Being Unemployed, Depressed And Owing The IRS

The case is 55 pages long.

Even a tax guy gets tired of marathon reading.

The story got me fired up, however, so let’s talk about it.

A frequent area of taxpayer request for IRS relief from penalties is rollovers of retirement monies, especially IRAs. Used to be that one filed for a Private Letter Ruling to obtain official absolution. Those bad boys are not cheap, as you will pay a tax CPA or attorney to draft the PLR, as well as pay the IRS filing fee. The filing fee alone can run you $10,000.

In 2016 the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2016-47 allowing for alternate means of absolution without requesting a PLR. Even the IRS got tired of taking your money.

Mr Trimmer was a retired cop with the New York Police Department. He was moving on after 20 years with the NPD, taking a security job with the New York Stock Exchange. He needed the job to supplement his pension, as he had two sons going through college. The new job however fell through. He was hosed, as the NYPD does not rehire.

And Trimmer went major depressive. He was antisocial, rarely left the house, neglected his hygiene and grooming – all the classic symptoms.

Somewhere in there he received two retirement checks: one for $99,990 and a second for $710. They lay on his dresser for weeks until he finally got around to depositing them into … his checking account.

COMMENT: If you were thinking a rollover, he flubbed because the roll did not go into an IRA account.

Months later Trimmer and his wife met with their accountant for their taxes. The accountant advised that he transfer the monies to an IRA immediately.

COMMENT: Trimmer was well outside the 60-day window at that point.

The IRS sent him a notice asserting that he failed to report over $100,000 of income and demanded taxes, penalties, interest, a Weimaraner puppy and a month’s pass to Planet Fitness.

It added up close to $40.000.

Yipes!

Trimmer wrote back to the IRS: 

    Dear Sirs:

I am contesting the amount of money said to be owed. Please allow me to explain the situation. In April 2011 I retired from my job and took a pension loan. After my retirement I went through a period of depression and was not managing my affairs. I received my check for the loan and deposited it into Santander bank on July 5, 2011. The money remained in this account until April of 2012 when it was switched to an I.R.A. in the same bank where it remains to this day.

A few points

- There was no deception or spending, investing of the money at all. I received the check and deposited it into the bank.

- My wife and I have been paying taxes for a combined 60 years and NEVER had the least bit a problem.

- There was no harm done to anyone with the money staying in the bank except me (I was receiving 0.25% interest.)

- I switched the money to an I.R.A. before I was notified by the I.R.S.

I am now employed again and am driving a school bus and have a son in college and another a year away. To pay $40,000 in taxes for money that is in an I.R.A. would absolutely cripple my family as it would be 3 years of my salary. Sir no harm was done to anyone. I went through a rough time upon separation from my job, causing me emotional hard times that caused this situation. Penalizing me and my family would not benefit anybody, only cause extreme duress and punish my children who played no part in this situation. I ask you to consider these facts and please come to a fair decision. Please contact me if you need at [phone number redacted].

Thank You,

John Trimmer

I feel sorry for the guy.

Here is the IRS reply:

“The law requires you to roll over your distribution within 60 days of the distribution date. If the roll over exceeds the time frame it becomes fully taxable.”

Nice folk over there.

Here is the tax issue: The IRS can issue waivers for this penalty, but they did not mention such fact to Mr Trimmer or how to apply for a waiver. Heck, they did not even reference Trimmer’s unfortunate circumstances. A reasonable person could question whether anyone even read his letter.

The IRS sent a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter.

Trimmer filed with the Tax Court.

The IRS went right for the throat:

•  Trimmer did not follow procedures (Rev Proc 2013-16 for the nerds).
• This made the hardship waiver provision “inapplicable.”
•  Since Trimmer had not pressed the point, there technically had been no “final administrative determination.”
• Without that “final,” the Tax Court had no authority over the case.
• In any event, Trimmer had never explained why he was unable to accomplish the two rollovers within 60 days.
• And where is that puppy?

Well, thank you Darth.

The Tax Court seemed to like Trimmer:

(1) OK, so he did not follow procedures.

(2) Not so quick, Sith Lord. How does the IRS reconcile 2003-16 with the following from the Internal Revenue Manual:

Examiners are given the authority to recommend the proper disposition of all identified issues, as well as any issued raised by the taxpayer.”

(3) The examiner’s authority to consider a hardship waiver “strongly implies” that the taxpayer may request the waiver.

COMMENT: 

(4) From the Court:

As might be expected from a self-represented taxpayer unversed in the technicalities of the tax law, he did not expressly cite section 402(c)(3)(B). But his letter leaves little doubt that he was seeking a hardship waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement….”

(5) The Court points out that the examiner 

… did not decline to consider Mr. Trimmer’ request, did not request that petitioners provide any additional information, and did not advise them that they were required to submit a private letter request or do anything else in particular to have their request considered.”

(6) If anything, the examiner wrote Mr. Trimmer that

… you do not need to do anything else for now. We will contact you within 60 days to let you know what action we are taking.”

(7) And 3 days later the examiner

… wrote petitioners again, denying requested relief, not on the basis that petitioners had requested it in the wrong manner or had provided insufficient information, but on the basis of cursory and incomplete legal analysis that failed to take into account the provision for hardship waivers under section 402(c)(3)(B).”

The Tax Court found in favor of Trimmer. He could do a late rollover. He was not subject to tax or penalty and could keep his Weimaraner puppy.

Good.

But it should not have gone this far. We are not in unexplored tax country here.

One could argue that our tax system is near-to breaking when you have to hire a professional to resolve near-routine tax problems. This man did not roll-over his money within 60 days. He was clinically depressed for a while. I can see requesting a doctor’s letter attesting to the taxpayer’s condition, but this is not cutting-edge tax practice.  

So why the HBO-level drama?

Here is one commentator’s remark:

We have a lazy revenue agent who probably just glances over the response. Is it the revenue agent’s fault? No, I don’t blame the revenue agent. With budget cuts, the caseloads of revenue agents are insane.”

I was listening until the “overworked” card. Seriously? I recommend this revenue agent not consider a career as a tax CPA, although – as a positive – it would probably be a short one.  

I do think our case highlights a disturbingly under-skilled IRS employee.

I also think it shows a trigger-happy IRS assessing penalties on anyone for anything. That examiners are throwing them around like sugar packets from a McDonalds drive-through indicates that they are under pressure to sweeten the take, irrespective of whether penalties are appropriate. Those penalties are under-the-table income to an IRS already facing a tight budget.

We have spoken before of a goose-and-gander bill, requiring the IRS to pay a taxpayer when the agency acts recklessly. The IRS already has people on payroll to pin your ears back, whereas you have to hire someone like me to fend them off. Their incremental cost to chase you is minimal, but your incremental cost to defend yourself can be significant if not ruinous.

Our goose-and-gander bill might or might not have protected Trimmer specifically, but eventually the IRS would lose enough cases to reconsider the automatic-tax-and-penalty-no-reasonable-cause-raised-middle-finger policy it has adopted. Cutting a check really focuses one’s attention.

The 6707A Tax Penalty Is Outrageous

I have attached a penalty notice to this blog. Take a look . The IRS is assessing $14,385 for the 2008 tax year, and the description given is a “Section 6707A” penalty.

This is one of the most abusive penalties the IRS wields, in my opinion. As too often happens, it may have been hatched for legitimate reasons, but it has degenerated into something else altogether.

Let’s time travel back to the early aughts. The IRS was taking a new direction in its efforts against tax shelters: mandatory disclosure.  There was a time when tax shelters involved oil and gas or real estate and were mostly visible above the water line, but the 1986 changes to the tax Code had greatly limited those schemes. In their place were more sophisticated – and very hard to understand – tax constructions. The planners were using obscure tax rules to separate wealth from its tax basis, for example, with the intent of using the orphaned basis to create losses. 

The IRS promulgated disclosure Regulations under Section 6011. At first, they applied only to corporations, but by 2004 they were expanded to include individual taxpayers. The IRS wanted taxpayers to disclose transactions that, in the IRS’ view, were potentially abusive. The IRS quickly recognized that many if not most taxpayers were choosing not to report. There were several reasons for this, including:

·       Taxpayers could consider a number of factors in determining whether a transaction was reportable

·       The gauzy definition of key terms and concepts

·       The lack of a uniform penalty structure for noncompliance

The IRS brought this matter to Congress’ attention, and Congress eventually gave them a new shiny tax penalty in the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act. It was Section 6707A.

One of the things that the IRS did was to disassociate the penalty from the taxpayer’s intent or purpose for entering the transaction. The IRS published broad classes of transactions that it considered suspicious, and, if you were in one, you were mandated to disclose. The transactions were sometimes described in broad brush and were difficult to decipher. Additionally, the transactions were published in obscure tax corners and publications. No matter, if the IRS published some transaction in the Botswana Evening Cuspidor, it simply assumed that practitioners – and, by extrapolation, their clients – were clued-in.

If the IRS decided that your transaction made the list, then you were required to disclose the transaction on every tax return that included a tax benefit therefrom. If the IRS listed the transaction after you filed a tax return but before the statute of limitations expired, then you had to file disclosure with your next tax return. You had to file the disclosure with two different offices of the IRS, which was just an accident waiting to happen. And the disclosure had to be correct and complete. If the IRS determined that it was not, such as if you could not make heads or tails of their instructions for example, the IRS could consider that the same as not filing at all. There were no brownie points for having tried.

There’s more.

The penalty applied regardless of whether taxpayer’s underlying tax treatment was ultimately sustained. In fact, the IRS was publishing reportable transactions BEFORE proving in Court that any of the transactions were illegal or abusive. If you took the IRS to Court and won, the IRS said it could still apply the penalty. There was no exception to the imposition of the penalty, even if you could demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith.  

But there was some mercy. Although you could not take the penalty to Court, you could request the IRS Commissioner for rescission if it would “promote compliance … and effective tax administration.” Oh please.

Can this get worse? You bet.

Let’s decouple the penalty from any possible tax benefit you may have gotten. If the transaction was particularly suspicious (termed “listed’), the penalty was $100,000. Double that if you were a company. What if the transaction occurred in your S corporation and then on your personal income tax return because of the K-1 pass-through? Well, add $200,000 plus $100,000 for a penalty of $300,000. Per year. What if the tax benefit was a fraction of that amount? Tough. 

This was a fast lane to Tax Court. Wait, the penalty could not be appealed. Think about that for a moment. The IRS has a penalty that cannot be appealed. What if the system failed and the IRS assessed the penalty abusively or erroneously?  Too bad.  

The Taxpayer Advocate publicly stated that the 6707A penalty should be changed as it “raises significant constitutional concerns, including possible violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against excessive government fines and due process protections.”

In response to public clamor and pressure from Congress, the IRS issued moratoriums on 6707A enforcement actions. It wound up reducing the penalty for years after 2006 to 75% of the decrease in tax resulting from the transaction. There was finally some governor on this runaway car.

My client walked into Section 6707A long before I ever met him/her. How? By using a retirement plan.

Yep, a retirement plan.

The plan is referred to as a 412(i), for the Code section that applies. A company would set up a retirement plan and fund it with life insurance. Certain rules relaxed once one used life insurance, as it was considered a more reliable investment than the stock market. I was a fan of these plans, and I once presented a 412(i) plan to a former client who is (still) a sports commentator at ESPN.

Then you had the promoters who had to ruin 412(i)) plans for everyone else. For example, here is what I presented to the ESPN person. We would set up a company, and the company would have one employee and one retirement plan. The plan would be funded with life insurance. The plan would have to exist for several years (at least five), and - being a pension plan - would have to be funded every year. Because life insurance generally has a lower rate of return than the stock market, the IRS would allow one to “over” fund the plan. After five years or more, we would terminate the plan and transfer the cash value of the insurance to an IRA.

The promoters made this a tax shelter by introducing “springing” life insurance. They were hustling products that would have minimal cash value for a while – oh, let’s say … the first five years. That is about the time I wanted to close the plan and transfer to an IRA. Somehow, perhaps by magic, all that cash value that did not previously exist would “spring” to life, resulting in a very tidy IRA for someone. Even better, if there was a tax consequence when the plan terminated, the cost would be cheap because the cash value would not “spring” until after that point in time.

I thought a 412(i) plan to be an attractive option for a late-career high-income individual, and it was until the promoters polluted the waters with springing insurance nonsense. It then became a tax shelter, triggering Section 6707A.

My client got into a 412(i). From what I can tell, he/she got into it with minimal understanding of what was going on, other than he/she was relying on a professional who otherwise seemed educated, sophisticated and impartial. The plan of course blew up, and now he/she is facing 6707A penalties – for multiple tax years.

And right there is my frustration with penalties of this ilk. Perhaps it makes sense if one is dealing with the billionaires out there, but I am not. I am dealing with businesspeople in Cincinnati who have earned or accumulated some wealth in life, in most cases by their effort and grit, but nowhere near enough to have teams of attorneys and accountants to monitor every fiat the government decides to put out. To say that there is no reasonable cause for my client is itself abusive. He/she could no more describe the tax underpinnings of this transaction any more than he/she could land a man on the moon.

What alternative remains to him/her? To petition the Commissioner for “rescission?” Are you kidding me? That is like asking a bully to stop bullying you. I have ten dollars on how that exercise will turn out.