Identity Theft and A Tax Deficiency

 

To me it reads like a nightmare.

Brendan Bettis wanted to file his 2022 tax return. He had worked in 2021 for several employers, including Federal Express, DoorDash and Instacart. In April 2023 he saw a social media post recommending a tax preparer. Bettis called the phone number.

He spoke with someone. She instructed him to provide further information, including his W-2s, Forms 1099, social security number and bank account information through an online portal.

He - of course - heard nothing back for months.

COMMENT: I may be betraying my age, but hiring a professional sight unseen and through a website is unacceptable. Sending confidential information is less so. Even working among CPAs, I have known practitioners which I would not personally use and which I could not refer. To be fair, though, I suspect this one was a professional as much as I am a deep-sea diver.

In April 2023 she filed a 2022 Form 1040 reflecting Bettis’ name and social security number.

He did not know about it, much less authorize it. The return was signed by a Ms. Victoria Jackson of Cypress, Texas. Bettis never met her in person.

The return did show the W-2s, but then it became a work of fiction. It showed Bettis’ occupation as “landscaping,” as well as household wages of $21,108. The return also claimed a fuel tax credit of $23,790 for the off-highway use of 130,000 gallons of gasoline. I presume that is how and why “landscaping” entered the story.

At 130,000 gallons Bettis might as well have been installing a pipeline.

I suppose he was getting a surprise tax refund.

Nope.

Ms. Jackson, or someone in her employ, wanted to receive a “refund product.” This means that Jackson and/or her firm would receive some/all of the refund. The refund was to be sent to a bank Bettis did not know.

The IRS processed the return in June 2023.

It made three adjustments:

• The IRS applied $5,561 of the refund to offset Bettis’ 2015 tax liability.
• It next used $1,077 to offset his remaining 2018 tax liability.
• It then used the remainder of the refund to satisfy Bettis’ past-due child support.

Ms. Jackson – or someone in her employ – was furious. She/they demanded that Bettis pay his tax preparation fee.

Righhttt.

Eventually the IRS figured it out. In May 2025 the IRS sent Bettis a Notice of Deficiency for $24,780.

Which is how we got into Tax Court.

The IRS and Bettis agreed that the correct tax was $1,263. The court case was about the difference - $23,517.

And the key was the tax definition of the word “deficiency.”

26 U.S. Code § 6211 - Definition of a deficiency

(a) In general For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term “deficiency” means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of—

(1) the sum of

(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus

(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over—

(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made. 

(b) Rules for application of subsection (a) For purposes of this section—

(1) The tax imposed by subtitle A and the tax shown on the return shall both be determined without regard to payments on account of estimated tax, without regard to the credit under section 31, without regard to the credit under section 33, and without regard to any credits resulting from the collection of amounts assessed under section 6851 or 6852 (relating to termination assessments).

(2) The term “rebate” means so much of an abatement, credit, refund, or other repayment, as was made on the ground that the tax imposed by subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 was less than the excess of the amount specified in subsection (a)(1) over the rebates previously made.  

The IRS came in hot. The fuel tax credit was the “rebate” referred to in Section 6211(b)(2). A rebate increases a deficiency (via the arithmetic of 6211(a)(2). Give me my money, said the IRS.

The Tax Court was not persuaded.

The Court reasoned that – before a 6211(b)(2) argument could be made – a Section 6211(a)(1)(A) argument must be made: the amount shown as tax by the taxpayer on his return.

Issue: Bettis was scammed. He never filed an authorized return. No real tax return was filed meaning no real tax was shown by the taxpayer on his return.

The IRS could not get past Section 6211(a)(1)(A) to get to the Section 6211(b)(2) it wanted.

The Court explained its reasoning:

• A fraudster obtains confidential information and files a false return seeking a refund to the fraudster’s bank account.
• The taxpayer has no idea. In fact, taxpayer does not even have to file a return.
• The IRS issues the refund.
• The IRS catches its mistake. It wants its money back from the defrauded taxpayer.

Nope. Can’t. What we have just described does not rise to the level of a “deficiency” that the IRS can pursue against the taxpayer.

The Court decided that the correct deficiency was $1,263, to which both sides had previously agreed.

Our case this time was Bettis v Commissioner, US Tax Court, Docket No. 6560-25S, dtd 9.25.26

Odd Reason To Be In Tax Court

 

Not all accountants practice tax.

To the contrary, I suspect most accountants do not. The confusion, I suspect, has to do with the CPA license. One associates the license with practicing at a CPA firm, but that is not necessarily true. Most accountants do not practice at a firm, and just practicing at a firm does not mean that one works tax. I have worked with a firm my entire career, and there have been many CPAs – auditors, forensics, valuation experts and so on – who have little crossover with tax. Step outside a firm – say internal audit or accounting at a corporate employer – and those numbers only increase.

I am looking at a pro se case in the Tax Court.

We have discussed pro se many times. It is commonly described as a taxpayer representing himself/herself before the Court. That technically is not true. A taxpayer can have professional representation and still be considered pro se. What it means is that the representative does not have a license to independently practice before the Court. The representative can act as an agent, advocating for and advising a taxpayer, but without that license the taxpayer is still considered pro se.

That license requires one to pass an exam, and the Tax Court exam is commonly considered one of the more challenging exams in tax practice. The exam BTW is not about tax law; rather it is about rules and procedures at the Tax Court. I have been involved in this area for decades, and I admit that those rules and procedures can be a bit … arcane.

Eva Zaczek finds herself in Tax Court. There is only one issue: how much does she owe? The answer in turn depends on how much of her Affordable Care (that is, Obamacare) subsidy was overpaid and now has to be returned. The concept is straightforward: make little money and the subsidy might fully pay for the premiums; make too much money and there is no subsidy at all. The rub is that someone is applying for the subsidy early in the tax year, before knowing what income for the year will be. Take a promotion or job change or marriage – or just ignore the too-much-income issue altogether - and the numbers can swing hard.

The IRS sent Eva a Notice of Deficiency for $2,418.

COMMENT: Eva sent a handwritten tax return, and the IRS made mistakes reading her writing.  

To its credit, the IRS admitted its mistake and revised the balance due to $900.

Eva challenged the calculation.

The rub was line 11 of Form 8962 Premium Tax Credit.

Both Eva and the IRS agreed that the number in box 11(b) should be $7,294.

This box represents the maximum premium that can be subsidized.

Both agreed that box 11(c) should be $9,057.

This amount represents the amount of premium the taxpayer is expected to pay himself/herself, without subsidy.

Eva calculated box 11(d) as $1,763 ($9,057 - $7,294).

Eva got the numbers reversed. Box 11(d) should be minus $1,763 ($7,294 - $9,057).

So?

If you read the instructions, box 11(d) cannot go below zero ($-0-).

Eva was convinced she owed the IRS $1,763.

The IRS said no, no: you only owe us $900.

And Eva was in Court arguing that she owed the $1,763 and not the $900 the IRS was seeking.

Here is the Court:

      

I will spare both of us the difference in tax law between a “deficiency” and a “balance due,” other than to point out the IRS notice that got Eva into Tax Court is called a Notice of Deficiency.

Pro se cases have a reputation for being entertaining, and we have looked at a number of them over the years.

But to go to Tax Court to argue that one owes more than the IRS wants? And this action from an accountant?

I consider this to be shade: 

I truly, truly hope that Eva doesn’t practice anywhere near a tax return.

This time we talked about Eva Zaczek v Commissioner, docket 4667-25S, filed 7/15/26.

Deducting Business Interest From Personal Credit Cards

The case caught my eye because it involves a very common fact pattern:

A small business owner obtains credit cards in his/her personal name and uses it/them for business purchases and activities.

Question: Can the business deduct the interest on the credit cards?

I doubt that there is a tax practitioner out there that hasn’t deducted this, but a recent case points out minimum requirements in case the IRS challenges the deduction.

Let’s look at C.A. Simmons, TC Memo 2026-34.

I admit that I was expecting some technical dive into the interest deduction, but this case is not that. It is a reminder that one has to get to first base before being able to reach home plate. Strike out and the rest is meaningless.

Cathryn Simmons and her sister owned a specialty store (called Stuff) in Kansas City, Missouri. They had sold handmade and small-batch goods since 1996. As is too common, Stuff struggled to obtain credit in its own name, so the sisters used personal credit cards and loans to finance the business. They used QuickBooks for their accounting, and they did try to segregate the credit cards between those used for business and those used personally.  

COMMENT: I suspect most clients I have advised can remember my standard sermon:

·      Establish a separate business account. Business deposits and expenses go through the business account. Personal expenses do not. I understand that the bank is going to charge for a business account, and it might be cheaper to lean into a personal account. Do not do that. You already incurred that expense when you started the business.

·      I understand that you might not be able to get a credit card in the business name and may have to use a personal card. Use one card for business and the rest for personal. Do not intermingle the two.

·      If you are using a personal card, I might have the business recognize it as a loan from you. We will formalize it with a note, mention an interest rate and make some reference to repayment. Do not be surprised if the interest rate on the note is the same as the credit card.

·      Keep records of all business deposits and expenses. At a minimum, buy an expanding file and file the paperwork by month. When we finish the tax return for the year, combine the return and its paperwork into a file or folder for the year, and hold onto it.

Back to Stuff.

The IRS looked at the 2017 business return and 2017 and 2019 personal returns. They expanded the business audit to include cost of goods sold, advertising, vehicle expenses, travel, meals and entertainment, charitable and promotion, and interest. We will discuss only the interest deduction today.

Stuff field a partnership return, and each sister’s share of the 2017 business profit was less than $3 grand.

There was a little chop with the interest deduction because it included both interest on the credit cards and interest on the personal loans. I point it out because the Court says the following about the personal loans:

As an initial matter, … fails to establish that the purported interest amounts Stuff paid to her and her sister arose from Stuff’s own indebtedness. The record contains promissory notes … but no ‘loan papers’ establishing Stuff’s indebtedness to the sisters.”

… we cannot conclude from these payments and the sisters’ testimony that Stuff had an actual legal obligation to pay interest to them.”

I get it but … harsh. I suppose Stuff was not following the terms of the promissory notes. We would - of course - redraft the terms of the notes. This is low hanging fruit.

What about the credit cards?

Ms. Simmons likewise fails to demonstrate that Stuff was entitled to deduct the credit card interest and finance charges recorded on its QuickBooks account. The evidence shows that Ms. Simmons obtained and used credit cards in her own name to finance Stuff’s business expenses given its inability to obtain credit on its own. Ms. Simmons fails to show that any credit card interest and finance charges constituted Stuff’s own indebtedness rather than her personal indebtedness, and thus no deduction is appropriate.”

Stop. I am having a problem here, as I am quite aware of Reg 1.163-8T.

Seems to me that if (1) I trace a business expense from the credit card statement to (2) the QuickBooks, I have at least a good chance of meeting the requirement that “debt is allocated by tracing the disbursements of the debt proceeds to specific expenditures.”

Back to the Court:

Assuming arguendo that credit cards opened by Ms. Simmons constituted an indebtedness of Stuff, the records before us would not substantiate the amounts claimed. Although the sisters testified that they used the six designated credit cards exclusively for Stuff’s expenses, they failed to establish the amounts and business purposes of the underlying expenditures that resulted in the interest and finance charges at issue.”

They failed to establish the amounts and business purposes …?

I believe two things happened here:

(1)  Stuff could not document a lot of expenses. On quick review, I see the IRS disallowing almost $13 grand of vehicle expenses, $22 grand of charitable and promotion expenses, and so on.

(2)  If those expenses ran through the credit cards, then I understand an allocable portion of the interest being disallowed.

However, the Court just nixed the interest deduction altogether.

Seems to me that some of the credit card interest – that allocable to deductions allowed – should be deductible. I presume the accounting was not clean enough to do a side calculation. The IRS will rarely play forensic, and the Tax Court certainly will not.

The Court did reemphasize that it wanted to see linkage between the business activity and the credit cards, but that has been the rule since I have been practicing. There is nothing new here. Somebody just forgot to get on first base.