Receiving An IRS Lock-In Letter

 

A client recently picked up his personal tax return. He asked to see me.

There was tax due with the return. I thought he had adjusted his withholding to increase his take-home pay, as he had spoken to me of financial stress. I am not a fan of doing this, as tax is due whether one withholds or not.   

He could not have tax due with his return, he explained, as he had received a lock-in letter from the IRS.

There is something I do not often see.

There are two versions of the lock-in letter: one sent to the employee and another to the employer. The IRS is telling both that it wants additional withholding from each paycheck, commonly meaning single withholding with no dependents.

The lock-in surprised me, as my client is not one to game the system. What he did was fall behind on his taxes due to a failed business. There are liens – IRS and private - that he is working through.

The IRS sends the employee a letter informing him/her that his/her withholdings are too low. The IRS wants the employee to self-adjust by increasing their withholding.

If that fails, the IRS sends the employer a letter. An employer has 60 days from the date of the letter to unilaterally adjust the employee’s withholdings.

The employee can quit, but the lock is good for 12 months. The employee will have to go somewhere else for a year before returning if he/she wishes to avoid the lock.

The 60 days has two purposes:

(1)  To allow the employer time to make the changes, and 

(2)  To prompt the employee to contact the IRS. If so – and if the employee can persuade the IRS – the IRS may modify the lock.

If the employee keeps his/her nose clean, he/she can request the IRS remove the lock-in. Figure that it will take about three years of tax returns, however, so it is best to avoid the lock altogether.

The employer is extremely unlikely to buck the IRS, as the employer might then draw surrogate liability. One might be a valued employee, but one is not that valued. 

Let’s look at a case.

Charles G worked for Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA). He submitted a W-4 to VTNA claiming that he was exempt from income tax withholding. He also requested VTNA to stop withholding social security taxes.

VTNA was surprisingly tolerant. It spotted Charles a 99-dependent W-4 (affecting income tax withholding), although it could not do anything about the social security.

Charles went a couple of years or so before the IRS contacted him. He blew it off, so the IRS sent VTNA a lock-in letter.

Charles went ballistic.

Charles accused the IRS and VTNA of “acting in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”

Wow. I wonder how it went come employee review time.

The Court of course dismissed Charles’ claim against VTNA. In general, an employer must follow an employee’s request concerning withholding. If the employee asserts that he/she is exempt from withholding, then the employer must comply with such request unless certain situations occur. A lock-in letter is one of those situations.

It sounds rather self-evident, truthfully.

It also sounds like Charles was a bit of a tax protestor. A word of advice: don’t go there with Charles. Your chances of success are between zero and none, and the list of dead bodies on that hill stretches interminably. Several years ago, we represented a business having an officer the IRS considered a protestor. I did not agree with the IRS on this, but I admit that he was getting close to the line.  The audit was … unpleasant. There was no question that school was in session, and the IRS was looking to teach a lesson.

Our case this time was Giles v Volvo Trucks of North America, 551 F. Supp 2^nd 359.

The IRS Cryptocurrency Letter

Do you Bitcoin?

The issue actually involves all cryptocurrencies, which would include Ethereum, Dash and so forth.

A couple of years ago the IRS won a case against Coinbase, one of the largest Bitcoin exchanges. The IRS wasn’t going after Coinbase per se; rather, the IRS wanted something Coinbase had: information. The IRS won, although Coinbase also scored a small victory.

·       The IRS got names, addresses, social security numbers, birthdates, and account activity.

·       Coinbase however provided this information only for customers with cryptocurrency sales totaling at least $20,000 for years 2013 to 2015.

What happens next?

You got it: the IRS started sending out letters late last month- approximately 10,000 of them. 

Why is the IRS chasing this?

The IRS considers cryptocurrencies to be property, not money. In general, when you sell property at a gain, the IRS wants its cut. Sell it at a loss and the IRS becomes more discerning. Is the property held for profit or gain or is it personal? If profit or gain, the IRS will allow a loss. If personal, then tough luck; the IRS will not allow the loss.

The IRS believes there is unreported income here.

Yep, probably is.

The tax issue is easier to understand if you bought, held and then sold the crypto like you would a stock or mutual fund. One buy, one sell. You made a profit or you didn’t.

It gets more complicated if you used the crypto as money. Say, for example, that you took your car to a garage and paid with crypto. The following weekend you drove the car to an out-of-town baseball game, paying for the tickets, hotel and dinner with crypto. Is there a tax issue?

The tax issue is that you have four possible tax events:

(1)  The garage

(2)  The tickets

(3)  The hotel

(4)  The dinner

I suspect that are many who would be surprised that the IRS sees four possible triggers there. After all, you used crypto as money ….

Yes, you did, but the IRS says crypto is not money.

And it raises another tax issue. Let’s use the tickets, hotel and dinner for our example.

Let’s say that you bought cryptos at several points in time. You used an older holding for the tickets. 

You had a gain on that trade.

You used a newer holding for the hotel and dinner.

You had losses on those trades.

Can you offset the gains and losses?

Remember: the IRS always participates in your gains, but it participates in your losses only if the transaction was for profit or gain and was not personal.

One could argue that the hotel and dinner are about as personal as you can get.

What if you get one of these letters?

I have two answers, depending on how much money we are talking about.

·       If we are talking normal-folk money, then contact your tax preparer. There will probably be an amended return. I might ask for penalty abatement on the grounds that this is a nascent area of tax law, especially if we are talking about our tickets, hotel and dinner scenario.

·       If crazy money, talk first to an attorney. Not because you are expecting jail; no, because you want the most robust confidentiality standard available. That standard is with an attorney. The attorney will hire the tax preparer, thereby extending his/her confidentiality to the preparer.

If the IRS follows the same game plan as they did with overseas bank accounts, anticipate that they are looking for strong cases involving big fish with millions of dollars left unreported.

In other words, tax fraud.

You and I are not talking fraud. We are talking about paying Starbucks with crypto and forgetting to include it on your tax return.

Just don’t blow off the letter.

The Abbott Laboratories 401(k)

Something caught my eye recently about student loans. A 401(k) is involved, so there is a tax angle.

Abbott Laboratories is using their “Freedom 2 Save” program to:

… enable full-time and part-time employees who qualify for the company's 401(k) – and who are also contributing 2 percent of their eligible pay toward student loans – to receive an amount equivalent to the company's traditional 5 percent "match" deposited into their 401(k) plans. Program recipients will receive the match without requiring any 401(k) contribution of their own.”

Abbott will put money into an employee’s 401(k), even if the employee is not himself/herself contributing.

As I understand it, the easiest way to substantiate that one’s student loan is 2% or more of one’s eligible pay is to allow Abbott to withhold and remit the monthly loan amount. For that modest disclosure of personal information, one receives a 5% employer “match” contribution.

I get it. It can be difficult to simultaneously service one’s student loan and save for retirement.

Let’s take this moment to discuss the three main ways to fund a 401(k) account.

(1)  What you contribute. Let’s say that you set aside 6% of your pay.

(2)  What your employer is committed to contributing. In this example, say that the company matches the first 4% and then ½ of the next 2%. This is called the “match,” and in this example it would be 5%.

(3)  A discretionary company contribution. Perhaps your employer had an excellent year and wants to throw a few extra dollars into the kitty. Do not be skeptical: I have seen it happen. Not with my own 401(k), mind you (I am a career CPA, and CPA firms are notorious), but by a client. 

Abbott is not the first, by the way. Prudential Retirement did something similar in 2016.

The reason we are talking about this is that the IRS recently blessed one of these plans in a Private Letter Ruling. A PLR is an IRS opinion requested by, and issued to, a specific taxpayer. One generally has to write a check (the amount varies depending upon the issue), but in return one receives some assurance from the IRS on how a transaction is going to work-out taxwise. Depending upon, a PLR is virtually required tax procedure. Consider certain corporate mergers or reorganizations. There may be billions of dollars and millions of shareholders involved. One gets a PLR – period – as the downside might be career-ending.

Tax and retirement pros were (and are) concerned how plans like Abbott’s will pass the “contingent benefits” prohibition. Under this rule, a company cannot make other employee benefits – say health insurance – contingent on an employee making elective deferrals into the company’s 401(k) plan.

The IRS decided that the prohibition did not apply as the employees were not contributing to the 401(k) plan. The employer was. The employees were just paying their student loans.

By the way, Abbott Laboratories has subsequently confirmed that it was they who requested and received the PLR.

Technically, a PLR is issued to a specific taxpayer and this one is good only for Abbott Laboratories. Not surprisingly there are already calls to codify this tax result. Once in the Code or Regulations, the result would be standardized and a conservative employer would not feel compelled to obtain its own PLR.

I doubt you and I will see this in our 401(k)s.  This strikes me as a “big company” thing, and a big company with a lot of younger employees to boot.

Great recruitment feature, though.

Does The IRS Want 1099s For Your Contributions?

I have been thinking about a recent IRS notice of proposed rulemaking. The IRS is proposing rules under its own power, arguing that it has the authority to do so under existing law.

This one has to do with charitable contributions.

You already know that one should retain records to back up a tax return, especially for deductions. For most of us that translates into keeping receipts and related cancelled checks.

Contributions are different, however.

In 1993 Congress passed Code section 170(f)(8) requiring you to obtain a letter (termed “contemporaneous written acknowledgement”) from the charity to document any donation over $250.  If you do not have a letter the IRS will disallow your deduction upon examination.

Congress felt that charitable contributions were being abused. How? Here is an example: you make a $5,000 donation to the University of Kentucky and in turn receive season tickets – probably to football, as the basketball tickets are near impossible to get. People were deducting $5,000, when the correct deduction would have been $5,000 less the value of those season tickets. Being unhappy to not receive 100 percent of your income, Congress blamed the “tax gap” and instituted yet more rules and requirements.

So begins our climb on the ladder to inanity.

Soon enough taxpayers were losing their charitable deductions because they failed to obtain a letter or failed to receive one timely. There were even cases where all parties knew that donations had been made, but the charity failed to include the “magic words” required by the tax Code.

Let’s climb on.

In October, 2015 the IRS floated a proposal to allow charities to issue Forms 1099s in lieu of those letters. Mind you, I said “allow.” Charities can continue sending letters and disregard this proposal.

If the charity does issue, then it must also forward a copy of the 1099s to the IRS. This has the benefit of sidestepping the donor’s need to get a timely letter from the charity containing the magic words.

Continue climbing: for the time-being charities have to disregard the proposal, as the IRS has not designed a Form 1099 even if the charity were interested.  Let’s be fair: it is only a proposal. The IRS wanted feedback from the real world before it went down this path.

Next rung: why would you give your social security number to a charity – for any reason? The Office of Personnel Management could not safeguard more than 20 million records from a data hack, but the IRS wants us to believe that the local High School Boosters Club will?

Almost there: the proposal is limited to deductible contributions, meaning that its application is restricted to Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Only (c)(3)s can receive deductible contributions.

But there is another Section 501 organization that has been in the news for several years – the 501(c)(4). This is the one that introduced us to Lois Lerner, the resignation of an IRS Commissioner, the lost e-mails and so on. A significant difference between a (c)(3) and a (c)(4) is the list of donors. A (c)(3) requires disclosure of donors who meet a threshold. A (c)(4) requires no disclosure of donors.    

You can guess how much credibility the IRS has when it says that it has no intention of making the 1099 proposal mandatory for (c)(3)s - or eventually extending it to also include (c)(4)s.

We finally reached the top of the ladder. What started as a way to deal with a problem (one cannot deduct those UK season tickets) morphed into bad tax law (no magic beans means no deduction) and is now well on its way to becoming another government-facilitated opportunity for identity theft.

The IRS Notice concludes with the following:

Given the effectiveness and minimal burden of the CWA process, it is expected that donee reporting will be used in an extremely low percentage of cases.”

Seems a safe bet.

UPDATE: After the writing of this post, the IRS announced that it was withdrawing these proposed Regulations. The agency noted that it had received approximately 38,000 comments, the majority of which strongly opposed the rules. Hey, sometimes the system works.

The Mexican Fideicomiso and Foreign Trusts

This topic originated with Karl, who owns a condo in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

Karl was incredulous when I had him file a foreign trust tax return for his Mexican condo a couple of years ago. Why? Because the IRS was increasing their attention to foreign matters (think FBAR and FATCA, for example), and the penalties for failure to file had marched full-throated into extortion territory – at least for my clients, as I do not represent P&G, Toyota or their executives.

Under the Mexican constitution, noncitizens cannot directly own real estate within 50 kilometers of the coastline. This means that a U.S. citizen (Karl for example) has to use an agent to purchase the real estate. This agency is called a fideicomiso. Mind you the fideicomiso does nothing other than hold title – there is no bank account to pay taxes or insurance or repairs or anything.

The tax issue with the fideicomiso is whether or not the IRS would consider it to be a foreign trust. For many years practitioners (including me) considered it the equivalent of an Illinois land trust. The IRS treats the Illinois land trust as though it doesn’t exist; a technical way to say it is that the owner has a direct interest in the real estate and reports accordingly.

When the IRS tightened up its foreign reporting, it became unclear how they would treat fideicomisos. I called the National Office, for example, but received no clear-cut answer or leaning. This put me in a difficult spot, as the penalties for failure to file a return when assets are transferred to a foreign trust are the greater of $10,000 or 35% of the assets transferred. There is also an annual filing requirement (it is assumed that the trust is not funded annually), and those penalties are the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the value of the trust assets.

You can see how this gets very expensive.

So I had Karl file a tax return to report the funding (Form 3520) as well as an annual tax return (Form 3520-A). I am uncertain what the IRS got out of this, but Karl racked up additional tax compliance fees.

The IRS has recently published a Private Letter Ruling (PLR 201245003) stating that a fideicomiso is not a trust as that term is intended in IRS Reg. 301.7701-4(a), and that the beneficiary of the trust is to be treated as the direct owner. In other words, the fideicomiso is “invisible” to the IRS.

There are issues with PLRs, primarily that the IRS does not consider them as precedent to anyone other than the person to whom the PLR was issued. That means that – while tax advisors can look to them for markers as to IRS positions – they are not a failsafe if the IRS goes against you.  Karl is not completely protected unless he obtains his own PLR. Those cost money, of course. The filing fee alone can be several thousand dollars. Then you have my fee.

Don’t get me wrong: I have used PLRs in IRS representation before, and I have gotten greater or lesser traction depending on the examiner, manager or appeals officer and the magnitude of the specific issue to the exam. I suspect that, in the case of fideicomisos, the IRS is waving the flag and giving advisors a clue on their position and enforcement intentions. But one cannot be sure, and there’s the rub.

So how would you have me advise Karl? Would you advise him/her to get his/her own PLR (for thousands of dollars), would you rely on the issued PLR or would you have Karl continue filing Forms 3520/3520-A?

And remember: all we are talking about is a condo. A nice one, granted, but this "trust" has never even been near Switzerland.