An IRS Examination And A New IRS Hire

 

I have gotten dragged into a rabbit hole.

I often get involved with clients on a one-off basis: they are buying a company, selling their business, expanding into other states, looking into oddball tax credits and so forth. Several of our clients have been selling their businesses. In some cases, they have been offered crazy money by a roll-up; in others it is the call of retirement. I was looking at the sale of a liquor store last fall. As business sales go, it was not remarkable. The owner is 75 years old and has been working there since he was a teenager. It was time. The sale happened this year.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. The CPA who works with the liquor store was taking time off, but I was in the office. The owner remembered me.

“Can I see you this afternoon,” he asked.

“Of course. Let me know what works for you.”

He brought an IRS notice of appointment with a field revenue officer. I reviewed the notice: there was a payroll issue as well as an issue with the annual deposit to retain a fiscal year.

I had an educated guess about the annual deposit. This filing is required when a passthrough (think partnership or S corporation) has a year-end other than December. We do not see many of these, as passthroughs have mostly moved to calendar year-ends since the mid-eighties. The deposit is a paper-file, and clients have become so used to electronic filing they sometimes forget that some returns must still be filed via snail mail.

The payroll tax issue was more subtle. For some reason, the IRS had not posted a deposit for quarter 4, 2022. This set a penalty cascade into motion, as the IRS will unilaterally reorder subsequent tax deposits. Let this reordering go on for a couple of quarters or more and getting the matter corrected can border on a herculean task.

I spoke with the revenue officer. She sounded very much like a new hire. Her manager was on the call with her. Yep, new hire.

Let’s start the routine:

“Your client owes a [fill in the blank] dollars. Can they pay that today?”

“I disagree they owe that money. I suspect it is much less, if they owe at all.”

“I see. Why do you say that?”

I gave my spiel.

“I see. Once again, do you want to make payment arrangements?”

I have been through this many times, but it still tests my patience.

“No, I will recap the liabilities and deposits for the two quarters under discussion to assist your review. Once you credit the suspended payroll deposit to Q4, you will see the numbers fall into place.”

“What about the 8752 (the deposit for the non-calendar year-end)?

“I have record that it was prepared and provided to the taxpayer. Was it not filed?”

“I am not seeing one filed.”

“These forms are daft, as they are filed in May following the fiscal year in question. Let’s be precise which fiscal year is at issue, and I will send you a copy. Do you want it signed?”

The manager chimes in: that is incorrect. Those forms are due in December.”

Sigh.

New hire, poorly trained manager. Got it.

I ask for time to reply. I assemble documents, draft a walkthrough narration, and fax it to the field revenue officer. I figure we have one more call. Maybe the client owes a couple of bucks because … of course, but we should be close.

Then I received the following:

 

I am not amused.

The IRS has misstepped. They escalated what did not need to escalate, costing me additional time and the client additional professional fees. Here is something not included when discussing additional IRS funding for new hires: who is going to train the new hires? The brain drain at the IRS over the last decade and a half has been brutal. It is debatable whether there remains a deep enough lineup to properly train new hires in the numbers and time frame being presented. What is realistic – half as many? Twice as long? Bring people out of retirement to help with the training?

Mind you, I am pulling for the IRS. The better they do their job the easier my job becomes. That said, there are realities. CPA firms cannot find qualified hires in adequate numbers, and the situation does not change by substituting one set of letters (fill-in whatever word-salad firm name you want) for another (IRS). Money is an issue, of course, but money is not the only issue. There are enormous societal changes at work.

What is our next procedural move?

I requested a CDP hearing.

The Collections Due Process hearing is a breather as the IRS revs its Collections engines. It allows one to present alternatives to default Collections, such as:

·      An offer in compromise

·      An installment agreement

I have no intention of presenting Collections alternatives. If we owe a few dollars, I will ask the client to write a check to the IRS. No, what I want is the right to dispute the amount of tax liability.

A liability still under examination by a field revenue officer. I have agreed to nothing. I have not even had a follow-up phone call. A word to the new hires: it is considered best practice – and courteous - to not surprise the tax practitioner. A little social skill goes a long way.

The Notice of Intent to Levy was premature.

Someone was not properly trained.

Or supervised.

I question whether this would have happened 15 or more years ago.

But then again, 15 years from now the new hires will be the institutional memory at the IRS.

It is the years in between that are problematic.

Offer In Compromise And Reasonable Collection Potential

Command Central is working two Collections cases with the same revenue officer.

For the most part, I am staying out of it. There is a young(er) tax guy here, and we are exposing him to the ins-and-outs of IRS procedure. This is a subject not taught in school, and training today is much like it was when I went through: a mentor and mouth-to-ear. Friday morning we spent quite a bit of time trying to determine whether someone’s tax year was still “open,” as it would make a substantial difference in how we approach the situation.

COMMENT: This is the statute of limitations. The IRS has three years to assess your return and then ten years to collect. Hypothetically one could get to thirteen years, but that would require the IRS to run the three-year gamut before assessing and then the ten-year stretch to collect. I do not believe I have ever seen the IRS do that. No, of greater likelihood is that the taxpayer has done things to suspend the statute (called “tolling”), things such as requesting payment plans or submitting offers in compromise. Do this repetitively and you might be surprised at how long ten years can stretch. 

Personally, I suspect one of these two clients is dead in the water.

Why?

Let’s like at some inside baseball for an offer in compromise.

Collections looks at something called reasonable collection potential (RCP). As a rule of thumb, figure that the IRS is looking at a bigger number than you are. RCP has two components:

(1)  Net realizable equity in your assets

The classic example is a paid-off house.

To be fair, the IRS does spot you some room. It will use 80% (rather than 100%) of the house’s market value, for example, and then allow you to reduce that by any mortgage. Yes, the IRS is pushing you to refinance the house and take out the equity. It is not unavoidable, however. The push could be mitigated (if not stopped altogether) in special circumstances.

(2)  Future remaining income

This is a multiple of your monthly disposable income.

Monthly disposable income (MDI) is the net of

·      Monthly income less

·      Allowable living expenses (ALE)

Trust me, what you consider your ALE is almost certain to be significantly higher than what the IRS considers your ALE. There are tables, for example, of selected expense categories such as allowable vehicle ownership and operating costs. The IRS is not going to spot you $1,000/month to drive a luxury SUV when calculating your ALE. You may owe it, but they are not going to allow it. Yep, the math has to give, and when it gives, it is going to fall on you.

MDI is then multiplied by either 12 or 24, depending on which flavor offer in compromise you are requesting.

The vanilla flavor, for example, requires you to submit a 20% deposit with the offer request.

That is a problem if you are broke.

Then you have to pay the remaining 80% payments over five months.

 But – you say – that 80% includes twelve months of income. How am I to generate twelve months of income in five months?

I get it, but I did not write the rules.

Let’s look at a recent case. We will then have a quiz question.

Mr. D owed taxes for 2009 through 2011, 2013 through 2017, and payroll tax trust fund penalties for quarter 2, 2014 and quarters 3 and 4, 2015. These totaled a bit under $410 grand.

Shheeessshhh.

Mrs. D owed taxes for 2011 and 2013 through 2017.

OK. Those were joint income tax liabilities and would already have been included in Mr. D’s $410 grand.

They filed and owed with their 2018 return.

In March 2020 they requested a Collection Due Process Hearing.

They filed and owed with their 2019 return.

In July 2020 they offered $45,966 to settle their personal taxes for 2009 through 2011 and 2013 through 2019. Total personal tax was about $437 grand.

Now began the Collections dance.

Their offer was submitted to the specialized unit that works with offers. The unit wanted more information. The D’s had disclosed, for example, that they had retirement accounts.

The IRS asked: could you send us paperwork on the retirement accounts? 

The D’s send information for her IRA but not for his 401(k).

COMMENT: It almost never works to play this game.

The IRS calculated RCP based on their best available information.

Let’s look at just one facet: the house.

The D’s said the house was worth $376,600 on their original application. It had a mortgage of $310,877.

The IRS said that the house was worth $680,816.

COMMENT: Really? Did they think the IRS had never heard of Zillow or Movoto?

Following is the taxpayers’ comment:

On September 24, 2021, petitioners acknowledged that this value did not reflect the actual fair market value of the personal residence, stating that ‘we always start low as the initial starting point of the negotiation.’”         

COMMENT: Again, it almost never works to play this game.

Here is the math for NRE:

FMV	680,816
	80%
Adjusted	544,653
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	233,776

                                          

 

 

The D’s argued that the $680,816 value for the house was ridiculous.

They had it appraised at $560,000.

The IRS said: OK. Even so, here is the NRE:              

FMV	560,000
	80%
Adjusted	448,000
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	137,123

The IRS of course determined the D’s could pay significantly more than their proposed offer. I want to stop our discussion here and go to our quiz question:

I have given you enough information to know the IRS would turn down their offer of $45,966. How do you know?

Go back and review how RCP is calculated.

It is the sum of realized assets and some multiple of income.

The offer was less than RCP.

In fact, it was less than the asset component of RCP.

Could it happen? Of course, but it would take exceptional circumstances: think elderly taxpayers, maybe severe if not terminal illness, the residence being the only meaningful asset, etc.

That is not what we have here.

So the D’s tried a gambit:

Petitioners propose that this Court find as fact their allegations that the SO was ‘hostile, irate [and] yelling’ and ‘not qualified to be impartial and honest in this case.’”

That might work. Must prove it though.

Jawboning the SO when gathering information does not seem like such a brilliant idea now.

Here is the Court:

Since the record before us (which we are bound by) is silent as to any of the SO’s alleged acts of impropriety or bias, we find this argument by petitioners to be unsubstantiated.”

Offer denied.

Our case this time was Dietz v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 203-69.

The Problem-Child Client: Recidivist

 

It happens: the problem-child client.

Let’s talk about one type of problem child: the recidivist.

Thomas Kelly was a securities broker in New York City. We have three tax years at play - 2013 to 2015. Thomas had not been filing his returns or paying his taxes.

On December 22, 2017, he filed 2013, reporting adjusted gross income of $1.9 million. The tax was approximately $690 grand.

A few days later (December 26, 2017) he filed 2014, reporting AGI of almost $1.5 million and tax of approximately $515 grand.

Keeping the streak going, on January 17, 2018, he filed 2015, reporting AGI of $1.2 million and tax over $400 grand.

Got it. Thomas fell out of the system and was now trying to get back in. Maybe there had been familial or medical setbacks. He was trying to correct his mistakes. Everybody likes a comeback story.

Let’s jump forward over a year and a half to September 2019. Thomas owed the IRS over $2.5 million for years 2013 through 2015.

Late file penalties. Late pay penalties. Interest on everything. Yep, it gets expensive.

The IRS issued three notices:

* Two for liens

* Another for a levy

Thomas requested a CDP (Collection Due Process) hearing. He was after three things:

* He wanted a payment plan

* He wanted withdrawal of the liens

* He wanted abatement of the penalties

Got it. So far this is standard stuff.

The hearing was scheduled for March 2020.

Then COVID happened.

The hearing was held-up until February 2021.

At the hearing …

FIRST, Thomas wanted to pay $30,000 per month.

Problem: Thomas owed enough that $30 grand would not pay his taxes in full before the statute of limitations played out.

CTG: This is a called a partial pay plan. There are requirements in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), and one is that the taxpayer be current on his/her other taxes. Thomas owed approximately $250 grand on his 2019 taxes.

The IRS did not want to include 2019 in his payment plan. In addition, the IRS did not see payments on his 2020 estimated taxes.

CTG: Borrow $250 grand and a bit more for those estimated taxes, Thomas. Battle, war, and all that.

It makes sense if you think about it. Thomas was asking the IRS to accept less than a dollar-on-a-dollar for past taxes. He was then asking the same deal for his current taxes. The IRS was not going to agree to this.

Thomas dug in his heels and wanted the IRS to include 2019 and 2020 in the payment plan.

The IRS of course didn’t.

Thomas complained that the IRS settlement officer abused his discretion in denying him a payment plan.

CTG: Thomas, shut up.

SECOND, Thomas wanted the liens removed.

CTG: This one is going to be tricky. The IRS is reluctant to remove a lien, especially once you get to those dollar levels.

Thomas argued that the IRS Settlement Officer abused his discretion in refusing to withdraw the liens.

CTG: Thomas … SHUT UP!

Thomas next argued that releasing the lien would facilitate his being able to pay the tax. The lien would affect his licensing, and that effect could negatively impact his earning power.

CTG: Nice segue. We now need to go from “could” to “would,” as we need to persuade skeptical parties. Is there a cite from governing body rules and regulations we can copy and paste? Can you get a letter from your employer? We need something more than our word, as that is considered self-serving.

Nope, says Thomas. My word is good enough.

CTG: You are not taking advice well, Thomas.

THIRD, Thomas wanted the penalties abated. He had two arguments.

CTG: Bring it.

The first was that he qualified for first time abatement (FTA).

CTG: OK, but that will address 2013 only. You won’t be able to use it again for the other years.

FTA is bread-and-butter. If you have been clean for the preceding 3 years, the IRS can waive the penalty. The FTA applies to a limited number of penalties, but the good news is that limited number included Thomas’s specific penalty.

Good job, Thomas.

However, the IRS pointed out that Thomas had penalties for 2012. The … tax … year … immediately … preceding 2013.

CTG: Thomas, did you even google what FTA is?

Thomas had a second argument: he had reasonable cause.

CTG: OK, Thomas, sway me.

His wife started spending money like madwoman in 2007. This caused all matters of marital and financial problems. She filed for divorce in 2015.

CTG: Thomas …

The attorney fees were crushing. He was having financial hardship …

CTG: Thomas …

… emotional problems …

CTG: Thomas …

… battling depression.

CTG: Thomas, the Court is going to want to know how your divorce proceedings – in 2015 – affected your tax responsibilities for 2013 and 2014.

Tax Court: Yes, Thomas, please tell us.

Here are a few trenchant comments by the Court:

He successfully conducted his securities business during 2013 – 2015, earning more than $1 million annually …”

… he has a history of tax noncompliance, dating as far back as 2009.”

His allegations of financial hardship at the relevant times thus seem questionable.”

CTG: We are losing them here, Thomas.

Tax Court:

In any event, financial hardship ‘generally does not affect a person’s ability to file.’”

CTG: Going…

Tax Court:

At the time of the CDP hearing petitioner’s outstanding liabilities for 2013 - 2015 exceeded $2.5 million. Those liabilities arose from his repeated failure to file returns and pay tax, despite earning between $1 million and $2 million annually. During the hearing he refused to pay even his (comparatively modest) estimated tax liability for 2020.

CTG: Gone.

Yes, the IRS sours with a recidivist. I have seen the IRS dig in when they see someone failing to file, never paying estimates, extending with no payment, repetitively filing returns with significant balances due. This is not a matter of knowing how to navigate the IRS. One can navigate like Magellan and not get there.

Thomas could have - I believe - gotten a partial pay. Perhaps he needed to borrow to pay 2019 and 2020, but: so what? He had the earning power, and borrowing would have facilitated the (much more significant) $2.5 million at play for 2013 through 2015.

He had a shot at releasing the liens if he could show (likely) injury to his earning power. He had to show some cause, though, otherwise everyone would make this argument and the IRS would never be able to lien.   

He was hosed on penalty abatement, however. Recidivist.

He certainly did not need to fling charges of abusing discretion. The Settlement Officer was just following IRM guidelines, which Thomas (or his tax advisor) could have double-checked at any time.   

Our case this time was Thomas E Kelly v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-73.

The IRS Caught Dumping A Collection Case

Let’s look at a taxpayer win on an issue not known for taxpayer wins.

Thomas Hamilton was an attorney and Edith Hamilton was a chaplain. They filed a 2016 tax return showing tax due of almost $72 thousand. They however did not pay the tax in full.

The IRS assessed.

The IRS then issued a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) to secure its assessment.

This presented a procedural option: the Hamiltons could request a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. If they could work-out a payment agreement perhaps they might avoid the lien. Liens can be embarrassing.

They requested a CDP hearing.  

The IRS Settlement Officer (SO) asked for a lot of information, including:

(1)  Proof of 2018 estimated tax payments

(2)  Their 2017 personal tax return

(3)  Six months of bank statements

(4)  Three months of pay stubs

(5)  Proof of various expenses for the preceding three months

The SO also wanted the law practice to catch-up on its (mostly payroll-related) tax returns from 2015 through 2017.

The SO did stagger some of the due dates for the above: some were due on October 17, others were due October 24. The hearing itself was November 15, 2018.

The Hamiltons did not provide any documents by October 24.

Oh oh.

They did write a letter on October 31, explaining that their (now) previous bookkeeper failed to keep many documents, a fact which came to light as they were trying to comply with the SO’s request. They hired a CPA, who was helping reconstruct records as well as representing them during the CDP hearing. Finally, they had reordered online bank statements and would forward the requested documentation as soon as possible. They reiterated their desire for a payment plan.

Let me retract the “oh oh” comment, although they should have responded – in some manner - by the October 17 date.

Why? To discourage the SO from thinking that they were stalling.  

Between November 2 and November 15, the Hamiltons sent five faxes totaling hundreds of pages. They sent bank statements, copies of bills and some (but not all) of the payroll tax returns for the law practice.

The day before the hearing they also faxed personal and business financial information (Forms 433-A and 433-B) as well as a copy of their 2017 individual tax return and its electronic acceptance by the IRS.

The SO had spent no time on the case from October 1 to the date of the hearing, when she spent an hour preparing beforehand.

At the hearing the SO pressed on the following:

·      They had not filed their 2017 individual tax return.

·      They had not provided proof of their expenses.

·      They were not making 2018 estimated tax payments.

·      They had not filed payroll returns for the law practice.   

The CPA chimed in:

·      They had filed their 2017 tax return and provided proof of electronic acceptance by the IRS.

·      They had provided bank statements and documentation for the vast majority of their expenses.

·      They would be current with their 2018 estimated taxes as soon as the following month.

·      They had file some of the payroll returns the SO was considering unfiled.

The SO said she would recommend filing the NFTL.

Mr Hamilton requested additional time to provide the missing information.

The SO said: no chance.

The IRS sustained the filing of the NFTL for 2016 and also rejected their request for an installment agreement.

Sheesshh. That CDP hearing blew up.

And so we get to Tax Court.

Let’s set up the issue:

·      There was a proposed lien

·      To which taxpayers requested a CDP hearing

·      And got turned down for not complying with the SO’s documentation requests

You can take one of these to Tax Court, but it is very tough to win. In short, you must show that the IRS was capricious and abused its discretion. 

The Court went through the file:

1. The Hamiltons sent an 11-page fax on November 9. The fax included one of the payroll tax returns the SO considered missing.

    The SO had included the fax cover sheet in her record.

    But not the other 10 pages.

    One wonders how accurate the SO’s records were.

    Human error, one supposes.

2. They had filed their 2017 individual tax return and had faxed the SO a copy. They had also informed her of this filing at the hearing.

    But the SO had included the non-filing as a reason for her bounce.

    Odd.

3. Between November 2 and the November 15 hearing date, they had sent at least five faxes, totaling hundreds of pages of financial documentation

    But the SO said they had not provided documentation.

    Here is the Court:

The failure of the administrative record to capture some documents makes us question the completeness of the administrative record that the settlement officer considered and that we are reviewing.

    And here the case turned.

    The third strike.

The Court pointed out that the Hamiltons made efforts to keep the SO apprised – of the bookkeeper debacle, of the request for copies of documents and bank statements. They asked the SO to apprise them of any questions or issues while they could still react.

Then the Court emphasized that the SO had not even looked at the file until the day of the hearing.

The hearing where she nonetheless chastised the Hamiltons for not having provided all the paperwork.

Here is the Court:

She did not take them up on that offer; her doing so would have allowed the Hamiltons to address any issues before the November 15, 2018 hearing.”

The Court continued:

… the settlement officer made up her mind after a cursory one-hour review of the Hamiltons’ materials and failed to give proper consideration to the issues they raised …”

The cumulative effect of the settlement officer’s conduct in this case was to deprive the Hamiltons of fair consideration of their issues and concerns. The Hamilton’s conduct was by no means perfect, but it reflected consistent cooperation and good-faith effort throughout the CDP process.”

The SO’s decision was found arbitrary and lacking sound basis in fact or law.

The case was returned to IRS Appeals for another hearing.

The SO had gotten the case off her desk.

But she had not done her job.

And there you have a rare taxpayer win in the CDP arena.

Our case this time was Hamilton v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-21.

Part Time Bookkeeper, Big Time Penalty

 

We filed another petition with the Tax Court this week.

For a client new to the firm.

Much of this unfortunately was ICDIM: I can do it myself. The client did not understand how the IRS matches information. There was an oddball one-off transaction, resulting in nonstandard tax reporting. Stir in some you-do-not-know-what-you-do-not-know (YDNKWYDNK), some COVIDIRS202020212022 and now I am involved.

I am looking at case that just screams YDNKWYDNK.

Here is part of the first paragraph:

This case is before the Court on a Petition for review of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2018 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) filing (NFTL filing) with respect to trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) under section 6672. The TFRPs were assessed against petitioner for failing to collect and pay over employment taxes owed by Urgent Care Center, Inc. (Urgent Care), for taxable quarters ending June 30 and September 30, 2014 (periods at issue), resulting in outstanding liabilities of $6, 184.23 and $4, 190.77, respectively.

That section 6330 is hard procedural, and it is going to hurt.

Mr Kazmi was a bookkeeper. He worked part-time at Urgent Care. Urgent Care did not remit employment taxes for a stretch, and unfortunately that stretch included the period when Mr Kazmi was there.

We are talking the big boy penalty, otherwise known as the responsible person penalty. The point of the penalty is to migrate the tax due to someone who had enough authority and responsibility to have paid the IRS but chose not to.

Mr Kazmi had no ownership interest in Urgent Care. He was not an officer. He was not a signatory on any bank accounts. He had no authority to decide who got paid. At all times he worked under the authority of the person who owned the place (Dr Senno). What he did have was a tax power of attorney.

Folks, I probably have a thousand tax powers of attorney out there.

Sounds to me like Mr Kazmi was the least responsible person (at least for payroll taxes) at Urgent Care.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) thought otherwise and on December 16, 2015 issued Mr Kazmi a letter 1153, a letter which said “tag, you are a responsible party; have a nice day.”

From what I am reading, this was a preposterous position. I generally have respect for ROs, but this one is a bad apple.  

Still, there are consequences.

Procedurally Mr Kazmi had 60 days to challenge the 1153.

He did not.

Why?

He did not know what he did not know.

A little time passed and the IRS came for its money. It wanted a lien. It also wanted a vanilla waffle ice cream cone.

Mr Kazmi yelled: Halt! He filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In the paperwork he included the obvious:

I am just a part-time bookkeeper. I am not responsible for collection or accounting or making payments for any tax payments for Urgent Care.

Makes sense.

Doesn’t matter.

He did not know what he did not know.

Let’s talk about the “one bite at the apple” rule.  In the current context, the rule means that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability if he/she already had a prior opportunity to do so.

One bite.

Mr Kazmi had his one bite when he received his letter 1153. You remember – the one he blew off.

He was now in CDP wanting to challenge the penalty. He wanted a second bite.

Not going to get it.

CDP was happy to talk about a payment plan and deadbeat taxpayers and whatnot. What it wouldn’t do was talk about whether Mr Kazmi deserved the penalty chop to begin with.

I am not a fan of such hard procedural. The vast majority of us will go a lifetime having no interaction with the IRS, excepting perhaps a minor notice now and then. It seems unreasonable to hold an average someone to stringent and obscure rules, rules that most attorneys and CPAs – unless they are tax specialists – would themselves be unaware of.

Still, it is what it is.

Does Mr Kazmi have any options left?

I think so.

Maybe a request for reconsideration.

Odds? So-so, maybe less.

A liability offer in compromise?

I like that one better.

Folks, it would have been much easier to pop this balloon back when the IRS trotted out that inappropriate letter 1153.

Mr Kazmi did not know what he did not know.

Our case this time was Kazmi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-13.

  

Giving The IRS A Reason To Reject Your Offer In Compromise

 

Can the IRS turn down your offer in compromise if the offer is truly the best and most you are able to pay?

My experience with OICs and partial payment plans has generally involved disagreement with the maximum a client can pay. I do not recall having the IRS tell me that they agreed with the maximum amount but were going to reject the OIC anyway. Some of that – to be fair – is my general conservatism with representing an OIC.

COMMENT: There are tax mills out there promising pennies-on-the-dollar and inside knowledge of an IRS program called “Fresh Start.” Here is inside knowledge: the IRS Fresh Start program started in 2011, so there is nothing new there. And if you want pennies on the dollar, then you had better become disabled or fully retired with no earning power, because it is not going to happen.

Today we are going to talk about James O’Donnell.

James did not believe in filing tax returns. Sometimes the IRS would prepare a substitute return for him; it did not matter, as he had no intention of paying. This went long enough that he was now dragging over $2 million in back taxes, penalties and interest.

I suppose his heart softened just a bit, as in May, 2016, he submitted an offer in compromise for $280,000. He attached a check for $56,000 (the required 20% chop) and simultaneously filed 12 years’ worth of tax returns.

When reviewing an OIC, the IRS will also review whether one is up-to-date with his/her tax compliance. The IRS did not see estimated tax payments for 2016 or 2017. In September, 2017 the IRS rejected the offer, saying that it would reconsider when James was in full compliance.

Bummer, but those are the ropes.

James must have hired someone, as that someone told the IRS that James did not need to pay estimated taxes.

Odd, but okay. The IRS decided to reopen the case.

The pace quickened.

In October, 2017 the IRS wanted to lien.

James requested a CDP hearing as he - you know – had an offer out there.

I agree. Liens are a bear to remove. It is much better to avoid them in the first place.

In March, 2018 the IRS rejected the offer.

In April, 2018 James appealed the rejection. His representative was still around and made three arguments:

(1)  The unit reviewing the offer erred in concluding the offer was not in the government’s best interest.

(2)  James was in full compliance with his tax obligations.

(3)  James was offering the government all he could realistically afford to pay.

There was paperwork shuffling at the IRS, and James’ case was assigned to a different settlement officer (SO). The SO sent a letter scheduling a telephone conference on May 15, 2018.

James skipped the call.

Sheeesshhh.

James explained that he never received the letter.

The SO rescheduled another telephone conference for June 14, 2018.

Two days before the hearing – June 12 – Appeals sustained the rejection of the offer, reasoning that acceptance of James’ offer was not in the government’s best interest because of his history of “blatant disregard for voluntary compliance.”

James made the telephone conference on June 14. The SO broke the bad news about the offer and encouraged James to resubmit a different collection alternative by June 26.

James filed with the Tax Court on August 20, 2018.

On July 30, 2019 (yes, almost a year later) the IRS filed a motion to return the case to the agency, so it could revisit the offer and its handling. The Tax Court agreed.

The IRS scheduled another conference call, this one for January 28, 2020. The IRS presented and James verbally agreed to a partial-pay with monthly payments of $2,071, beginning March, 2020.

COMMENT: This strikes me as a win for James. Failing the OIC – especially given the reason for the fail – a partial-pay is probably the best he can do.

The SO sent the partial-pay paperwork to James for his signature.

James blew it off.

He now felt that the SO had not considered all his expenses, making $2,071 per month unmaintainable.

OK. Send the SO your updated numbers – properly substantiated, of course – and request a reduction. Happens all the time, James.  

Nope. James wanted that OIC. He did not want a partial-pay.

It would be all or nothing in Tax Court.

COMMENT:  A key difference between the OIC and a partial-pay is that the IRS can review a partial-pay at a later point in time. As long as the terms are met, an OIC cannot be reviewed. If one’s income went up during the agreement period, for example, the IRS could increase the required payment under a partial-pay. This is the downside of a partial-pay compared to an offer.

James was betting all his chips on the following:

Appeals calculated the reasonable collection potential of $286,744. James had offered $280,000. Both sides agreed on the maximum he could pay.

The Tax Court pointed out that – while correct – the IRS is not required to accept an offer if there are other considerations.

Offers may be rejected on the basis of public policy if acceptance might in any way be detrimental to the interest of fair tax administration, even though it is shown conclusively that the amount offered is greater than could be collected by any other means.”

What other consideration did James bring to the table?

For two decades (if not longer) petitioner failed to file returns and failed to pay the tax shown on SFRs that the IRS prepared for him. During this period he was evidently a successful practitioner in the insurance and finance business. As of 2016 his outstanding liabilities exceeded $2 million, and he offered to pay only a small fraction of these liabilities. Because of his lengthy history of ignoring his tax obligations, the Appeals Office determined that acceptance of his offer could be viewed as condoning his ‘blatant disregard for voluntary compliance’ and that negative public reaction to acceptance of his offer could lead to ‘diminished future voluntary compliance’ by other taxpayers.”

The Tax Court bounced James, but it was willing to extend an olive branch:

We note that petitioner is free to submit to the IRS at any time, for its consideration and possible acceptance, a collection alternative in the form of an installment agreement, supported by the necessary financial information.”

Accepted OICs are available for public review. It is one thing to compromise someone’s taxes because of disability, long-term illness and the similar. That is not James’ situation. The Court did not want to incentivize others by compromising for fourteen (or so) cents on the dollar with someone who blew-off the tax system for twenty years.

Our case this time was James R. O’Donnell v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-134