Penalties, Boyle and “Reductio Ad Absurdum.”

 

In logic there is an argument referred to as “reductio ad absurdum.” Its classic presentation is to pursue an assertion or position until it – despite one progressing logically – results in an absurd conclusion. An example would be the argument that the more sleep one gets, the healthier one is. It does not take long to get to the conclusion that someone who sleeps 24 hours a day – in a coma, perhaps – is in peak physical condition.

I am looking at a tax case that fits this description.

What sets it up is our old nemesis – the Boyle decision. Boyle hired an attorney to take care of an estate tax return. The attorney unfortunately filed the return a few months late, and the IRS came with penalties a-flying. Boyle requested penalty abatement for reasonable cause. The Court asked for the grounds constituting reasonable cause. Boyle responded:

                  I hired an ATTORNEY.”

Personally, I agree with Boyle.

The Court however did not. The Court subdivided tax practice in a Camusian manner by holding that:

·      Tax advice can constitute reasonable cause, as the advice can be wrong;

·      Relying on someone to file an extension or return for you cannot constitute reasonable cause, as even a monkey or U.S. Representative could google and find out when the filing is due.

 Here is an exercise for the tax nerd.

(1)  Go to the internet.

(2)  Tell me when a regular vanilla C corporation tax return is due.

(3)  Change the corporate year-end to June 30.

a.    When is that return due?

Yes, the due dates are different. I know because of what I do. Would you have gone to step (3) if I had not pushed you?

Jeffery Lindsay was in prison from 2013 to 2015. He gave his attorney a power of attorney over everything – bank accounts, filing taxes and so on. Lindsay requested the attorney to file and pay his taxes. The attorney assured him he was taking care of it.

He was taking care of Lindsay, all right. He was busy embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars is what he was doing. Lindsay got wind, sued and won over $700 grand in actual damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

The IRS came in. Why? Because the last thing that the attorney cared about was filing Lindsay’s taxes, paying estimates, any of that. It turns out that Lindsay had filed nothing for years. Lindsay of course owed back taxes. He owed interest on the tax, as he did not pay on time. What stung is that the IRS wanted over $425 grand in penalties.

He did what you or I would do: request that the penalties be abated.

The Court wanted to know the grounds constituting reasonable cause.

Are you kidding me?

Lindsay pointed out the obvious:

         I was in PRISON.”

Here is the Court:

One does not have to be a tax expert to know that tax returns have fixed filing dates and that taxes must be paid when they are due.”

The Court agreed with the IRS and denied reasonable cause.

Lindsay was out hundreds of thousand of dollars in penalties.

I consider the decision the logical conclusion of Boyle. I also think it is a bad decision, and it encapsulates, highlights and magnifies the absurdity of Boyle using the logic of “reductio ad absurdum.”

Our case this time was Lindsay v United States, USDC No 4:19-CV-65.

Can You Get Penalty Abatement If Your Accountant Dies?

What if you give your tax documents to your CPA and your CPA dies before preparing your return?

I am reading a case where that happened.

I will lead with this: the IRS assessed almost $41,000 in penalties.

The Willetts had a longstanding relationship with their CPA (Goode). In August, 2015 they gave her all the tax documents to prepare their 2014 tax return.

Time passed and the Willetts attempted to reach Goode, but without success. In October, she finally responded, explaining she had been ill and in a nursing home. She would cover any penalties and interest associated with their return.

In November, 2015 (mind you, the return was due October 15) Mrs Willett visited Goode at her home. Ms Goode assured her she would bounce back and finish their return.

That was the last time the Willetts spoke with Goode, who passed away in February, 2017.

The Willetts had some foreboding, however, as they contacted other CPA firms to address their 2014 return. There were obstacles – Goode had original documents, for example – but they were trying. The Willetts were told that the firms were already too busy with individual returns or that their return was too complex.

COMMENT: Folks, that sounds odd to this practitioner. Methinks there is more to the story.

They finally found and hired a CPA in June, 2016. They filed their 2014 return in September, 2016 – eleven months late.

You already know the IRS came back hot with penalties and interest.

The Willetts took the case to a District Court in California.

COMMENT: That means that they had to pay the penalties and then litigate for a refund. Had they gone to Tax Court, they would not have had to pay the penalties and interest before bringing suit. That would be the upside. The downside to the Tax Court is that the judges are tax specialists. It is a little harder to spin a tale to a specialist, as opposed to a district judge who is a generalist and hears a spectrum of cases.

Penalties can be abated for reasonable cause, but there is a case out there – Boyle – that greatly circumscribes a taxpayer’s ability to rely on an accountant in order to abate penalties. The Boyle decision (sort of) divided tax practice into two categories for purpose of penalty abatement:

(1) The first category is “routine” compliance, such as looking up when a tax return is due and making sure it gets filed by then.

(2) The second category includes professional advice, such as whether a Code section affects a taxpayer or what certain provisions from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act even mean.

The Boyle court acknowledged that one could rely on an accountant for column two issues, but one probably could not rely for purposes of column one.  The IRS has subsequently interpreted Boyle aggressively, arguing that the qualifier “probably” is not even required in the preceding sentence.

So how does Boyle work when your CPA dies? Is it more like column one or more like column two?

The Court discussed issues surrounding taxpayer reliance on an agent, but at heart the Court was looking at someone who relied on an accountant – apparently a sole practitioner – who was quite ill, in and out of nursing facilities and incapable of producing timely work.

Question: what would a reasonable person do?

After all, the concept is reasonable cause.

The Court was not at all persuaded that reasonable people would wait endlessly for their accountant to recover from a nursing home stay before preparing their return. A reasonable person would seek-out another accountant – even if it was a one-off engagement - in order to meet their tax responsibilities.

There was no reasonable cause.

I admire the Willetts’ loyalty to their practitioner, but their delay cost them $41 grand.

What Does It Take To Get Reasonable Cause Around Here?

My partner has a difficult IRS penalty issue.

He expects a client to be penalized for more than one year. This complicates how we handle the first year.

The IRS has reorganized its penalty review function to a system called the Reasonable Cause Assistant (RCA). There however is a problem: the system does not work well. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that RCA was inaccurate 89% of the time in 2012.

Step away from RCA and you still have the following:

 * It used to be that penalties were assessed as a means to encourage voluntary compliance. Many tax pros feel that is no longer the case, and penalties are being used as a means to raise revenue.  An example is the penalty assessed for late filing of a partnership return: $195 per month per partner. Take a 10-person partnership, file a week late and face a $1,950 penalty. There is little consideration for the size of the partnership, its total assets or revenues - or the fact that partnerships do not pay federal taxes.            

* Penalties are assessed even when taxpayers are trying to do the right thing. For example, enter into a reportable transaction, disclose it on your tax return but forget to file a copy with a second office and you will be assessed a penalty. Fail to disclose the transaction at all and you will be subject to the same penalty.

 * The IRS is automatically asserting penalties. For example, for fiscal year 2015, the IRS assessed over 40 million penalties on individuals and businesses. To put that in context, there were approximately 243 million returns filed for the period.

* Many penalties can be waived if the taxpayer can show "reasonable cause," but many tax professionals believe the IRS has so narrowed the definition as to be almost unreachable, unless you are willing to die. To aggravate the matter, the IRS has also instructed its personnel to substitute "first time abatement" (FTA) for reasonable cause as a matter of policy. While the IRS argues that FTA is easier to review and administer than reasonable cause, there exists a high degree of skepticism. Why would a taxpayer automatically burn a "get out of penalty-jail free" card if the taxpayer otherwise has reasonable cause? Wouldn't a taxpayer want to keep that card available just in case?

My partner - by the way - has that last situation: burning his FTA chip without a reasonable-cause backup for the second year. Ironically, he may have reasonable cause for the first year, but that sequence does not follow IRS policy. I anticipate going to Appeals to obtain reasonable cause and preserve the FTA for the second year.

Let's talk about the Carolyn Rogers (Rogers v Commissioner) case.

Carolyn lived in New York. In 2006 she had a small business (Talk of the Town Singles) which she operated from her cooperative. In 2006 there was a fire which rendered the place uninhabitable.

She moved. In 2007 there was another fire, one she appears to have caused herself. The local newspaper called her out, and she was thereafter harassed by people in her neighborhood.

She moved to the YWCA until 2010. She did not have a pleasant time there, and in 2009 she fell off a subway platform and fractured her skull on the rails. She was in the hospital for days, and she continued to suffer from dizzy spells thereafter.

Prior to this period, she had a record of filing timely returns. She also made significant efforts to correctly prepare her tax returns, consulting books and references and more than once contacting the IRS. She did not use a paid preparer.

The IRS penalized her for not filing a 2009 return.

She explained that the insurance company settled the second fire in 2009, and she lost a bundle. According to her research, the casualty loss would wipe out her income, and she was therefore below the filing threshold. She did not need to file.

The IRS then trotted technical guidance on a casualty loss. While the layperson might think that the loss would be deferred until the insurance is settled, the tax Code uses a different test:

* If an insurance claim is not paid in the year of casualty AND there is a reasonable prospect of recovery, then the loss is deferred until one can determine the amount of recovery.

* If there is no hope for insurance - or the prospect of recovery is unreasonable - then the loss is deductible in the year of the casualty.

 The IRS said that she came under the second rule. She knew that insurance would not cover the full loss from the 2007 fire. The loss was therefore deductible in 2007.

COMMENT: There is enough "what if" to this rule that even a tax professional could blow it.

The IRS wanted penalties for not filing that 2009 return.  

The Tax Court reviewed her filing history and her chaotic life. It noted:

Petitioner's error (regarding the proper year of deduction of the portion of a casualty loss for which there is no reasonable prospect of recovery from insurance) is considerably different from the errors made by a taxpayer whose failure to file, late filing, or late payment is chronic. Erroneously deducting a loss in a year later than the correct year is not usually considered to be a blatant tax avoidance technique ..."

Ouch. The Court did not appreciate the IRS wasting its time.

Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, we conclude that petitioner exercised ordinary business care and prudence under the difficult circumstances in which she was living at the time leading up to the due date of her 2009 return...."

The Court found reasonable cause. She owed the tax, but she did not owe the penalties.

The IRS should have found reasonable cause too. It is troubling that it didn't.

What Happens When Hacking Concerns Conflict With A State Electronic Payment Mandate?

Let’s travel to the Bay State for a taxpayer requesting reasonable cause against the imposition of penalties.  

The amount in dispute is $100.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Our protagonist is Jonathan Haar, and he lives in Massachusetts. On April 15, 2011 he had the audacity to file a paper extension and include a $19,517 check for his tax year 2010 state return. The paper extension and payment

“… did not comply with the requirements set forth in Technical Information Release (“TIR”) 04-30 (“TIR 04-30”), which states that if a payment accompanying an extension application equals $5,000 or more, such extension application and payment must be submitted electronically.”

Got it. The state says that it is less expensive to process electronic than paper tax filings and payments. Seems reasonable. How do we get people to follow along, however? One way is to make whatever the state wants mandatory.

Our protagonist unfortunately had travelled this path before, and he had been warned for tax year 2005 and penalized for year 2006.  Massachusetts had a tax recidivist! They assessed the above-mentioned $100 penalty on our ne-er-do-well.

If you were my client, I would have told you to pay the $100 and move on. Mr. Haar is not my client, and he refused to pay. He instead filed an appeal, which appeal went to the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board.

His argument?

“Mr. Haar maintained that the Commissioner’s electronic payment mandate is a ‘serious invasion of both [his] privacy and [his] personal business practices,’ as it exposes his finances to risk of cyber attack.”

 “I intentionally do no electronic banking nor direct bill paying, I have none of my credit cards linked to my bank accounts directly and I think anyone who does any of the above is exposing themselves to multiple risks of cybercrime and identity theft.”

Mr. Haar further expressed doubts as to the security of the computer systems used by the Department of Revenue (“DOR”), noting that "if the Pentagon can be hacked," he had little confidence that DOR could protect his – or anyone’s – personal data from theft.

Massachusetts argued that it had the authority to mandate electronic filing and payment, as well as assess penalties if a taxpayer failed to comply with their filing and payment mandates. Massachusetts does recognize exceptions for reasonable cause, but its own Administrative Procedure 633 (“AP 633”) provides that

… the fact that a taxpayer does not own a computer or is uncomfortable with electronic data or funds transfer will not support a claim for reasonable cause.”

COMMENT: Call me quaint, but I would say that someone not having a computer is prima facie reasonable cause for not being able to file an electronic return or transfer funds electronically. The issue I see with AP 633 is its absolutism: the language “will not support” leaves no room. Why not say instead “generally will not support,” if only to allow space for unexpected fact patterns? 

In support of its position, the DOR trotted out two officials: the first was Robert Allard, a tax auditor. He pointed out that Mr. Haar filed an electronic return, presumably through a professional preparer. I suppose that Mr. Allard felt that if one could electronically file then one should be able to electronically pay. 

The second was Theresa O’Brien-Horan, a 26-year employee and Deputy Commissioner, who testified that

… the mandate at issue in this appeal – requiring individual taxpayers who apply for an extension with an accompanying payment of $5,000 or more to file and pay electronically – is helpful to DOR because it maximized up-front revenue intake.”

… the $5,000 threshold was chosen because it would ‘impact 17% of the taxpayers, but … get the money banked for 84% of the revenue.”

You can virtually feel the customer service vapor emanating from Ms O’Brien- Horan.

When asked whether reasonable cause was the Massachusetts equivalent of an ”opt out,” Ms. O’Brien-Horan answered “yes.”

OBSERVATION: The IRS, for example, prefers that one file an electronic return. The IRS however did not put the burden on the taxpayer; rather it put the burden on the preparer. If a preparer prepares more than a minimal number of returns annually, the preparer is required to file the returns electronically. This is awkward, as the return belongs to the taxpayer and not to the preparer. The preparer is not allowed to release any return – even to the IRS – without the taxpayer’s approval. What does the preparer do if the taxpayer does not grant approval? The preparer includes yet-another-form with the return indicating that the taxpayer has “opted out.” This prevents the IRS from penalizing the preparer for not filing electronically.

If Mr. Haar’s position was reasonable, then Mr. Haar could “opt out,” irrespective of any self-serving Massachusetts Administrative Procedure.

Ms. O’Brien-Horan just didn’t think that Mr. Haar was being reasonable.

But the Board did.

“Given his reference to the hacking of the Pentagon’s computer system, and in light of the many well-publicized instances of large-scale thefts of financial information following computer breaches at businesses and other institutions, and the appellant’s consistent practice of avoiding electronic payment of all his bills, including his tax obligations, the Board found that the appellant’s failure to utilize the Commissioner’s mandated electronic tax payment to be reasonable.”

Two things strike me immediately.

The first is the cause for concern comprising Mr. Haar’s argument. It had not occurred to me to off-grid all of one’s banking transactions, but he gives one pause. I recently read the following on www.marketwatch.com, for example:

A Russian gang has stolen 1.2 billion user names and their passwords as well as more than 500 million email addresses, the New York Times reports.

The information came from more than 400,000 websites, according to the Times, which says researchers at Milwaukee-based Hold Security discovered the cyber heist.

Mr. Haar is highly cautious. His position is somewhat eccentric but not unfounded. A reasonable tax collection agency would have granted him this one and moved on.  

The second is the inanity of Massachusetts DOR. Rather than abate a $100 penalty, it preferred to pursue the matter, at who knows what cost to state and citizens. We know that cost would include Mr. Allard and Ms O’Brien-Horan’s payroll, not to mention that of their superiors, legal counsel and who-knows-what else. I can understand not wanting to set a precedent, but … really? My take is that the DOR is too well-funded if they have the time and money to pursue nonsense like this. Perhaps DOR budgets cutbacks are in order for Massachusetts.

Not Cracking The Code

We have picked up two or three nonfiler clients this season. By itself, this does not overly concern me, although there are nasty tax traps concerning refunds and overpayments for nonfiled years. Did you know, for example, that – if you go long enough without filing – the IRS will not refund your overpayment? Nonetheless, one files, pays tax due with the IRS and carries on.

Then there is a subcategory of nonfilers that could be referred to as protestors. I have little patience for those. I recently picked up a corporate tax audit client, and it is proving to be a very difficult examination. There are several reasons, but I believe a key reason is that one of the owners may be walking this line.

I am looking at a Tax Court case decided last month: Waltner v Commissioner. This is a protestor case, and it is a bit unusual. In general, courts have given protestors short patience. This time the court took the time to go through the arguments and address them one by one.

Have you hear about Peter Hendrickson? He is a protestor himself, and he wrote a book titled Cracking the Code. It appears that Waltner studied Hendrickson closely, as the techniques he used follow the book’s recommendations.

The case concerns Mr. Waltner’s 2008 individual tax return, in which he reported zero wages, an IRA distribution, a student loan interest deduction and home mortgage interest. All in all, it came down to zero tax liability, which is understandable when you report zero wages.

Mind you, he received three W-2s, but Waltner submitted Forms 4852 (Substitute for Form W-2), reporting zero wages but showing income tax withheld. He also received a Form 1099-B (Proceeds from Broker), but crossed-out proceeds of $5,000 and inserted zero. He then wrote the following text:

This correcting Form 1099-B is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as “Payer” and “Broker” which erroneously alleged a payment to the party identified above as …. of “gross proceeds” in connection with a “trade or business.” Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.”

The IRS was having none of this and sent a letter requesting a corrected return. The IRS otherwise was going to assess a frivolous submission penalty of $5,000.

He didn’t. They did. Then they issued a notice of intent to levy.

Waltner requested a Collection Due Process hearing, submitting a 49-page brief.

COMMENT: Trust me, 49 pages is impressive.

So the Appeals officer got to read the following:

·       Waltner was not “an officer, employee or elected official of the United States”

·       He was “never an officer of a corporation”

·       He “did not receive Wages from any source”

·       He "did not work for or receive any pay from an Employer or American employer”

·       He “was not engaged in Employment”

·       He “was not an Employee”

·       He “was not engaged in Self-employment”

·       He “was not a citizen or resident of the District of Columbia or any territory or possession of the United States”

·       He “was never incorporated in Washington, D.C. or worked for any company who incorporated in Washington, D.C.”

·       He “was not a governmental unit or agency or instrumentality thereof, or a United States Person”

In addition to not understanding the rules for capitalization in the English language, he appears to be flying the tax protestor flag.

The Appeals officer warned him about frivolous arguments. Waltner did not back down. The IRS assessed him. Waltner then filed with the Tax Court.

It took months to go before the Court, during which time the two parties filed 24 motions, resulting in the Court issuing 22 orders. The maneuverings defy belief:

·       The IRS moved for admissions, meaning they wanted to know Waltner’s reasoning for the substitute W-2s. The Court, being a good sport, issued a 39-page order reviewing 44 requests for admissions and 83 supplemental requests.

·       Waltner responded with boilerplate language but not otherwise addressing the issues under discovery.

·       The IRS responded with a 993-page request for admissions.

·       Waltner filed a motion for protective order delaying discovery.

·       The IRS filed an objection. The Court accepted some and dismissed some.

·       Less than a month later Waltner filed a motion to compel stipulation. The motion was filed under an arcane procedure known as Rule 9(f).

·       The IRS responded, so the motion was discharged.

·       The IRS filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, which the Court granted.

·       Waltner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied.

·       Waltner sought an extension to respond to the interrogatories, which the Court granted.

·       Waltner never responded to the interrogatories. Instead he paid the $5,000 fine.

·       Waltner filed to have the IRS answer interrogatories, to which the IRS filed objection.

·       The IRS responded to the interrogatories. The Court found some acceptable and others not.

·       The IRS filed for supplemental information from Waltner.

·       Waltner filed a motion for reconsideration.

Do you see the game being played here? Rather than provide arguments, Waltner is neck-deep in Tax Court procedural minutiae. No wonder the Courts hate protest cases.

When all is said and done, Waltner lost and the IRS requested the Court to apply a $25,000 Section 6673 penalty.

The Court instead went on the discuss Cracking the Code, noting how Waltner’s arguments and techniques mirror the book. Here are some gems, for example: 

·       The federal government has legislative authority over only the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

·       The Revenue Act of 1862 imposed a 3% tax only on federal employees.

·       Federal direct taxes which affect citizens of the several states must be apportioned (a position which predates the 16^th Amendmnet).

·       Remuneration for work is not profit and is therefore not taxable.

You get the idea.

The court could have assessed a $25,000 penalty for wasting its time, but it decided instead to impose a $2,500 penalty, adding:

Mr. Waltner has other matters pending in this Court in which he is asserting arguments similar to those presented in this case, and he has now been cautioned in both an order and this opinion. We hope that he will heed the warning.”

The Court is allowing Waltner to back down, although I am not optimistic that he will.

There are any number of reasons for not filing. There can be illness, death, emotional collapse, for example. The IRS will mitigate if not abate penalties in many cases. Protest is not one of them. This is a bad street late on a dark night, and nothing good will be found there.