Kwang Lee died testate in September, 2001.

         COMMENT: Testate means someone died with a will.

A municipal court judge was named executor.

The judge filed the estate return in May, 2003.

COMMENT: The return was late, but there was some complexity as both spouses died within six months. There was language in the will about a-spouse-is-considered-to-survive-if that created some confusion.

COMMENT: It doesn’t matter. You know the IRS is coming in with penalties.

The IRS audited the return.

 In April 2006 the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for over $1,000,000. 

COMMENT: The IRS also wanted a penalty over $255 grand for late filing.

The executor filed with the Tax Court.

 In February, 2007 the executor distributed $640,000 to the beneficiaries.

COMMENT: Pause on what happened here. The IRS wanted additional tax and penalties. The executor was contesting this in Tax Court. The issue was live when the executor distributed the money.

Is there a risk?

You bet.

What if the estate lost its case and did not have enough money left to pay the tax and penalties?

The Tax Court gave the executor a partial win: the estate owed closer to a half million dollars than a million. The Court also waived the penalties.

The estate did not have a half million dollars. It did have $182,941.

The estate submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS for $182,941.

The IRS looked at the offer and said: are you kidding me? What about that $640,000 you distributed before its time?

The IRS pointed out this bad boy:

31 U.S. Code § 3713.Priority of Government claims

(a)

(1) A claim of the United States Government shall be paid first when—

(A) a person indebted to the Government is insolvent and—

(i) the debtor without enough property to pay all debts makes a voluntary assignment of property;

(ii) property of the debtor, if absent, is attached; or

(iii) an act of bankruptcy is committed; or

(B) the estate of a deceased debtor, in the custody of the executor or administrator, is not enough to pay all debts of the debtor.

(2) This subsection does not apply to a case under title 11.

(b) A representative of a person or an estate (except a trustee acting under title 11) paying any part of a debt of the person or estate before paying a claim of the Government is liable to the extent of the payment for unpaid claims of the Government. 

The effect of Section 3713 is to make the executor personally liable for a debt to the U.S. when: 

o  The estate was rendered insolvent by a distribution, and

o  The executor had knowledge or notice of the government’s claim at the time of the distribution.

The judge/executor did the only thing he could do: he challenged the charge that he had actual knowledge of a deficiency when he distributed the $640,000.

The executor was hosed. I am not sure what more of a wake-up-call the executor needed than an IRS Notice of Deficiency. For goodness’ sake, he filed a petition with the Tax Court in response.

Maybe he thought that he would win in Tax Court.

He did, by the way, but partially. The tax was cut in half, and the penalties were waived.

Notice that the estate would not have had enough money had it lost the case in full. The tax would have been over a million, with additional penalties of a quarter million. Under the best of circumstances, the estate would have had cash of approximately $822 thousand and unable to pay in full.

In that case I doubt Section 3713 would have applied. The estate would have conserved its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

But the estate did not conserve its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

The executor became personally liable.

Mind you, this may work out. Perhaps the beneficiaries return the cash; perhaps there is a claim under a performance bond.

Still, why would an executor – especially a skilled attorney and municipal judge – go there?

Our case this time was Estate of Lee v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-92.

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.

IRS Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED)

 I consider it odd.

I have two files in my office waiting on the collection statute of limitations to expire.

It is not a situation I often see.

Audits, penalty abatements, payment plans, offers and innocent spouse requests are more common.

Let’s talk about the running of the collection statute of limitations.

COMMENT: I do not consider this to be valid tax planning, and I am quite reluctant to represent someone who starts out by intending to do the run. That said, sometimes unfortunate things happen. We will discuss the topic in the spirit of the latter.

Let’s set up the two statutes of limitations:

(1) The first is the statute on assessment. This is the familiar 3-year rule: the IRS has 3 years to audit and the taxpayer has 3 years to amend.

COMMENT: I do not want to include the word “generally” every time, as it will get old. Please consider the modifier “generally” as unspoken but intended.

(2)  The second is the statute on collections. This period is 10 years.

We might conversationally say that the period can therefore go 13 years. That would be technically incorrect, as there would be two periods running concurrently. Let’s consider the following example:

·      You filed your individual tax return on April 15, 2020. You owed $1,000 above and beyond your withholdings and estimates.

·      The IRS audited you on September 20, 2022. You owed another $4,000.

·      You have two periods going:

o  The $1,000 ends on April 15, 2030 (2020 + 10 years).

o  The $4,000 ends on September 20, 2032 (2022 + 10 years).

Alright, so we have 10 years. The expiration of this period is referred to as the “Collection Statute Expiration Date” or “CSED”.

When does it start?

Generally (sorry) when you file the return. Say you extend and file the return on August 15. Does the period start on August 15?

No.

The period starts when the IRS records the return.

Huh?

It is possible that it might be the same date. It is more possible that it will be a few days after you filed. A key point is that the IRS date trumps your date.

How would you find this out?

Request a transcript from the IRS. Look for the following code and date:

                  Code          Explanation

                    150           Tax return filed

Start your 10 years.

BTW if you file your return before April 15, the period starts on April 15, not the date you filed. This is a special rule.

Can the 10 years be interrupted or extended?

Oh yes. Welcome to tax procedure.

The fancy 50-cent word is “toll,” as in “tolling” the statute. The 10-year period is suspended while certain things are going on. What is going on is that you are probably interacting with the IRS.

OBSERVATION: So, if you file your return and never interact with the IRS – I said interact, not ignore – the statute will (generally – remember!) run its 10 years.

How can you toll the statute?

Here are some common ways:

(1)  Ask for an installment payment plan

Do this and the statute is tolled while the IRS is considering your request.

(2)  Get turned down for an installment payment plan

                  Add 30 days to (1) (plus Appeals, if you go there).

(3)  Blow (that is, prematurely end) an installment payment plan

Add another 30 days to (1) (plus Appeals, if you go there).

(4)  Submit an offer in compromise

The statute is tolled while the IRS is considering your request, plus 30 days.

(5)  Military service in a combat zone

The statute is tolled while in the combat zone, plus 180 days.

(6)  File for bankruptcy

The statute is tolled from the date the petition is filed until the date of discharge, plus 6 months.

(7)  Request innocent spouse status

The statute is tolled from the date the petition is filed until the expiration of the 90-day letter to petition the Tax Court. If one does petition the Court, then the toll continues until the final Court decision, plus 60 days.

(8)  Request a Collections Due Process hearing

The statute is tolled from the date the petition is filed until the hearing date.

(9)  Request assistance from the Taxpayer Advocate

The statute is tolled while the case is being worked by the Taxpayer Advocate’s office.

Unfortunately, I have been leaning on CDP hearings quite a bit in recent years, meaning that I am also extending my client’s CSED. I have one in my office as I write this, for example. I have lost hope that standard IRS procedure will resolve the matter, not to mention that IRS systems are operating sub-optimally during COVID. I am waiting for the procedural trigger (the “Final Notice. Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing”) allowing the appeal. I am not concerned about the CSED for this client, so the toll is insignificant.

There are advanced rules, of course. An example would be overlapping tolling periods. We are not going there in this post.

Let’s take an example of a toll.

You file your return on April 15, 2015. You request a payment plan on September 5, 2015. The IRS grants it on October 10, 2015. Somethings goes wobbly and the IRS terminates the plan. You request a Collection Due Process hearing on June 18, 2019. The hearing is resolved on November 25, 2019.

Let’s assume the IRS posting date is April 15, 2015.

Ten years is April 15, 2025.

It took 36 days to approve the payment plan.

The plan termination automatically adds 30 days.

The CDP took 161 days.

What do you have?

April 15, 2025 … plus 36 days is May 21, 2025.

Plus 30 days is June 20, 2025.

Plus 161 days is November 28, 2025.

BTW there are situations where one might extend the CSED separate and apart from the toll. Again, we are not going there in this post.

Advice from a practitioner: do not cut this razor sharp, especially if there are a lot of procedural transactions on the transcript. Some tax practitioners will routinely add 4 or 5 weeks to their calculation, for example. I add 30 days simply for requesting an installment payment plan, even though the toll is not required by the Internal Revenue Manual.  I have seen the IRS swoop-in when there are 6 months or so of CSED remaining, but not when there are 30 days.

Talking Frankly About Offers In Compromise

I am reading a case involving an offer in compromise (OIC).

In general, I have become disinclined to do OIC work.

And no, it is not just a matter of being paid. I will accept discounted or pro bono work if someone’s story moves me. I recently represented a woman who immigrated from Thailand several years ago to marry an American. She filed a joint tax return for her first married year, and – sure enough – the IRS came after her when her husband filed bankruptcy. When we met, her English was still shaky, at best. She wanted to return to Thailand but wanted to resolve her tax issue first. She was terrified.   

I was upset that the IRS went after an immigrant for her first year filing U.S. taxes ever, who had limited command of the language, who was mostly unable to work because of long-term health complications and who was experiencing visible - even to me - stress-related issues.

Yes, we got her innocent spouse status. She has since returned to Thailand.

Back to offers in compromise.

There are two main reasons why I shy from OIC’s:

(1) I cannot get you pennies-on-the-dollar.

You know what I am taking about: those late-night radio or television commercials.

Do not get me wrong: it can happen. Take someone who has his/her earning power greatly reduced, say by an accident. Add in an older person, meaning fewer earning years remaining, and one might get to pennies on the dollar.

I do not get those clients.

I was talking with someone this past week who wants me to represent his OIC. He used to own a logistics business, but the business went bust and he left considerable debt in his wake. He is now working for someone else.

Facts: he is still young; he is making decent money; he has years of earning power left.

Question: Can he get an OIC?

Answer: I think there is a good chance, as his overall earning power is down.

Can he get pennies on the dollar?

He is still young; he is making decent money; he has years of earning power left. How do you think the IRS will view that request?

(2) The multi-year commitment to an OIC.

When you get into a payment plan with the IRS, there is an expectation that you will improve your tax compliance. The IRS has dual goals when it makes a deal:

(a)  Collect what it can (of course), and

(b)  Get you back into the tax system.

Get into an OIC and the IRS expects you to stay out of trouble for 5 years. 

So, if you are self-employed the IRS will expect you to make quarterly estimates. If you routinely owe, it will want you to increase your withholding so that you don’t owe. That is your end of the deal.

I have lost count of the clients over the years who did not hold-up their end of the deal.  I remember one who swung by Galactic Command to lament how he could not continue his IRS payment plan and then asked me to step outside to see his new car.

Folks, there is little to nothing that a tax advisor can do for you in that situation. It is frustrating and – frankly – a waste of time.

Let’s look at someone who tried to run the five-year gauntlet.

Ed and Cynthia Sadjadi wound up owing for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

They got an installment plan.

Then they flipped it to an OIC.

COMMENT: What is the difference? In a vanilla installment plan, you pay back the full amount of taxes. Perhaps the IRS cuts you some slack with penalties, but they are looking to recoup 100% of the taxes. In an OIC, the IRS is acknowledging that they will not get 100% of the taxes.

The Sadjadis were good until they filed their 2015 tax return. They then owed tax.

The reasoned that they had paid-off the vast majority if not all of their 2008 through 2011 taxes. They lived-up to their end of the deal. They now needed a new payment plan.

Makes sense, right?

And what does sense have to do with taxes?

The Court reminded them of what they signed way back when:

I will file tax returns and pay the required taxes for the five-year period beginning with the date and acceptance of this offer.

The IRS will not remove the original amount of my tax debt from its records until I have met all the terms and conditions of this offer.

If I fail to meet any of the terms of this offer, the IRS may levy or sue me to collect …..

The Court was short and sweet. What part of “five-year period” did the Sadjadis not understand?

Those taxes that the IRS wrote-off with the OIC?

Bam! They are back.

Yep. That is how it works.

Our case this time was Sadjadi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-58.