A Puff Piece

 

Although we do not condone her inconsistency, we find it is merely puffery in an attempt to obtain new employment and of no significance here.”

There is a word one rarely sees in tax cases: puffery.

Puffery is an exaggeration. It approaches a lie but stops short, and presumably no “reasonable” person would believe what is being said or take it literally. The distinction matters if one’s puffery can be used against them as a statement of fact.

Let’s look at the Robinson case.

Mr Robinson had a lawn care business. Beverly Robinson had a job at Georgia Pacific, but in 2007 she started working at the lawn care business. She did the billing. She was also listed on the business checking account, but she never wrote checks.

She must have been the face of the business through, as for 2007 through 2009 most of the Forms 1099 to the business were sent in her name.

In 2010 the marriage went south. Mr Robinson moved out, and Beverly’s dad chipped-in to pay the mortgage on her house. Needless to say, she was not working at the company with all that going on.

In 2011 they filed a joint tax return for 2010. The return showed tax due of approximately $43 grand. She must have separated hard from the business, as no Forms 1099 were issued to her; all the Forms 1099 were issued to him.

COMMENT: I do not understand filing a joint tax return with someone you are likely to divorce. In Beverly’s defense, though, she did not realize that she had an option. They hired a tax preparer (likely because of the business), but the preparer never explained that the option to file separately existed.

In 2011 she was telling the IRS that they could not pay the 2010 tax debt. She also asked about innocent spouse status.

In 2012 they file a joint 2011 tax return. She was working again at another Georgia Pacific facility and had tax withholdings. The IRS took her withholdings and applied them to the 2010 tax year.

COMMENT: That is how it works.

In 2013 Beverly needed to find a new job. She uploaded her resume on a jobseeker website. She listed her Georgia Pacific gig. She also listed Robinson Lawn Care and embellished her duties, especially glossing over the fact that she no longer worked there.

In 2013 Mr Robinson somehow forced his way back into her house. She called the police and was told that they could not evict him since the two were still married.

In October, 2013 she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

About time. The year before Mr Robinson had fathered a child with another woman. In 2013 he started paying her child support.

The divorce became final in 2014. Mr Robinson agreed to assume the 2010 tax due.

Riiiight.

In 2015 she files for innocent spouse because of that 2010 tax debt and the IRS continuing to take her refunds.

The IRS turned down her request.

One of the requirements is that the tax liability for which the spouse is seeking relief belong to the “nonrequesting” spouse. In this case, the nonrequesting spouse was Mr Robinson.

He testified that he had moved out of the house in 2013. Oh, he also remembered Beverly working in the business in 2010.

Not good.

The IRS looked at certain Florida registrations that showed her name through 2014.

They also pointed out that she was a signatory on the business checking account.

Then they looked at her resume on that jobseeker website.

The Court was having none of it.

As for Mr Robinson:

Throughout the trial Mr. Robinson’s testimony was relatively inconsistent, and we give it little value.”

As for the registrations:

Although petitioner is listed as the registered owner of Robinson Lawn Care from December 1998 to December 2014, we find the reason for her filing the fictitious name--that her former husband worked during the day--is a sufficient explanation for why she is listed instead of Mr. Robinson. Moreover, she did not sign any State filings in 2010 or thereafter.

As for the checking account:

Similarly we find that petitioner’s name on the business account is not persuasive support for respondent’s position as Mr. Robinson had control of that account and she never wrote checks on it.

The Court pointed out that none of the 2010 Forms 1099 were made out to her, in clear contrast to prior tax years.

We saw above the Court’s comment on her puffery.

It was clear who the Court believed – and did not believe.

The Court decided that she was entitled to innocent spouse relief.

She cut it close, though.

Our case this time was Beverly Robinson v Commissioner of Internal Revenue T.C. Memo 2020-134.

A Divorce Decree And Past Taxes

Let’s say that a couple divorces. The divorce decree stipulates that liability for previous federal taxes will be split 50:50. They had always filed jointly The IRS audits one or more of those earlier years and assesses additional taxes.

Question: what is each spouse’s liability?

Your first thought might be 50:50, as that is what the divorce decree says.

Our protagonists this time would find out.

Mae Asad and Sam Akel filed joint returns for 2008 and 2009. The IRS audited those years, looking at rental losses. They disallowed the losses and assessed over $30,000 in taxes and penalties.

Mae filed for innocent spouse.

Later Sam filed for innocent spouse.

NOTE: Filing for innocent spouse status means that a spouse (probably an ex-spouse, but I had a client who was still married) has been assessed taxes for which he/she does not believe he/she is responsible. The classic case is the stay-at-home spouse, the other self-employed spouse, and the stay-at-home has no participation in or knowledge of the other’s business. Think Carmela Soprano.

The IRS bounced both requests for innocent spouse.

Both ex-spouses filed with the Tax Court.

Before the hearing, the IRS conceded that Mae was responsible for 28% of the 2008 tax and 41% of the 2009 tax. Sam of course was responsible for the balance.

Seems to me that Sam might not like this deal.

I do not know how, but Mae agreed to a 50:50 split. She did not have to, mind you.

The courts have been consistent that a divorce decree is not binding on the IRS, as the IRS is not party to the divorce.  A joint return means that both spouses are liable, and the IRS can go after one … or both, to the extent the IRS desires. The decree may provide for a former spouse to seek restitution against the other, but it has no impact on the IRS.

The Court accepted the IRS previous concession to Mae of 28% and 41%. It did not have to observe the divorce decree and it did not.

Then the Court reviewed the penalties of over $5,000.

But there had been a fatal flaw,

You see, Mae and Sam had filed pro se with the Tax Court. Pro se means one is going in without professional representation (not exactly correct, but close enough). It happens with small tax cases. The paperwork to get to Court and the procedural rules once there are more lenient for small cases.

Sam and Mae had not included the penalty in their petition to the Court.

The Court did not have authority to review the penalties.

But it did provide us a clear example of the downside to representing oneself pro se.

Change In Innocent Spouse Tax Relief

You may have read or seen that the IRS has ‘changed” the rules for innocent spouse relief. 

While this is not wrong, it is incomplete. How? Because there are three ways to request innocent spouse status, and the IRS has changed one of them. The other two remain as they were before.

Being married and filing a joint tax return with your spouse is what creates this issue. You later divorce or separate from your spouse. You and your (now ex) spouse are audited by the IRS. Remember, the IRS lags a year or two before they select returns for audit. The IRS finds unreported income and assesses additional tax.  The income triggering the tax belongs to your ex-spouse.

Let’s return to the joint tax return you filed. A joint return means that you are “jointly and severally liable.”  The IRS can proceed against you alone, against your spouse alone or against the two of you.  The IRS can, and likely will, proceed against you (for at least 50%) even if it wasn’t your fault. From their perspective, why not? They have nothing to lose, and it doubles their chance of getting someone to pay.

This is the point of innocent spouse relief. You want to separate your tax from that of your ex-spouse. Ideally, you want to completely separate your tax, so that the IRS leaves you alone for any additional tax, penalties and interest.

There are three types of innocent spouse relief.

Type I is “general” relief:

(1)   You filed a joint return.

(2)   The return has an “understatement of tax” due to “erroneous” items of your spouse (or ex-spouse).

(3)   You can show that at the time you signed the joint return you did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was an understatement of tax.

(4)   Considering all the “facts and circumstances,” it would be unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax.

An “erroneous” item is IRS-speak for not reporting income or for overstating deductions.

The third requirement can be a tough to meet.  It is possible that you did not know, but that is not enough. The IRS wants to be sure that you had no reason to know. For example, you and your spouse reported $60,000 of income. That year you and your spouse bought a Colorado chalet and a Bugatti Veyron. Unless you had savings to tap into or one of you inherited, expect the IRS to be very skeptical of you denying any “knowledge.” They will figure that you should have known.  And it doesn’t have to be as dramatic as a Swiss chalet. Perhaps you and your ex moved to a nicer neighborhood. Or enrolled the kids in a private school. Or started showing horses.  A quick review of your income and savings would prompt one to wonder how you paid for everything. Expect the IRS to argue that you had “constructive” knowledge. That is, you “had reason to know.”

Type II is “separation of liability.”

Under this method, you separate your income and deductions from your (ex) spouse’s income and deductions. You then calculate your separate tax on such separate income. You are trying to get the IRS to agree that your share of the joint tax is that amount and not more.

It does have the advantage of appearing “fair.”

Oh, the IRS requires that you be divorced, legally separated or at least living apart for the 12-month period preceding the innocent spouse filing. Don’t be surprised if your tax planning includes advice to get divorced.

What is going to sour the IRS on this deal, other than their general reluctance to let anyone off the hook?  Well, that “knowledge” requirement we discussed previously will derail you, with one important distinction: you must have actually known of the tax understatement. The “you should have known” argument is not good enough to deny you the second type of innocent spouse relief.

A second thing that will sink the separation of liabilities is transferring assets for the main purpose of avoiding payment of tax. You can expect the IRS to want to review every significant asset move between you and your ex.

You must request Type I and Type II innocent spouse relief within 2 years after the date on which the IRS first begins collection activity against you. This is not the same as the date you filed the return. Rather it is the date that the IRS sends you a letter or asks you to go downtown for a meeting.

Type III is “equitable relief.”

Equitable relief is only available if you meet the following conditions:

• You do not qualify for innocent spouse relief or separation of liability.
• The IRS determines that it is unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax taking into account all the facts and circumstances.

Well, unfair is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? What facts and circumstances will the IRS consider as they ponder whether to be fair or unfair?

·        

• Current marital status
• Abuse
• Reasonable belief of the spouse requesting innocent spouse, at the time he or she signed the return, that the tax was going to be paid; or in the case of an understatement, whether that  spouse had knowledge or reason to know of the understatement
• Current financial hardship or inability to pay basic living expenses
• Legal obligation to pay the tax liability pursuant to a divorce decree or other agreement to pay the liability
• To whom the liability is attributable
• Significant benefit received by the spouse asking for innocent spouse
• Mental or physical health of the spouse requesting innocent spouse on the date that spouse signed the return or requested relief
• Compliance with income tax laws following the taxable year or years to which the request for relief relates

The IRS had previously held Type III relief to the same time limit as Types I and II. While not in the Code itself, the IRS inserted the time limit into its Regulations and battled hard to have the courts accept its position.

The IRS lost a high profile case (Lantz) on this issue in 2010. Lantz was the former wife of an Indiana dentist. In 2000 her then-husband was arrested for Medicaid fraud. Shortly thereafter came a $900,000 IRS bill. She didn’t file for innocent spouse because he told her that he had taken care of it. He did not, of course. Shortly thereafter he died.

And of course more than two years had gone by…

Mrs. Lantz filed for Type III innocent spouse. In 2009 the Tax Court sided with her. In 2010, however, the Appeals Court sided with the IRS.

The IRS Taxpayer Advocate howled at what was happening to Mrs. Lantz. Forty-nine members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner demanding a stop to such behavior.  

The IRS did, and in 2011 it announced that it was backing-off the two-year requirement for Type III innocent spouse claims. 

The IRS has now published Regulations formalizing what it announced back in 2011.   

So how long do you have now to file a Type III innocent spouse claim? You have ten years – the same period as the IRS has to collect taxes from you.

Note though that Type I and Type II still have the two-year requirement. It is only Type III that has changed. Why the difference? Because for Types I and II, the two-year requirement is written into the law.

My Thoughts: To hold an innocent spouse to a two-year window – when the law passed by Congress said nothing about a two-year window for Type III relief – was a clubfooted mistake by the IRS. It is a bit late, but the IRS finally got it right.

By the way, if you have been turned down for innocent spouse – and you are still within the ten-year window – please consider filing again under the new rules.

Dealing With A Tax Levy

We recently spoke about IRS liens. Let’s continue the conversation and talk about levies.

A levy taps into our primal fear of the IRS. This is where they come and take your checking account, repossess your car and sell your house. You get behind on your taxes and you get to relive the Grapes of Wrath.

Rest assured that your fear of losing your car and your house are greatly overblown. Your fear of losing your checking account may not be, however.

How did you get to this point? 

Somewhere in the recent past, the IRS sent you a notice – actually, a series of escalating notices. An early one may have read something like:

According to our records, you have an amount due on your income tax.”

There will be several notices, increasing in intensity. It is likely that you ignored them. Perhaps you just knew that their numbers were wrong. Perhaps you were broke and had nothing to send. Whatever the case, the one thing you failed to do was talk to them. 

Eventually you will receive the CP 504 letter (“Intent to Seize Your Property or Rights to Property”), where the IRS says that they intend to intercept your state tax refund. The notice also allows IRS to increase your penalties, but it is the state refund that catches people’s attention. Not that much attention, though. I do not get too many calls on a 504. Chances are if you are behind on federal taxes, you are behind on state taxes too.

The 504 is the demarcation line when your account leaves Automated Collections. You are now moving to regular Collections. The 504 is also the last notice before the IRS sends Form CP 90 “Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.” 

If you have a CP 90, you have serious business. The IRS will send it certified mail to your last known address, so if you have moved – especially if you did not file returns – you may not even know that this notice went out. The IRS has to go through certain hoops before it can levy, and this notice is key. You have 30 days to claim a Collection Due Process Hearing. If the IRS moves against you without issuing a Final Notice, or before the 30 days are up, you can stop them. If you claim a CDP Hearing, you can present your side of the story.

What if the 30 days pass?

One thing the IRS can then do is levy your bank account. How do they know your bank account information? One way is pretty simple: you had your refunds electronically deposited to your bank account. They can still get to that information otherwise, but electronic transfer made things easier for them. A bank levy is a one-time shot. The IRS instructs the bank to turn over whatever you have in your account as of a given date. The bank has 21 days before they have to turn over the money. There are important points we should review:

·        It is 21 days from when the bank received the notice, not the date of the notice.

·        The levy amount is your balance when the bank received the notice. If you deposit money later, that later deposit will not go to the IRS.

·        If the IRS wants that later deposit, it will have to issue another levy.

My experience has been that banks may not be overly concerned with informing you about the levy. Odds are that you will have less than 21 days before you find out, unless you attempted to withdraw funds or some similar action shortly after the bank received the levy. I have had clients who learned about the levy after the 21 days ran off. Let me tell you, there is almost no chance of getting that money returned when that happens.

Another thing the IRS can do is a wage levy. The IRS contacts your employer and tells him/her to send money. IRS Publication 1494 has tables telling you and your employer how much of your money you get to keep. For example, if you are divorced with two kids and are paid monthly, you keep $1,720. The balance goes to the IRS. The upside is that the $1,720 is after taxes, health insurance and whatnot. The downside is that you and your two kids might not be able to live on $1,720 per month.

It gets worse. The wage levy is continuous. It need not be reissued like a bank levy. People have quit their jobs over a wage levy. There isn’t much an employer can do. If your employer refuses to remit the money from your paycheck, then he/she is personally liable to remit the money from his or her own funds. Good luck finding an employer who will do that for you.

Can the IRS levy monies you receive as an independent contractor? You bet. Can it levy your social security? Yes, up to 15 percent. Can it go after your PayPal? Surely, you jest. Of course they can.

What about your house and car? Not so much. Let’s go over some statistics to put your mind at ease. In 2011, the IRS issued almost 3.8 million third-party levies. The IRS seized less than 800 houses, cars and other personal property. The IRS does not want the hassle of taking and selling your property. It wants cash.  It does not want your car, unless your car is a late-model Ferrari or something of the sort. In fact, if you have minimal equity in the asset, the IRS is prohibited from taking the asset from you.

Alright, you have received a Final Notice. What do you do next?

First, be aware of time. Remember that you have 30 days. Use it.

File a collection appeal. This will temporarily pull you away from the part of the IRS that is trying to collect and puts you in another part that will hear your case. How long is temporary? Figure on about 4 to 6 months before your hearing. 

Be ready to talk about a payment at the hearing, though, because that is where Appeals will take the conversation. They will ask for full payment immediately, the same way my dog is always hopeful I have brought her home a hamburger or something similarly tasty. 

What if you are truly broke? Then the IRS may place your account on “cannot collect” status. This means that you are so broke that you cannot make a payment, any payment. How can that happen? Let’s say that you could not pay rent if the IRS wiped-out your checking account. Perhaps you could not pay for necessary prescriptions. The term is “hardship,” and they will consider this. 

What if the taxes belong to your ex-spouse from a year when you filed a joint tax return? An innocent spouse claim will get the IRS to stay collection.

What if you file an offer in compromise? An offer will get the IRS to stay collection.

What if the IRS assessed you without your knowledge? Let me give you an example. I represented a client whose wife passed away. He received IRS notices when she became gravely ill, and upon her death he retreated from the world for a year or more. The IRS – not hearing from him – made adjustments and assessed all kinds of taxes and penalties. What did we do? We requested a reconsideration, which is also a way to stay collection.

Then we get to a payment plan. The particular type of plan depends on how much you owe. If you owe less than $50 thousand, you can request a “streamlined” plan. You promise to pay the IRS over 6 years, which translates into a maximum of $694 per month ($50,000 divided by 72). It is called streamlined because you get to submit minimal information to the IRS. This is a big deal, as the normal paperwork can be a pain. 

Let’s say that you owe over $50 thousand. You will now be submitting financial information, including bank statements and copies of bills, to the IRS. The IRS will apply “standards” to your expenses, and if your expenses exceed those standards they may (and likely will) disallow the excess. I have been through this exercise many times, and I can assure you in advance that the IRS’ calculation of what you can pay is more than what you think you can pay. You likely will be saying goodbye to your I Phone data package, your satellite TV, the leased car you really cannot afford and so on. The IRS does not want to subsidize your lifestyle. 

There may be variations in your particular payment plan. A standard payment plan requires you to pay-off the IRS over time. What if you cannot? The IRS may agree to a “partial pay” plan, which means that the plan will not completely pay-off the IRS unless the plan payment or plan term is changed. In my experience, I have had to go to Appeals to get this plan, but I have gotten it. 

Another possibility is to file bankruptcy. Although a last resort, a bankruptcy results in a “stay” of all credit actions, including the IRS.

What if you miss the 30-day window on the Final Notice? Not all is lost. You can still request a hearing, now called an “equivalency” hearing. You still get Appeals involved, but the IRS does not have to delay collection action – including bank levy or wage garnishment - until the hearing.

Depending on your situation, consider a tax professional. You want an attorney or CPA who specializes in taxes. As a heads up, most CPAs and attorneys do not specialize in taxes. Another alternative is an Enrolled Agent, who – by definition – specializes in taxes. Be sure to clarify whether they have done tax representation before.  One can “do taxes” and have never represented. It really is two different things, and you do not need to pay someone while they learn the ropes.

IRS Removes Two-Year Limit On Innocent Spouse Claims

The IRS has reversed its position on granting innocent spouse relief.

The concept of innocent spouse requires that the spouses file a joint return. The problem with a joint return is the joint liability, which means that one or both parties can be held responsible, in part or in full, for any liability.  What happens when the spouses file a joint return showing a liability and one spouse believes that the tax has been “resolved” – and believes this both in error and to his/her disadvantage? What if the spouses are later separated or divorced? What if one spouse is in jail? What if one spouse died?

The effect of joint liability can be harsh, so the IRS Code allows an escape hatch for innocent spouses.

There are three types of innocent spouse provisions in the Code. Two types require the spouse to file the claim within two years of IRS notification. The third type does not contain this provision, but the IRS has construed the provision as containing the wisp of a dim shadow of Congressional intent to include a two-year provision. With that divination, the IRS has been disallowing innocent spouse claims filed later than two years for all three types of innocent spouse claims.

Doesn’t sound like much, but think about an example.  A husband abuses his wife. He certainly is not keeping her informed about tax notices. She knows zip about the taxes other than signing the return at his behest. She finally leaves the fool. She does so however after two years of first IRS contact, not that she would know about it. Previously the IRS would have said that she was out of luck.

Well, a number of people thought this was unconscionable, including the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, many practitioners and members of Congress. The IRS has finally relented and removed the two-year requirement from “type three” of innocent spouse. For those who follow the tax literature, the change was published in Notice 2001-70.

I have done innocent spouse claims. I am happy with this change.

Congress Speaks Up on Innocent Spouse Tax Relief

I am glad to see that Congress is addressing the IRS’s position concerning innocent spouse and litigated in Cathy Marie Lantz v. Commissioner.

Here is a summary of the issue:

There are three “types” of innocent spouse claims. Let’s refer to them by the Code subsections they are presented under: (b), (c) and (f). Type (b) is the classic innocent spouse: the erroneous items belong to one spouse; the other spouse did not know or have reason to know. Type (c) is for divorced spouses and allows each spouse to determine his/her liability as if the spouse had filed a separate return.

Type (f) is more of an expansive innocent spouse rule. It was passed years after the original provisions (it was passed in 1998), and it seeks to provide an opportunity for spouses who cannot meet the (sometimes technical) requirements of (b) and (c).

What (b) and (c) have in common is that the spouse has to file the innocent spouse claim within two years of contact by the IRS. What happens, though, if the one spouse is not told by the other spouse of the contact? Could happen. Some would say it will happen. Say further that two years go by. The spouse then learns of the problem and tries to pursue innocent spouse relief under (f). Does the two year rule apply to an (f) filing?

Interestingly, Congress did not include a two year rule in (f), a point which many practitioners, including myself, interpret to mean that Congress did not mean to include a two year rule in (f). Seems straightforward. The law was in place; Congress was aware of the law and chose not to include the two year requirement.

The IRS does not agree. The IRS argues that Congress delegated authority to it to write administrative Regulations for (f), and that, after consulting with Carnac the Magnificent, it believes that Congress intended for there to be a two-year requirement under (f). Congress just forgot to write it in to the law.

There was a case last year,Cathy Marie Lantz v. Commissioner, which unfortunately agreed with the IRS. To be fair, there is a technical argument, and the argument can be persuasive. Unfortunately, it does not pass the “common sense” test.

Congress has now chimed in and 49 Representatives — including all the Democrats who sit on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee — have told the IRS Commissioner that the IRS had “violated the spirit of the original law” in limiting relief to two years. Three Democratic senators — Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee; Tom Harkin of Iowa; and Sherrod Brown of Ohio — have sounded the same theme.

The national IRS taxpayer advocate - Nina Olson – has also asked for the two year limit to be extended or revoked.

Let’s hope something comes of this.