Penalties For Cash Reporting Failures

 

It would be a vast understatement to say that the plucky Rebellion had software issues this busy season.

We saw (some of) it coming … given the merger and all. Short of Excel and Word, there was little overlap between our softwares - that is, our preparation software, research software, time reporting, invoicing and receipt, monitoring the accounting practice and whatnot.

We are still working through the shock.

And I see a Tax Cout decision issued about a week ago concerning software.

I can tell you before reading it how the Court will decide:

Software – unless involving matters exceeding the minds of mortal men – will not save one from penalties. If one purchases and installs software, one is under obligation to learn and master it.

My thoughts?

I am divided. An ordinary taxpayer does not – should not - need my services. Reach a certain point though, and a tax professional becomes as necessary as a primary physician or a dentist.

Still, the Code has become increasingly complex since I came out of school. The very computerization that has allowed professionals to streamline and systematize their work has simultaneously allowed the Congressional tax committees to draft and score increasing complex and near-unworkable changes to the Code. Far too many of these changes can potentially reach ordinary taxpayers. That taxpayer would probably not know that he/she wandered into a minefield. He/she would learn of it when the penalty notice arrived, however. The IRS (and too often the courts) presume that you have a graduate degree in taxation – ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that flourish. They do not care that you don’t.

Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest LLC (Dealers) was an Arizona company selling vehicles through auction houses. It frequently received cash in the ordinary conduct of its business. Not surprisingly, the cash from a sale would often exceed $10,000.

There is a Code section involved here:

          Section 6050I

(a)  Cash receipts of more than $10,000

Any person

(1)  Who is engaged in a trade or business, and

(2)  Who in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions),

shall make the return described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) at such time as the Secretary may by Regulations prescribe.

Once Sec 6050I is triggered, the company files Form 8300 with the IRS. It is an information return (no taxes go with it), but there are penalties for failure to file the return.

Not surprisingly, it has its own rules and subrules.

You know the Forms 8300 were an issue for Dealers.

They bought software (AuctionMaster) to deal with it.

They bought the software after flubbing the 2014 Form 8300 filings. The IRS assessed penalties of over $21 grand, and Dealers realized that buying software was cheaper than paying penalties.

And … the IRS was back in 2016.

Why?

Dealers filed 116 Forms 8300. The IRS argued that Dealers should have filed 382.

The IRS wanted over $118 grand in penalties.

Yipes!

Here is the Court:

Dealers Auto was not immediately aware of its failures. Instead, it was not until the Commissioner began the examination that Dealers Auto became aware of its noncompliance.”

Dealers was blindsided.

It took immediate steps:

·       It contacted the software provider and learned that improved aggregation features were available starting in 2017 (the year following the audit year).

·       Dealers quizzed the auditor on the subtleties of Form 8300 and its filing requirements.

·       Dealers changed its procedures and internal control for filing 8300s.

·       Dealers changed to electronic filing of the 8300s. They let the software cook.

No way the IRS was going to retract that $118 grand-plus assessment, though.

Dealers appealed the penalty. It wanted abatement for reasonable cause.

COMMENT: So would I, frankly.

Dealers’ argument was straightforward: we relied on software, and the software malfunction was outside of our control.

The IRS responded: there was no malfunction. You never mastered the software. If you had, you would have realized that it was not functioning as you thought.

Harsh, methinks. Probably honest, though.

Here is the Court:

Dealers Auto failed to establish that there was a software failure.”

The instructions for the software suggest that the software prepared Forms 8300 for printing, but Dealers Auto asserts that the software files the forms on the user’s behalf.”

Even assuming Dealers Auto met its burden to show a failure beyond the filer’s control, the record does not support a finding that Dealers Auto acted reasonably before or after the failure. For example, Dealers Auto did not establish that it was correctly using the software or that data was being entered correctly into the system.”

Dealers Auto argues that it reasonably believed the software was working as intended because it was generating some information returns. But the record shows that Dealers Auto software prepared only 116 Forms 8300 in 2016. The record also shows that Dealers Auto was required to file at least 212 Forms 8300 in 2014.”

This is going poorly.

What do I see?

I see a small business that was surprised in 2014. It responded with technology, but its familiarity with technology appears limited. It got surprised again. Normally that would indicate recidivism, but I don’t think that is what happened here. I think Dealers had only so many resources to throw at a problem. In addition, they may not have realized the extent of the problem if they were quizzing the IRS auditor on the ins and outs.

What did the Court see?

While it is not necessary to show that Dealers Auto made every data entry correctly, the record offers the Court no insight as to Dealer Auto’s installation, training, or use of the software.”

Here it comes:

Dealers Auto failed to establish that it has reasonable cause for its failure to file information returns for 2016.”

What disappoints me about cases like this is the failure to reward a taxpayer’s effort. Dealers tried. It bought software. It was filing, albeit not as much as it was supposed to. Should it have expended more money and resources on the matter? Clearly, but then I should have played in the NFL and retired as a Hall of Famer. The IRS is punishing Dealers like a scofflaw who did not care, made things up and never intended to follow the rules. To me, applying the same penalties to both situations is abusive.

Our case this time was Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest LLC v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-38.

Is This Reasonable?

 

I have long maintained that the IRS is unreasonable by repeatedly disallowing reasonable cause exception to its numerous penalties. Their standard appears to allow little to no room for real-world variables – someone got sick, someone misunderstood the requirements (wow, how could that happen?), technology broke down, and so on.

Mind you, I say this after contacting the IRS – AGAIN – about returns we filed for two clients. In each case the IRS has misplaced the returns, failing its mission, causing needless (and incorrect) notices, and embarrassing us as practitioners. One of these returns will soon celebrate its one-year anniversary. The IRS has had plenty of time to investigate and resolve the matter. I have, and I am just one guy.

However, have a practitioner send a tax return two minutes after midnight on an extended due date and the IRS will penalize his/her tax practice to near bankruptcy. It may be that there was no electricity in the office until that very moment. No matter: there is no reasonable cause for things not functioning perfectly every time every place all the time.

The hypocrisy is almost suffocating. Let’s make the relationship reciprocal – for example, let me send the IRS an invoice for wasting my time – and see how quickly the IRS recoils in terror.

Let’s talk about RSBCO’s recent shout-out to the Supreme Court.

RSBCO was a wealth management company headquartered in Louisiana. It hired someone (let’s call him Smith) with a background in accounting to spearhead its IRS information reporting.

Smith took RSBCO successfully through one filing season.

Unbeknownst to anyone, however, Smith was fighting some dark demons, and the second filing season did not go as well.

Smith unfortunately waited until the final day to electronically file approximately 20,000 information returns using the IRS FIRE system. FIRE sent an automated e-mail that certain files had errors preventing them from being processed and RSBCO should send replacement files. The e-mail went only to Smith, so no one else at RSBCO knew.

Smith – approximately four months later – was able to resume work. He had been diagnosed with clinical depression, having suicidal ideation, and struggling to focus and complete tasks at work.

COMMENT: I am thinking Reg 301.6724-1(c):

(c) Events beyond the filer's control

(1) In general. In order to establish reasonable cause under this paragraph (c)(1), the filer must satisfy paragraph (d) of this section and must show that the failure was due to events beyond the filer's control. Events which are generally considered beyond the filer's control include but are not limited to—

(iv) Certain actions of an agent (as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section),

Smith saw the e-mails. He corrected the information returns.

QUESTION: What were the errors about? About dashes, that’s what. The IRS wanted dashes added or removed. Approximately 99% of the problem was little more than a spelling bee.

Smith had a successful third filing season.

Except for the $579,198 penalty notice the IRS sent for the information returns from season two.

COMMENT: Methinks that is a bit harsh for not winning a spelling bee.

Smith was still battling his health issues. He hid the penalty notice in his desk.

A few months later RSBCO let Smith go.

The new hire soon found the notice and tried to contact the IRS. The contact number provided was entirely automated, so the hire could never speak with a human being.

COMMENT: Been there, pal.

The IRS – thinking they had been ignored – sent a Final Notice. RSBCO requested a Due Process Hearing.

The Hearing Officer for the CDP hearing mostly waived off RSBCO’s side of the story. After a Solomonic 15-minute reflection, the Officer did offer to abate 25% of the penalty amount.

COMMENT: It’s something.

RSBCO had to decide how to proceed. They decided to pay the IRS $579 grand and pursue the refund administratively.

In December 2018 RSBCO filed a Claim for Refund.

The IRS received it. And then lost it.

Uh huh.

In August 2019 RSBCO filed a lawsuit.

In June 2020 – after irritating the court – the IRS promised RSBCO that it would play fair if they refiled the claim.

RSBCO agreed and withdrew the lawsuit.

In September it filed its Claim for Refund … again.

And the IRS lost it … again.

COMMENT: You see what is going on here, don’t you?

In May 2021 RSBCO filed a second lawsuit in district court.

In September 2022, the jury decided that RSBCO had reasonable cause for penalty abatement.

COMMENT: Will this ever end?

The IRS processed the refund … wait … no, no … that’s wrong. The IRS appealed the district court decision to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit found that jury instructions were flawed. The district court stated that an employee’s mental health - by itself - did not give rise to reasonable cause. The jury was not properly instructed.

QUESTION: I guess the following by the district court judge was unclear to the IRS, which DID NOT object:

Anything else? Anybody want to put your objection [to jury charges] on the record if you’d like objecting to them?”

COMMENT: I can see the confusion. Making out this question is like trying to plumb the metaphysics of James Joyce’s Ulysses. No wonder the IRS failed to object.

In October 2023 RSBCO petitioned the Supreme Court.

Which just declined the petition.

Meaning the Fifth Circuit has the final word.

The Fifth Circuit wants a new trial.

Will this nightmare ever end?

It is … unreasonable.

Our case this time was RSBCO v U.S., US Supreme Court Docket 24-561.

No Hiding Behind Preparer’s Error

 

Practitioners sometimes call it “falling on the sword.”

There is likely a phone call to the insurance company beforehand.

Something went wrong. The client now owes tax, interest, maybe penalties.

Just because that happens does not mean the practitioner was wrong. It can happen any number of ways.

·      The classic: the client does not provide all paperwork to the practitioner.

Mind you, sometimes the practitioner can tell:

… hey, you have had this account for years, but I am not seeing it this year. Do you still have the account?

And sometimes … you can’t tell. Perhaps it is a one-off. You never saw it before and you never will again, but it is there for that one year.

All the while, IRS computers are whirring and matching. They will let you know if you leave something out.

·       The tax answer is uncertain.

How can that happen?

New tax law is one way. It takes a while to get guidance out there. We saw this recently with the employee retention credit. Congress passed a law, and the IRS did its best interpreting it in real time. Its best was problematic, and the IRS subsequently paused ERC processing because of the number of fraudulent filings.    

·       The client goes to audit but does not have the documentation necessary to support a tax position. 

I think of real estate professional status, especially if one has a job outside real estate. The IRS is going to hammer on the hours worked, and you better have something other than stories to support your position. 

A variation on the above is that the IRS disagrees with your documentation. 

     Conservation easements are a current example of these. 

·       The audit from hell 

One cannot do representation work and not have stories to tell. 

     I was hired by another CPA for a research credit audit.  

The IRS agent had visited the CPA’s office, at which time he reviewed interim (think monthly or quarterly) accountings. The interims were prepared on an accrual basis, meaning that the accounting included accounts receivable and payable. 

The tax return, however, was cash basis, meaning that no receivables or payables were recorded. 

This is extremely common. Depending upon, I might consider the failure to do so to be malpractice. 

The agent considered this to be two sets of books. 

Translation: he thought indices of fraud. 

I thought that the IRS should tighten up its hiring standards. Having someone work business tax without having an adequate background in accounting is insane. 

It cost time. It cost goodwill. And it had nothing to do with the audit of a research tax credit. 

I am looking at a case that went sideways. I also see that neither the taxpayers nor the IRS appeared at the Tax Court hearing. 

The taxpayer was a teacher, and his wife was a nurse. They had a joint real estate business, and the wife had previously owned a nursing business. Although the nursing business had closed, it still showed deductions for the tax year under issue. 

The IRS had proposed adjustments, and the taxpayers had acceded. 

The taxpayers did not agree to a substantial understatement penalty, though. 

COMMENT: Think of this as a super penalty. It can flat-out hurt.

I’ve got the lay of the land now. Taxpayers wanted reasonable cause for abatement of the penalty. That reasonable cause would be reliance on a tax professional. There are requisites:         

(1)  The issue must be one of professional judgement and more than the routine processing of a tax return.

(2)  The tax preparer must be competent.

(3)  The taxpayers must have provided the preparer all relevant facts.

(4)  The taxpayers must have relied on the preparer’s judgment.

(5)  The taxpayers were injured by such reliance.

 Here is what the Court saw:         

(1)  The taxpayers did not testify.

(2)  The tax preparer did not testify.

(3)  The tax preparer deducted expenses for a business no longer in operation during the year in question.

(4)  The tax preparer reported business expenses on incorrect schedules.

(5)  The preparer did not sign the return.

The preparer had no intention of falling on the sword, it seems. The taxpayers had every intention of holding him responsible, though. They had to if they wanted penalty abatement.

It wasn’t going to happen.

Why?

The preparer did not sign the return, considered a big no-no in practice.

The Court was swift: taxpayers had not proven that the preparer was even competent.

Our case this time was Hall v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket No. 3467-23.

A Ponzi Scheme And Filing Late

I am reading a case involving a late tax return, a Ponzi scheme, and an IRS push for penalties.

It made me think of this form:

It is used for one of two reasons:

(1)  Someone is filing a tax return with numbers different from a Schedule K-1 received from a passthrough entity (such as a partnership).

(2)  Someone is amending a TEFRA partnership return.

That second one is a discussion for another day. Let’s focus instead on the first reason. How could it happen?

Easy. You are a partner in a partnership. You bring me your Schedule K-1 to prepare your personal return. I spot something wrong with the K-1, and the numbers are large enough to matter. We contact that partnership to amend the return and/or your K-1. The partnership refuses.

COMMENT: We would use Form 8082 to inform the IRS that we are not using numbers provided on your K-1.

This is a tough spot to be in. File the form and you are possibly waiving a flag at the IRS. Fail to file it and the IRS has procedural rights, and those include the right to change your numbers back to the original (and disputed) K-1.

There is another situation where you may want to file Form 8082.

Let’s look at the Rosselli case.

Mr. Roselli (Mr. R) was a housing appraiser. Mrs. Rosselli was primarily a homemaker. Together they have five children, three of whom have special needs.

Through his business, Mr. R came to know the founder of a solar energy company (DC Solar). Turns out that DC Solar was looking for additional capital, and Mr. R knew someone looking to invest. The two were introduced and – in gratitude – Mr R became a managing member in DC Solar via his company Halo Management Services LLC.

This part turned out well for the R’s. In 2017 DC Solar paid Halo approximately $300 grand. In 2018 DC Solar paid approximately $414 grand. Considering they had no money invested, this was all gravy for the R's.

COMMENT: Notice that Halo was paid for management services. Halo in turn was Mr. R, so Mr. R got paid over $700 grand over two years for services performed. This was a business, and Mr. R needed to report it on his tax return like any other business.

In late 2018 the FBI raided DC Solar’s offices investigating whether the company was a Ponzi scheme. The owners of DC Solar were eventually indicted and pled guilty, so I guess the company was.

Let’s roll into the next year. It was tax time (April 15, 2019) and there was not a K-1 from DC Solar in sight.

COMMENT: You think?

The accountant filed an extension until October 15. It did not matter, as the R’s did not file a tax return by then either.

The IRS ran a routine check on DC Solar and its partners. It did not take much for the IRS to flag that the R’s had not filed a 2018 return. The IRS contacted the R’s, who contacted their accountant, eventually filing their 2018 return in January 2022.

You know what was on that 2018 return? The $414 grand in management fees.

You know what was not on that 2018 return? A big loss from DC Solar.

Here is Mr. R:

Mr. Carpoff informed me that I was to receive Schedule K-1s showing large ordinary losses for 2018 from DC Solar, and as a result I would not have a tax liability for that year. However, before the K-1s could be issued … DC Solar’s offices were raided by the FBI.”

All of DC Solar’s documents and records were seized by federal authorities in the ensuing investigation. As a result, I was unable to determine any tax implications because I did not receive a K-1 or any other tax reporting information from DC Solar.”

Got it: Mr. R was expecting a big loss to go with that $414 grand. And why not? DC Solar had reported a big loss to him for 2017, the prior year.

But the IRS Collections machinery had started turning. By August 2022, the IRS was moving to levy, and the R’s filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing.

COMMENT: There is maddening procedure about arguing underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing, which details we will skip. Suffice to say, a taxpayer generally wants to fight any proposed tax liability like the third monkey boarding Noah’s ark BEFORE requesting a CDP hearing.

At the conclusion of the CDP hearing, the IRS decided that they had performed all the required procedural steps to collect the R’s 2018 tax. The R’s disagreed and filed with the Tax Court.

The R’s presented three arguments.

• They reasonably assumed that they would not be required to file or pay tax for 2018 because of an expected loss from the DC Solar K-1.

The Court was not buying this. Not owing any taxes is not the same as not being required to file. This was not a case where someone did not work, meaning they dd not have enough income to trigger a filing requirement. The Rs instead had a more complicated return, with income here and deductions or losses there. Granted, it might compress to no tax due, but they needed to file so one could follow how they got to that answer.

• The R’s reasonably relied on advice from their accountant and others.

The Court did not buy this either. For one thing, the Rs had never informed their accountant about the $414 grand in management fees. If one wants to rely on a professional’s advice, one must provide all available pertinent information to the professional. The Court was not amused that the R’s had not shared the LARGEST number on their return with their accountant.

• The R’s argued that they would experience “undue hardship” from paying the tax on its due date.

The R’s argued that their income died up when DC Solar was raided. Beyond that, though, they had not provided further information on what “drying up” meant. Without information about their assets, liabilities and remaining sources of income, the Court found the R’s argument to be self-serving.

Also, the Court did not ask – but I will – what the R's had done with the $700 grand in management fees they received in 2017 and 2018.

Yeah, no. The Court found for the IRS, penalties and all.

And here is what I am thinking:

What if they had timely filed their 2018 return, showing a loss from DC Solar equal to the management fees?

Problem: there was no K-1 from DC Solar.

Answer: attach the 8082.

I think the tax would eventually have turned out the same.

But I also think they would have had a persuasive case for abatement of penalties for late filing and late payment. The penalty for late file and pay is easily 25%, so that abatement is meaningful.

Our case this time was Rosselli v Commissioner, TC Bench Opinion, October 23, 2023.

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.

A Too Rare Taxpayer Win Over Foreign Reporting

I have become cynical about IRS penalties.

Like many accountants, I initially learned that penalties were in the system as a deterrent. If one complies with reporting responsibilities, penalties should not enter the picture. If they do, they surely would be for ministerial causes (think late payment of an estimated tax) and minor, and – if somehow major – waivable upon showing reasonable cause for the mistake.  

Poppycock.

Congress has been raising and creating penalties for decades to “pay for” their tax bills. I would also argue that the IRS has used penalties as a backstop to its funding, especially during Republican budget stringency after the Lois Lerner fiasco.  

The IRS often assesses penalties automatically, without anyone even glancing at your return. This transfers tax administration from the IRS to you – and then by extension – to me. Say that you have a reportable interest in a foreign corporation. The IRS says you must file a certain information report. I get it: the IRS wants to know what is going on. You file the report, but you file it late. Why late? Who knows. Your accountant was on health leave. You were misadvised. You were never advised because you did not recognize it as a tax-sensitive issue. You will – soon enough – get an automatic IRS notice for a $10,000 penalty – or more. You complied, but not fast enough.

Reasonable cause?

Depends on who defines reasonable. As a practicing tax CPA for decades, I am much more open to reasonable cause. Why? I am closer to the day-to-day, so I do not have the anesthesia of distance and disinterest. Things ... just … happen. No one likes paying, but let’s not use that same brush to accuse one of gaming the system.

Let’s take a look at Wrzesinski.

We will call him “W” to keep our sanity.

W was born in Poland. He moved to the United States when he was 19 years old.

A few years later his mom, who still lived in Poland, won the Polish lottery.

Sweet.

Mom gifted him $830,000 over a couple of years.

W knew about U.S. tax. He contacted his tax advisor to ask what the consequences would be. His advisor (G) correctly told him that the gift would not be taxable, but incorrectly told him that no further reporting was required.

I know that G was wrong, but how could the IRS expect W to know that?

Fast forward a few years and W wanted to make a gift to his godson in Poland. He did an internet search, at which time he realized that – while not taxable – reporting was still required. He realized this situation as his own years before, and he contacted an attorney with expertise in foreign tax matters.

W got into an IRS program for late filing of certain foreign-related returns. The IRS would tread lightly if one had reasonable cause, and both W and his attorney thought he had reasonable cause to spare.

I agree.

The IRS came back with its automatic penalties: they wanted $87,500 for one year and $120,000 for the second.

Their reason?

The Notices stated that …

… ignorance of the tax laws was not a basis for penalty abatement under the “reasonable cause” standard and that ordinary business care and prudence require that the taxpayers be aware of their obligations and file or deposit accordingly.”

I would argue the opposite: good faith “ignorance” of tax laws is exactly the basis for the reasonable cause standard. We have more than once huddled here at Galactic Command analyzing tax consequences, especially if planning a transaction. We sometimes disagree. We have run into gaps in tax law, as Congress is churning out this stuff faster than the IRS and the profession can interpret. We have run into contradictions in tax law, especially when the aforesaid gaps are working their way through the courts system. Did I mention that we are all CPAs with varying tax backgrounds? I am, for example, a tax specialist. It is all I do and have done for years.

Consider that there was no tax shelter here, no attempt to avoid reporting income or of claiming bogus deductions. There was a gift from a mother to a son. A gift unfortunately involving some of the most arcane reporting rules embedded in the tax Code. There was no need for the IRS to flog the guy.

W and his attorney protested the penalties.

The IRS lost W’s protest.

Yes, they “lost” his protest.

It took the Taxpayer Advocate to find it.

The IRS abated all but $40 thousand or so of penalties.

W paid it.

And he immediately filed claims for refund.

I like this guy.

The IRS bounced the first claim, saying he did not establish reasonable cause.

You may be figuring out the IRS schtick when in this situation. It is a one-play gamebook: nothing is reasonable. Boyle. Go away.

The IRS bounced the second claim, saying that it was “frivolous.”

Folks, never ever tell a tax practitioner that his/her position is “frivolous.” That is a loaded word in tax practice.

This thing … NO SURPRISE … went to Court.

Let’s fast forward.

In a too-rare taxpayer win, the DOJ conceded the case on February 7, 2023, and requested six to eight weeks to refund W his remaining penalties.

But look at the effort it took.

Our case this time was Krzysztof Wrzesinski v The United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.