Dealing With A Tax Lien

A client contacted me this past week. He received a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, and he wanted to find out if (1) he should worry about it and (2) if I could do anything about it.

Here is the pat answer in tax practice: it depends.

A lien is different from a levy. Odds are you and I would worry more about a levy than a lien.

A levy means that the IRS comes in and takes your money. The two classics are the wage garnishment, where they contact your employer and have him/her send them part of your paycheck, and the bank levy, where they swoop in a drain your bank account.

The IRS places a lien on a taxpayer’s property when he/she has unpaid tax debt. It does not mean that they are going to garnish your paycheck or seize your house, but it does mean that they have filed something at the courthouse alerting the world that you have unpaid debt. That lien can cost you over a hundred points on your credit score. In today’s world, that could affect you being offered a job or being approved for an apartment.

A lien can stay on your credit report for years, even after the tax is paid-off.

The IRS has realized the injurious effect of its previous lien policy. It has taken steps, albeit small, to alleviate some of the sting:

(1) The IRS has increased the minimum amount of tax debt that prompts the filing of a tax lien from $5,000 to $10,000.

(2) If you owe less than $25,000, the IRS will withdraw the lien if you set up a direct debit installment plan. This means they automatically draft money from your bank account every month. You have to pass a probationary period of three months (and three payments). The IRS will then withdraw the lien.

OBSERVATION: Words are important here. Record of a lien can remain on your credit report, even after it is removed. You prefer a withdrawal of the lien, as a withdrawal is as if nothing ever happened.

(3) Even if you owe less than $25,000 and have made at least three payments under a direct debit plan, you still have to request that the lien be withdrawn. You should submit Form 12277 Application for Withdrawal of Filed Notice of Federal Tax Lien, although any written request that provides the necessary information likely will suffice.

(4) Even after all this, you want to contact the credit bureaus to be certain that your records have been updated.

What if you owe more than $25,000? This is my client’s situation, and there are not many good options.

(1) Pay off the tax debt in full.

OBSERVATION: This one ranks a ‘duh.” Nonetheless, the point to consider is that you might be able to borrow and pay off the IRS. Granted, you still owe money, but at least you can stop the ongoing ding to your credit.

(2) Post a bond.

OBSERVATION: Again, if you have enough money to post a bond, you likely can pay-off the debt. I have never seen someone post a bond to release a lien.

(3) Request a partial release

You own several assets encumbered by the lien. If you need to sell an asset, you can request partial release from the lien. Expect the IRS to want the money from the sale, of course.

(4) Offer in Compromise

This is the “pennies on the dollar” commercial on radio or overnight television. The idea here is that you offer the IRS what you have, plus a portion of your future earnings, to pay-off a tax debt. If you still have years to go in the workforce and have reasonable earnings potential, you likely will not qualify for “pennies on the dollar.” The IRS can also see your earning power over the next few years, and they will be loathe to let you walk away. However, if you have modest assets and are disabled, retired or near retirement, the OIC may pack a punch.

What did I recommend to my client? He owes more than $25,000, and enough more where I cannot have him pay-down to $25,000. He is young enough, and has enough earning power, where any offer in compromise would yield little (if any) more benefit than a payment plan. In that case, I would prefer to remain in a payment plan, as an offer will toll the statute of limitations.  That takes away my last ditch option…

(5) Run the 10-year statutory collection period

The IRS has 3 years to audit your return and 10 years to collect. Sometimes they overlap, and the two periods run concurrently.  Think of running the bulls in Pamplona for 10 years, and you can visualize this tax strategy. Still, sometimes it works, which is why tax advisors continue to talk about it. 

The trap here is “tolling,” which means that the collection period is suspended. Toll enough and the 10 years can become 15 or 20 years. What causes a toll? A bankruptcy application causes it. So does an offer in compromise.

There is no releasing my client’s lien early. Why? The IRS will generally not release a lien if it knows it will not be fully paid-off.  My client has a partial pay plan, which means that his full liability will not be paid off unless the plan payment or period changes.  

He owes over $25 thousand and will not pay-off the IRS in full as the plan now stands. He is hosed.

Can The IRS Collect From You After 31 Years?

What were you doing 31 years ago? 

Me? I was living in South Florida. I probably had a nice tan. 

Let’s return to tax talk: do you think that the IRS can chase you down after 31 years?

One wouldn’t think so. There is a three-year statute of limitations on assessment, which generally means that the IRS has three years to audit you. If there is tax due, the IRS will then “assess” the tax, which means that they post the tax due to your master account. They have ten years (after assessment) to lien, levy or otherwise collect from you. The ten years is the statute of limitations on collection.  

NOTE: You can see there are two statutes at play: one on assessment and another on collection. The two can – and frequently – overlap, so that many times the effective statute of limitations is ten years.

There are specialized situations where tax representation involves exhausting the ten-year period. I had a client from Florida, for example, who inherited a nasty tax problem from her deceased husband.  Exhausting the collection period was part of our strategy.

Let’s talk about Beeler, which the Tax Court decided last month. 

There used to be a company called Equidyne Management, Inc, which failed to remit payroll taxes thirty-one years ago. That would be 1982.

Skipping out on payroll taxes is a bad idea. Somebody will not only be responsible for the taxes, interest and penalties but also for a 100 percent penalty to boot. This is the “responsible person” penalty, and this is one case where you do not want to be responsible.

NOTE: We have previously called this the “big-boy” penalty. It is one of the most gruesome penalties in the tax Code, as it imposes personal liability for a business debt.

Equidyne had three responsible persons: Beeler, Ross and Liebmann.

Ross filed for bankruptcy almost right away – in 1983. During his bankruptcy, he sent $80,860 as part of a “global settlement” with the IRS. “Global” means that he was paying off various taxes, not just the responsible person penalty.

Per the statute of limitations, the IRS had three years to assess. Right on schedule, in 1985 the IRS assessed the responsible person penalty against the three Equidyne officers. It could not assess against the company, as Equidyne itself had gone out of business.

Beeler lawyers up and contests the penalty. 

OBSERVATION: Litigation will “toll” the statute. This means that the ten-year period is suspended until the toll comes off.

The litigation is not resolved until 1995 - 10 years later. Beeler loses.   

Beeler contacts the IRS in 1997. The IRS fails to list the big boy penalty on his transcript.  

In 2001 the IRS releases liens on Beeler’s properties in New York and Sarasota. 

Even better, the IRS makes entry in Beeler’s master account that the statute of limitations on collections had expired.

Beeler wonders what is going on. More likely, Beeler’s tax CPA wonders what is going on. What the IRS did could be correct. The trust fund penalty is “joint and several.” The IRS could go against any of the three officers, but it does not have to go against the three proportionally. If the IRS had collected from one of the other two officers, then Beeler would be off the hook. The IRS cannot collect the penalty more than once, regardless of the number of responsible persons. 

In 2005 an IRS employee reviewing Beeler’s account notices that a “pending” code had been entered into the master file when Beeler litigated in 1986. This is standard procedure, and it indicates the “tolling” of the account. Problem is that the IRS failed to remove the code when the litigation ended in 1995. 

The IRS corrects the file. The judgment against Beeler is recorded. 

NOTE: One way to override the collection period is for the IRS to obtain a judgment, which requires the IRS to go to Court. Beeler was considerate enough to do this on his own power. 

Beeler is hopping mad. Wouldn’t you be? He sues the IRS - again. He has two arguments:

(1) The lien release discharged his trust fund obligation.

COMMENT: It did not. The lien secures a debt; it does not pay a debt. Relinquishment of a lien has nothing to do with the enforceability of the underlying debt.

(2) The big-boy penalty had been satisfied by payment.

COMMENT: This caught the Appeals Court’s attention, especially since the file went back to when some of the judges were probably entering law school. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the Tax Court to look into this matter.

The Tax Court determined the following:

(1)  Equidyne never paid anything.

(2)  Liebmann never paid anything.

(3)  Beeler never paid anything.

(4)  Ross paid $80,860 as part of a global settlement.

Beeler argues that Ross paid another $64,000. The Court finds record of a $64,000 but it believes that this was a bookkeeping entry reflecting a transfer among bankruptcy trustees and not a payment to the IRS.

But there was an IRS entry for $60,773. There was some dispute as to what it meant, as decades have gone by. The Court concluded that the IRS was correcting a prior entry, that this was not cash received and therefore not the $64,000 payment Beeler wanted.

Since there is no better information, the Court assumes that all of the $80,860 was paid toward the responsible person penalty and reduces Beeler’s liability accordingly. But Beeler is still on the hook for the balance.

Let us speculate. What if Beeler had not litigated the big-boy penalty? There would have been no judgment, and the statute of limitations would have eventually expired. Would the IRS have let that happen? Who knows? Sometimes the IRS will send a 90-day notice (called a “SNOD”) to get the case into Tax Court before the statute expires. You know what the IRS wants, of course: it wants the Court to transmute the assessment into a judgment. The IRS does not always send a SNOD, though. Perhaps it decides the likelihood of payment is low, or the amount due is inconsequential, or maybe the file just gets lost in the system. 

If he could go back, I wonder if Beeler would have litigated the penalty. It is the reason he is still on the hook, thirty- one years later.

Mormon Tithing and Caesar

George Thompson (GT) lives in New Jersey. He is the president of Compliance Innovations, Inc, which is owned by a trust. He and his wife are the trustees. He is a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Church). He is a shift coordinator and a stake scouting coordinator with the Church. The Church does not pay him, however. He is married and has five children, two of whom are or were in college.

GT got himself into tax problems. He owed payroll trust fund penalties of over $150,000 for payroll periods in 2004, 2005 and 2007.

NOTE: We have spoken about these penalties before and referred to them as the “big boy” penalties. These penalties are for not submitting payroll tax withholdings and are some of the harshest penalties in the IRS arsenal.

He also owed regular “income tax” penalties for taxable years 1992, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000. These added up to over $730,000.

$150,000 plus $730,000 equals a lot of money. The IRS wanted it. I think you can see the problem.

The IRS begins its offense by sending a Final Notice of Intent to Levy, following up with an off-hand Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing.  GT called time-out by filing a request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.

Let’s take a moment and explain what happened here. More than 25 years ago, Congress passed what has become known as the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” The intent was to introduce some formality to IRS Collections efforts, which too often operated as a Government Agency Gone Wild. GT applied the brake by requesting a CDP hearing. IRS Appeals would now step-in and look at how GT and Collections were behaving.

Before Appeals stepped-in, GT offered a “partial payment” installment agreement. You can guess that “partial payment” means that he is not paying off his tax in full. Collections requested a financial statement – a Form 433-A – providing GT’s income, expenses, assets and liabilities. The IRS wanted to see how much GT could pay.  

GT appeared to be doing well, listing monthly income of over $27 thousand with expenses of $24 thousand. He therefore offered to pay the IRS $3 thousand per month.

Seems fair, right?

The IRS looked at the same numbers and determined that he could pay over $8 thousand per month.

What? How could that be?

Trust me, it is easy – and common. The numbers are just magnified in this case.

When you get into this level of financial detail, the IRS classifies your expenses into two categories:

·        Necessary expenses

·        Conditional expenses

The IRS will generally disallow conditional expenses in a partial pay offer. GT had included approximately $5 thousand per month for Church tithing and college expenses. The IRS considered both to be conditional – and disallowed them. Bam! He could pay $5 thousand more per month.

Off go GT and the IRS to Tax Court.

GT leads off with Malachi 3:8-10:

Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

 But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

In tithes and offering. You are under a curse – your whole nation – because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.”

The IRS fires back with Matthew 22:21:

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The Court steps between the two with:

While we may be incapable of determining what belongs to God, we believe that we can, and must, decide what is Caesar’s.”

GT presented three different arguments to the Court:

(1) Given his position in the Church, tithing is required by the Internal Revenue Manual to be treated as a necessary expense.

(2) Classifying his tithing as a conditional expense is a violation of his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

(3) Classifying his tithing as a conditional expense is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Court dives into the first argument. It observes that the necessary expense test has two prongs: the expense must be for

·        The taxpayer’s health and welfare, or

·        The taxpayer’s production of income

For example, the Internal Revenue Manual allows a minister’s tithing as an allowable expense – if it is a condition of employment.

GT trots out a letter from his bishop that GT would have to resign his positions within the Church if he did not tithe. GT has a problem though, as the Church did not pay him. This would appear to present an obstacle. GT, undeterred, argues that the term “employment” in the Internal Revenue Manual is not limited to compensated employment and can include uncompensated employment.

Huh?

The Court observes that it cannot find any case specifically deciding whether the term “employment” as used in the Internal Revenue Manual is limited to compensated employment or can include uncompensated employment.

What? Can it be ...?

The Court reasons that there is a difference between a minister who is required to tithe in order to keep his/her job (and paycheck) and GT’s situation. It decides that the term “employment” must mean compensated employment.

GT argues that being active in the Church contributes to his health and welfare. The Court reflects on the interaction of religious observance and taxation, but does not agree that holding GT to his tax obligations compromises his health and welfare – or, at least, not any more than it compromises the rest of us.

GT next argues that not being able to tithe results in his being booted from Church office, thereby infringing his free exercise of religion.

The Court observes:

...petitioner overlooks the fact that it is his Church who is requiring him to resign his positions if he does not tithe. The settlement officer did not require petitioner to resign ...”

 And here is my favorite quote from the Court:

 “Petitioner’s claimed exemptions stems from the contention that an incrementally larger tax burden interferes with their religious activities. This argument knows no limitation.”

OBSERVATION: We know about Congress, taxes and “no limitation,” don’t we?

Let’s fast forward: GT loses his case. The Court is simply not going to let him treat his tithing and college expenses as a necessary expense when determining his partial payment installment offer.

My thoughts?  There are rules and guidelines when negotiating payment plans with the IRS. The more you want them to budge, the stricter the rules. The IRS did not budge an inch.  

I believe GT lost his case before he even went to Court. Why? Consider this quote from the Court:

Petitioner has a long history of not paying his taxes. As of the date of trial petitioner still had not paid his income tax liabilities for the taxable years 1992, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000.”

The Court was looking at GT as a deadbeat.

Here is the Court again:

Additionally, respondent has assessed trust fund recovery penalties under section 6672 against petitioner for seven different tax periods.”

Looking at? Nah. The Court had concluded that GT was a deadbeat.