The IRS Causing Economic Hardship

 

It is a famous case. It is also an example of different Collection rules not playing well together.

We find Kathleen Vinatieri and the IRS in Tax Court.

Life had been unkind to Kathleen:

I don’t know what you want to know cause I do not understand all the legal stuff you sent me. I can’t afford a lawyer. And the closest legal aid is in Knoxville 30 miles away. My poor car will not go that far.”

The IRS was chasing her 2002 federal taxes.

She requested a Collection hearing.

When the Settlement Officer (SO) asked Kathleen whether she wanted a payment plan, she replied that she could not pay. She had $14 in the bank; a 1996 Toyota with 243,000 miles and worth $300; she had pulmonary fibrosis; was dying; and was taking care of kids.

COMMENT:  This is a sad case to read and extremely unflattering to the IRS. It should have drawn an immediate currently not collectible (CNC) status.

The SO agreed on CNC status, but there was a problem: The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) required one to have filed all tax returns before obtaining CNC status. Kathleen had not filed 2005. She had tried, but the payroll company that (was supposed to) issue her a W-2 had gone out of business. She had previously contacted the IRS for a transcript, but the IRS had no information on that W-2 either.

You can see the issue. Unless Kathleen had retained that last 2005 pay stub, there was no way for her to file that tax return. The IRS could not help, as they did not have a copy of the W-2 either. Kathleen was stranded.

BTW, the IRM is internal to the IRS.

Here is the Regulation – and external to the IRS.

§ 301.6343-1 Requirement to release levy and notice of release.

(a) In general. A district director, service center director, or compliance center director (director) must promptly release a levy upon all, or part of, property or rights to property levied upon and must promptly notify the person upon whom the levy was made of such a release, if the director determines that any of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section (conditions requiring release) exist. The director must make a determination whether any of the conditions requiring release exist if a taxpayer submits a request for release of levy in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section; however, the director may make this determination based upon information received from a source other than the taxpayer. The director may require any supporting documentation as is reasonably necessary to determine whether a condition requiring release exists.

(b) Conditions requiring release. The director must release the levy upon all or a part of the property or rights to property levied upon if he or she determines that one of the following conditions exists—

(1) Liability satisfied or unenforceable

(2) Release will facilitate collection.

(3) Installment agreement.

(4) Economic hardship—(i) General rule. The levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of an individual taxpayer. This condition applies if satisfaction of the levy in whole or in part will cause an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay his or her reasonable basic living expenses. The determination of a reasonable amount for basic living expenses will be made by the director and will vary according to the unique circumstances of the individual taxpayer. Unique circumstances, however, do not include the maintenance of an affluent or luxurious standard of living.

The Regulation requires the IRS to release a levy in the event of economic hardship. There was no question that Kathleen was in economic hardship. It seems absurd to issue a levy under the IRM to only have it stayed by a Regulation – that is, if Kathleen had the staying power to continue her fight against IRS Collections.

Which one overrides: the IRM or the Regulation?

The Tax Court decided:

A determination in a hardship case to proceed with a levy that must immediately be released is unreasonable and undermines public confidence that tax laws are being administered fairly.”

Well, fairly and sanely, I would add.

In a section 6330 pre-levy hearing, if the taxpayer has provided information that establishes the proposed levy will create economic hardship, the settlement officer cannot go forward with the levy and must consider an alternative.”

The Regulations to the Code take precedence over an internal IRS publication. The IRS cannot itself cause economic hardship when pursuing a levy. It took time and treasure, but the Court eventually got to the correct result.

I note that the reason for nonfiling was likely important. In this case the payroll company had gone out of business, and even the IRS did not have a copy of the W-2. Consequently, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Tax Court questioned whether Kathleen was acting in good faith. Substitute a taxpayer who simply refused to file – an extreme example would be a protestor – and I doubt the result would be the same.

Our case this time was Vinatieri v Commissioner, 133 T.C. 392 (2009).

No Penalty Abatement When Taxes Not Paid For Years

 

I am looking at a case where the taxpayers wanted penalty abatement for reasonable cause.

I have been cynical for years about the IRS allowing reasonable cause, but let’s read on.

The Koncurats owed for years 2005, 2006 and 2010 through 2016.

CTG: There is a donut in there from 2007 through 2009. I wonder what happened?

For the years at issue Stephen Koncurat owned his own company in the insurance industry. Tamara Koncurat maintained their home and raised four children.

The interest and penalties added up, exceeding $670 grand. To their credit, the Koncurats did not argue the tax due. They did feel, however, that penalty abatement was warranted because “circumstances largely beyond his control” prevented them from meeting their tax obligations.

There were a lot of years involved, though. What were those circumstances?

·      Around 2007 or 2008 Stephen had six rental properties foreclosed.

COMMENT: Got it. That was the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the near implosion of the American housing market.

·      From 2010 to 2011 Stephen’s income dropped sharply from over $450K to about $96K.

·      There was a stretch where they could not even afford to make their house payment. Stephen’s father made the payments for them. 

OBSERVATION: This is years after 2005 and 2006, however. I can see going into a payment plan, then negotiating with the IRS to reduce or interrupt payments because of subsequent events cratering one’s income. It is not the easiest thing to do, but it can be done. 

·      Around 2014 or 2015 Stephen broke his back.

·      In 2018 he was diagnosed with cancer and a blocked artery.

·      He thereafter underwent three major surgeries and attended over 100 medical appointments.

He continued to work, as best he could., They reported the following income:

         2005          $274,359

         2006          $251,902

         2010          $462,455

         2011          $95,974

         2012          $71,847

         2013          $109,072

2014          $171,648

2015          $207,398

2016          $314,491                              

I get it. The 2011 through 2013 tax years were aberrant.

I am impressed how well he did during the broken back, cancer and surgery years, though.

Stephen voluntarily paid $1,500 a month to the IRS.

Good.

Starting January 2020.

What? Starting …??

I admit, this is going to be a problem. Unexpected circumstances can knock you off your feet. Maybe you don’t file or pay for a couple of years, but there is a beginning and end to the story. Somewhere in there the IRS – and reasonable cause – expects you to put on your big boy pants and try to comply. Hopefully you can file and pay, but maybe all you can do is file. Fine, then file and request a payment plan. Will the IRS be unreasonable? Of course. What if they want more than you can pay? Then request a Collections Due Process hearing.

The point is: get back into the system.

If you don’t, then reasonable cause – hard to obtain under regular circumstances – takes a step up the difficulty ladder. You now have to present “unavoidable obstacles” to your compliance.

Short of being in a coma or Marvel Universe superheroes destroying your city, that “unavoidable” threshold is going to be near-nigh impossible to meet.

Here is the Court:

·      They have alleged no details sufficient to support a finding that any of the hardships they experienced actually presented unavoidable obstacles.”

·      Further, the Koncurats have not alleged … that they ‘didn’t have [the money] or couldn’t keep [the installment plan] going…’”

·      While the family’s financial troubles were significant at times, the record reflects that they have had consistent access to financial resources throughout the years at issue.”

·      They were … contributing tuition, housing and wedding expenses to children….”

That last one doesn’t make sense for broke people.

·      Stephen Koncurat earned more than one million dollars in income in 2019, and again in 2021.”

So we are not talking about broke people. Broke people do not make a million dollars a year.

The Court wanted to know why – with that million dollars – they did not clean-up their tax debt – or at least a chunk of it – rather than delaying payment and tying up the Court’s time.

There was no reasonable cause for the Koncurats. Heck, one could have looked at the extended failure to pay and instead concluded that there was willful neglect.

Meaning no penalty abatement.

No surprise there.

The Koncurats dug themselves a hole by letting the matter go on long enough to attend high school. The likelihood of reasonable cause over that much time was minimal, but I do think that there was something they could have done to improve their odds.

What would that have been?

Take that $1 million dollars and pay the IRS.

They would then have gone before the Court and argued that they had a bad stretch, causing them to fail in their obligations and run afoul of the tax system. However, when their fortune improved, the first party they took care of was … the IRS.

Would this have allowed reasonable cause? Financial difficulties generally do not lead to eligibility for reasonable cause relief.

But it would not have hurt. It also would have lifted the needle off zero and given the Court something specific to support a taxpayer-favorable determination.  

Our case this time was United States v Koncurat, USDC MD, Case No 1:21-cv-00676.

A Penalty Against A Tax Preparer

 

Did you know that the IRS can assess penalties against a tax preparer as well as a taxpayer?

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum recommending a preparer be penalized for a deduction on a client return.

You do not see that every day.

Let’s talk about it.

As is our way, we will streamline the issue so that it is something you might want to read and something I might want to write.

A taxpayer accrued expenses on its books for customer early payment discounts and estimated write-offs for disputed billing and shipping charges.

Sure, easy for a CPA to say.

Let’s clarify. The company sold stuff. It allowed discounts if a customer paid early. It also had routine billing disputes – for quantity, quality, price, damage and so on. As part of its general accounting, it estimated these charges and recorded them as expenses when the related sale was recorded.

Makes sense to me. Generally accepted accounting wants one to record all related expenses when the sale is recorded. This is called the “timing principle,” and the idea is to present net profit from a sales transaction as well as reasonably possible. What if all the expenses are not known at that precise moment - say, for example - the amount of product that will be returned because of damage in shipping? Generally accepted accounting will allow one to estimate that number, normally by statistical analysis of historical experience.

BTW you better do this if you expect to have your financial statements audited. Part of an audit is a review of your accounting method, and the “estimate that number” described above is considered a best-of-breed.

Generally accepted accounting might not work when you get to your tax return, however. Why? Well, generally accepted accounting is trying to get to the “best” number in an economic sense. Tax accounting is not trying to get to the “best” number; rather, it is trying to measure your ability to pay. Pay what? Taxes, of course.

Let’s go back to our taxpayer. They estimated a bunch of expenses when they recorded a sale. They included those numbers on their financial statements. They then wanted to deduct those same numbers on their tax return.

Problem:

The taxpayer utilized statistics to record the expenses for the two items. The courts held that statistics were not a valid method to record the amounts.”

Their CPA firm had to review the accounting method and decide whether it was acceptable for tax purposes.

There is even a Code section and Regulations:

           Reg § 1.461-1. General rules for taxable year of deduction

(a)(2) Taxpayer using an accrual method.

(i) In general. Under an accrual method of accounting, a liability (as defined in §1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)) is incurred, and generally is taken into account for Federal income tax purposes, in the taxable year in which all the events have occurred that establish the fact of the liability, the amount of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and economic performance has occurred with respect to the liability. 

 

You see that last sentence and its reference to “economic performance?”

 

For generally accepted accounting, one must:

        

·      Establish the fact of the liability.

·      Measure the amount of the liability with reasonable accuracy.

 

Tax then adds one more requirement:

        

·      Economic performance on the liability must have occurred.

 

That third requirement is what slows down the tax deduction.

 

What is an example of economic performance?

 

Say that you record expenses for services related to the sale. Economic performance wants to see those services performed before allowing the deduction. What if you know - because it has happened millions of times before and can be calculated with near-arithmetic certainty – that the services will occur? Tax doesn’t care.  

 

But the auditors signed-off on the financial statements, you say. Doesn’t that mean that experts agreed that the accounting method was valid?      

A taxpayer’s conformity with its accrual method used for financial accounting purposes does not create a presumption that its tax accrual method clearly reflects income.”

And there you have a brief introduction to why a company’s financial statements and its tax return might show different numbers. Financial statement accounting and tax accounting serve different purposes, and those differences have real-world consequences.

 

In this situation, I side with the IRS. Work in a CPA firm for any meaningful period and you will see tax people repetitively “tweak” the audit people’s numbers. It happens so often it has a term: “M-1.” Schedule M-1 is a tax schedule that reconciles the profit per the financial statements to the profit per the tax return. The possible list of differences is near endless:

 

·      Entertainment

·      Depreciation

·      Allowance for uncollectible receivables

·      Accrued bonuses

·      Reserve for warranties

·      Deferred rent

·      Controlled foreign corporation income

·      Opportunity zone income

 

And on and on. Knowing these differences is part of being a tax pro.

 

The Chief Counsel wanted to know why the tax pros at this particular CPA firm did not know that this generally accepted accounting method would not work for purposes of the tax return.

 

To be fair, methinks, because it is complicated …?

 

No dice, said the Counsel’s office. The preparer should have known.

 

The items deducted constituted a substantial part of the return. 

TRANSLATION: It was a big deduction.

And therefore the preparer penalty is appropriate.  

TRANSLATION: Someone has to pay.

Mind you, a Chief Counsel memorandum is internal to the IRS. The taxpayer – and by extension, its CPA firm – might appeal the matter to the Tax Court. I would expect them to, frankly. The memorandum is just the IRS’ side.

For the home gamers, today we have been discussing Chief Counsel Memorandum 20223301F.

 

Abandoning A Partnership Interest

I suspect that most taxpayers know that there is a difference between long-term capital gains and ordinary income. Long-term capital gains receive a lower tax rate, incentivizing one to prefer long-terms gains, if at all possible.

Capital losses are not as useful. Capital losses offset capital gains, whether short-term or long-term. If one has net capital losses left over, then one can claim up to $3,000 of such losses to offset non-capital gain income (think your W-2).

That $3,000 number has not changed since I was in school.

And there is an example of a back-door tax increase. Congress has imposed an effective tax increase by not pegging the $3,000 to (at least) the rate of inflation for the last how-many decades. It is the same thing they have done with the threshold amount for the net investment income or the additional Medicare tax. It is an easy way to raise taxes without publicly raising taxes.

I am looking at a case where two brothers owned Edwin Watts Golf. Most of the stores were located on real estate also owned by the brothers, so the brothers owned two things: a golf supply business and the real estate it was housed in.

In 2003 a private equity firm (Wellspring) offered the brothers $93 million for the business. The brothers took the money (so would I), kept the real estate and agreed to certain terms, such as Wellspring having control over any sale of the business. The brothers also received a small partnership position with Wellspring.

Why did they keep the real estate? Because the golf businesses were paying rent, meaning that even more money went their way.

The day eventually came when Wellspring wanted out; that is what private equity does, after all. It was looking at two offers: one was with Dick’s Sporting Goods and the other with Sun Capital.  Dick’s Sporting already had its own stores and would have no need for the existing golf shop locations. The brothers realized that would be catastrophic for the easy-peasy rental income that was coming in, so they threw their weight behind the offer by Sun Capital.

Now, one does not own a private equity firm by being a dummy, so Wellspring wanted something in return for choosing Sun Capital over Dick’s Sporting.

Fine, said the brothers: you can keep our share of the sales proceeds.

The brothers did not run the proposed transaction past their tax advisor. This was unfortunate, as there was a tax trap waiting to spring.  

Generally speaking, the sale or exchange of a partnership interest results in capital gain or loss. The partners received no cash from the sale. Assuming they had basis (that is, money invested) in the partnership, the sale or exchange would have resulted in a capital loss.

Granted, one can use capital losses against capital gains, but that means one needs capital gains.   What if you do not have enough gains? Any gains? We then get back to an obsolete $3,000 per year allowance. Have a big enough loss and one would need the lifespan of a Tolkien elf to use-up the loss.

The brothers’ accountant found out what happened during tax season and well after the fact. He too knew the issue with capital losses. He played a card, in truth the only card he had. Could what happened be reinterpreted as the abandonment of a partnership interest?

There is something you don’t see every day.

Let’s talk about it.

This talk gets us into Code sections, as the reasoning is that one does not have a “sale or exchange” of a partnership interest if one abandons the interest. This gets the tax nerd away from the capital gain/loss requirement of Section 741 and into the more temperate climes of Section 165. One would plan the transaction to get to a more favorable Code section (165) and avoid a less favorable one (741). 

There are hurdles here, though. The first two are generally not a problem, but the third can be brutal.

The first two are as follows:

(1) The taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the interest; and

(2)  The taxpayer must show an affirmative act of abandonment.

This is not particularly hard to do, methinks. I would send a letter to the tax matters or general partner indicating my intent to abandon the interest, and then I would send (to all partners, if possible) a letter that I have in fact abandoned my interest and relinquished all rights and benefits thereunder. This assumes there is no partners’ meeting. If there was a meeting, I would do it there. Heck, I might do both to avoid all doubt.

What is the third hurdle?

There can be no “consideration” on the way out.

Consideration in tax means more than just receiving money. It also includes someone assuming debt you were previously responsible for.

The rule-of-thumb in a general partnership is that the partners are responsible for their allocable share of partnership debt. This is a problem, especially if one is not interested in being liable for any share of any debt. This is how we got to limited partnerships, where the general partner is responsible for the debts and the limited partners are not.

Extrapolating the above, a general partner in a general partnership is going to have issues abandoning a partnership interest if the partnership has debt. The partnership would have to pay-off that debt, refinance the debt from recourse to nonrecourse, or perhaps a partner or group of partners could assume the debt, excluding the partner who wants to abandon.

Yea, the planning can be messy for a general partnership.

It would be less messy for a limited partner in a limited partnership.

Then we have the limited liability companies. (LLCs). Those bad boys have a splash of general partnership, a sprinkling of limited partnership, and they can result in a stew of both rules.

The third plank to the abandonment of a partnership interest can be formidable, depending on how the entity is organized and how the debts are structured. If a partner wants an abandonment, it is more likely than not that pieces on the board have to be moved in order to get there.   

The brothers’ accountant however had no chance to move pieces before Wellspring sold Edwin Watts Golf. He held his breath and prepared tax returns showing the brothers as abandoning their partnership interests. This gave them ordinary losses, meaning that the losses were immediately useful on their tax returns.

The IRS caught it and said “no way.”

There were multiple chapters in the telling of this story, but in the end the Court decided for the IRS.

Why?

Because the brothers had the option of structuring the transaction to obtain the tax result they desired. If they wanted an abandonment, then they should have taken the steps necessary for an abandonment. They did not. There is a long-standing doctrine in the Code that a taxpayer is allowed to structure a transaction anyway he/she wishes, but once structured the taxpayer has to live with the consequences. This doctrine is not tolerant of taxpayer do-overs.

The brothers had a capital and not an ordinary loss. They were limited to capital gains plus $3 grand per year. Yay.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Watts, T.C. Memo 2017-114.