Downside Of Not Issuing 1099s

Let’s be honest: no one likes 1099s.

I get it. The government has conscripted us – business owners and their advisors – into unpaid volunteers for the IRS. Perhaps it started innocently enough, but with the passage of years and the accretion of reporting demands, information reporting has become a significant indirect tax on businesses.

It’s not going to get better. There is a proposal in the White House’s Green Book, for example, mandating banks to report gross deposit and disbursement account information to the Treasury.

Back to 1099s.

You see it all the time: one person pays another in cash with no intention – or ability – to issue a 1099 at year-end.

What can go wrong?

Plenty.

Let’s look at Adler v Commissioner as an example.

Peter Adler owned a consulting company. He had a significant client. He would travel for that client and be reimbursed for his expenses.

The accounting is simple: offset the travel expenses with the reimbursements. Common sense, as the travel expenses were passed-on to the client.

However, in one of the years Peter incurred expenses of approximately $44 thousand for construction work.

The Court wondered how a consultant could incur construction expenses.

Frankly, so do I.

For one reason or another Peter could not provide 1099s to the IRS.

One possible reason is that Peter made his checks out to a corporation. One is not required to issue 1099s to an incorporated business. Peter could present copies of the cancelled checks. He could then verify the corporate status of the payee on the secretary of state’s website.

Nah, I doubt that was the reason.

Another possibility is that Peter got caught deducting personal expenses. Let’s assume this was not the reason and continue our discussion.

A third possibility is that Peter went to the bank, got cash and paid whoever in cash. Paying someone in cash does not necessarily mean that you will not or cannot issue a 1099 at year-end, but the odds of this happening drop radically.

Peter had nothing he could give the Court. I suppose he could track down the person he paid cash and get a written statement to present the Court.

Rigghhhtttt ….

The Court did the short and sweet: they disallowed the deduction.

Could it get worse?

Fortunately for Peter, it ended there, but – yes – it can get worse.

What if the IRS said that you had an employee instead of a contractor? You are now responsible for withholdings, employer matching, W-2s and so on.

COMMENT: You can substitute “gig worker” for contractor, if you wish. The tax issues are the same.

Folks, depending upon the number of people and dollars involved, this could be a bankrupting experience.

Hold on CTG, say you. Isn’t there a relief provision when the IRS flips a contractor on you?

There are two.

I suspect you are referring to Section 530 relief.

It provides protection from an IRS flip (that is, contractor to employee) if three requirements are met:

1.    You filed the appropriate paperwork for the relationship you are claiming exists with the service provider.

2.    You must be consistent. If Joe and Harry do the same work, then you have to report Joe and Harry the same way.

3.    You have to have a reasonable basis for taking not treating the service provider as an employee. The construction industry is populated with contractors, for example.

You might be thinking that (3) above could have saved Peter.

Maybe.

But (1) above doomed him.

Why?

Because Peter should have issued a 1099. He had a business. A business is supposed to issue a 1099 to a service provider once payments exceed $600.

There was no Section 530 relief for Peter.

I will give you a second relief provision if the IRS flips a contractor on you. 

Think about the consequences of this for a second.

(1)  You were supposed to withhold federal income tax.

(2)  You were supposed to withhold social security.

(3)  You were supposed to match the social security.

(4)  You were supposed to remit those withholdings and your match to the IRS on a timely basis.

(5)  You were supposed to file quarterly employment reports accounting for the above.

(6)  You were supposed to issue W-2s to the employee at year-end.

(7)  You were supposed to send a copy of the W-2 to the Social Security Administration at year-end.

(8)  Payroll has some of the nastiest penalties in the tax Code.

This could be a business-shuttering event. I had a client several years ago who was faced with this scenario. The situation was complicated by fact that the IRS considered one of the owners to be a tax protestor. I personally did not think the owner merited protestor status, as he was not filing nonsense appeals with the IRS or filing delaying motions with the Tax Court. He was more …  not filing tax returns.  Nonetheless, I can vouch that the IRS was not humored.

Back to relief 2. Take a look at this bad boy:

§ 3509 Determination of employer's liability for certain employment taxes.

(a)  In general.

If any employer fails to deduct and withhold any tax under chapter 24 or subchapter A of chapter 21 with respect to any employee by reason of treating such employee as not being an employee for purposes of such chapter or subchapter, the amount of the employer's liability for-

(1)  Withholding taxes.

Tax under chapter 24 for such year with respect to such employee shall be determined as if the amount required to be deducted and withheld were equal to 1.5 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3401 ) paid to such employee.

(2)  Employee social security tax.

Taxes under subchapter A of chapter 21 with respect to such employee shall be determined as if the taxes imposed under such subchapter were 20 percent of the amount imposed under such subchapter without regard to this subparagraph .

Yes, you still owe federal income and social security, but it is a fraction of what it might have been. For example, you should have withheld 7.65% from the employee for social security. Section 3509(a)(2) gives you a break: the IRS will accept 20% of 7.65%, or 1.53%.

Is it great?

Well, no.

Might it be the difference between staying in business and closing your doors?

Well, yes.

A Puff Piece

 

Although we do not condone her inconsistency, we find it is merely puffery in an attempt to obtain new employment and of no significance here.”

There is a word one rarely sees in tax cases: puffery.

Puffery is an exaggeration. It approaches a lie but stops short, and presumably no “reasonable” person would believe what is being said or take it literally. The distinction matters if one’s puffery can be used against them as a statement of fact.

Let’s look at the Robinson case.

Mr Robinson had a lawn care business. Beverly Robinson had a job at Georgia Pacific, but in 2007 she started working at the lawn care business. She did the billing. She was also listed on the business checking account, but she never wrote checks.

She must have been the face of the business through, as for 2007 through 2009 most of the Forms 1099 to the business were sent in her name.

In 2010 the marriage went south. Mr Robinson moved out, and Beverly’s dad chipped-in to pay the mortgage on her house. Needless to say, she was not working at the company with all that going on.

In 2011 they filed a joint tax return for 2010. The return showed tax due of approximately $43 grand. She must have separated hard from the business, as no Forms 1099 were issued to her; all the Forms 1099 were issued to him.

COMMENT: I do not understand filing a joint tax return with someone you are likely to divorce. In Beverly’s defense, though, she did not realize that she had an option. They hired a tax preparer (likely because of the business), but the preparer never explained that the option to file separately existed.

In 2011 she was telling the IRS that they could not pay the 2010 tax debt. She also asked about innocent spouse status.

In 2012 they file a joint 2011 tax return. She was working again at another Georgia Pacific facility and had tax withholdings. The IRS took her withholdings and applied them to the 2010 tax year.

COMMENT: That is how it works.

In 2013 Beverly needed to find a new job. She uploaded her resume on a jobseeker website. She listed her Georgia Pacific gig. She also listed Robinson Lawn Care and embellished her duties, especially glossing over the fact that she no longer worked there.

In 2013 Mr Robinson somehow forced his way back into her house. She called the police and was told that they could not evict him since the two were still married.

In October, 2013 she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

About time. The year before Mr Robinson had fathered a child with another woman. In 2013 he started paying her child support.

The divorce became final in 2014. Mr Robinson agreed to assume the 2010 tax due.

Riiiight.

In 2015 she files for innocent spouse because of that 2010 tax debt and the IRS continuing to take her refunds.

The IRS turned down her request.

One of the requirements is that the tax liability for which the spouse is seeking relief belong to the “nonrequesting” spouse. In this case, the nonrequesting spouse was Mr Robinson.

He testified that he had moved out of the house in 2013. Oh, he also remembered Beverly working in the business in 2010.

Not good.

The IRS looked at certain Florida registrations that showed her name through 2014.

They also pointed out that she was a signatory on the business checking account.

Then they looked at her resume on that jobseeker website.

The Court was having none of it.

As for Mr Robinson:

Throughout the trial Mr. Robinson’s testimony was relatively inconsistent, and we give it little value.”

As for the registrations:

Although petitioner is listed as the registered owner of Robinson Lawn Care from December 1998 to December 2014, we find the reason for her filing the fictitious name--that her former husband worked during the day--is a sufficient explanation for why she is listed instead of Mr. Robinson. Moreover, she did not sign any State filings in 2010 or thereafter.

As for the checking account:

Similarly we find that petitioner’s name on the business account is not persuasive support for respondent’s position as Mr. Robinson had control of that account and she never wrote checks on it.

The Court pointed out that none of the 2010 Forms 1099 were made out to her, in clear contrast to prior tax years.

We saw above the Court’s comment on her puffery.

It was clear who the Court believed – and did not believe.

The Court decided that she was entitled to innocent spouse relief.

She cut it close, though.

Our case this time was Beverly Robinson v Commissioner of Internal Revenue T.C. Memo 2020-134.

Downside To A Tax Election

Many tax professionals believe that computerization has led to increasing complexity in the tax Code. If one had to prepare returns by hand – or substantially by hand – the current tax Code could not exist. Taxpayers would almost certainly need the services of a professional, and professionals can only prepare so many returns in the time available – despite any wishes otherwise.

COMMENT: There is, by the way, a practitioner in New Jersey who still prepares tax returns by hand. His name is Robert Flach, and he has a website (http://wanderingtaxpro.blogspot.com) which I visit every now and then. I do not share his aversion to tax software, but I respect his stance.

That complexity has a dark side. It occurred to me as I was reading a recent case concerning tax elections.

Tax elections are no longer the province of the big wallets and the Fortune 500. You might be surprised how many there are and further surprised with the hot water in which they can land you.

Examples include:

(1)  If you are a small landlord there is an election that will allow you to deduct repairs below a certain dollar limit without second guessing by the IRS. It is called the “safe harbor small taxpayer” election, and it is available as long as the cost of your property is $1 million or less. Mind you, you can have a collection of properties, but each property has to be $1 million or less.

(2)  There is an election if you want out of first-year depreciation, which is now 100% of the cost of qualifying property. Why would you do this? Perhaps you do not need that all 100%, or the 100% would be used more tax-efficiently if spread over several years.

(3)  You may have heard about the new “qualified business income” deduction, which is 20% of certain business income that lands on your individual tax return, perhaps via a Schedule K-1. The IRS has provided an opportunity (a very limited opportunity, I would argue) to “aggregate” those business together. To a tax nerd. “aggregate” means to treat as one, and there could be compelling tax reasons one would want to do so. As you guessed, that too requires an election.

The case I am looking at involves an election to waive the carryback of a net operating loss.

COMMENT: By definition, this is a pre-2018 tax year issue. The new tax law did away with NOL carrybacks altogether, except in selected and highly specialized circumstances.

The taxpayers took a business bath and showed an overall loss on their individual return. The tax preparer included an election saying that they were giving up their right to carryback the loss and were electing instead to carryforward only.

COMMENT: There can be excellent reasons to do this. For example, it could be that the loss would rescue income taxed at very low rates, or perhaps the loss would be negated by the alternative minimum tax. One has to review this with an experienced eye, as it is not an automatic decision

Sure enough, the IRS examined a couple of tax years prior to the one with the big loss. The IRS came back with income, which meant the taxpayers owed tax.

You know what would be sweet? If the taxpayers could carryback that NOL and offset the income the IRS just found on audit.

Problem: the election to waive the carryback period. An election that is irreversible.

What choice did the taxpayers have? Their only argument was that the tax preparer put that election in there and they did not notice it, much less understand what it meant.

It was a desperation play.

Here is the Court:

Though it was the error of the [] return preparer that put the [] in this undesirable tax position, the [] may not disavow the unambiguous language of the irrevocable election they made on their signed 2014 tax return.

As the Code accretes complexity, it keeps adding elections to opt-in or opt-out of whatever is the tax accounting de jour. I suspect we will read more cases like this in upcoming years.

Our case this time was Bea v Commissioner.

Change In Innocent Spouse Tax Relief

You may have read or seen that the IRS has ‘changed” the rules for innocent spouse relief. 

While this is not wrong, it is incomplete. How? Because there are three ways to request innocent spouse status, and the IRS has changed one of them. The other two remain as they were before.

Being married and filing a joint tax return with your spouse is what creates this issue. You later divorce or separate from your spouse. You and your (now ex) spouse are audited by the IRS. Remember, the IRS lags a year or two before they select returns for audit. The IRS finds unreported income and assesses additional tax.  The income triggering the tax belongs to your ex-spouse.

Let’s return to the joint tax return you filed. A joint return means that you are “jointly and severally liable.”  The IRS can proceed against you alone, against your spouse alone or against the two of you.  The IRS can, and likely will, proceed against you (for at least 50%) even if it wasn’t your fault. From their perspective, why not? They have nothing to lose, and it doubles their chance of getting someone to pay.

This is the point of innocent spouse relief. You want to separate your tax from that of your ex-spouse. Ideally, you want to completely separate your tax, so that the IRS leaves you alone for any additional tax, penalties and interest.

There are three types of innocent spouse relief.

Type I is “general” relief:

(1)   You filed a joint return.

(2)   The return has an “understatement of tax” due to “erroneous” items of your spouse (or ex-spouse).

(3)   You can show that at the time you signed the joint return you did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was an understatement of tax.

(4)   Considering all the “facts and circumstances,” it would be unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax.

An “erroneous” item is IRS-speak for not reporting income or for overstating deductions.

The third requirement can be a tough to meet.  It is possible that you did not know, but that is not enough. The IRS wants to be sure that you had no reason to know. For example, you and your spouse reported $60,000 of income. That year you and your spouse bought a Colorado chalet and a Bugatti Veyron. Unless you had savings to tap into or one of you inherited, expect the IRS to be very skeptical of you denying any “knowledge.” They will figure that you should have known.  And it doesn’t have to be as dramatic as a Swiss chalet. Perhaps you and your ex moved to a nicer neighborhood. Or enrolled the kids in a private school. Or started showing horses.  A quick review of your income and savings would prompt one to wonder how you paid for everything. Expect the IRS to argue that you had “constructive” knowledge. That is, you “had reason to know.”

Type II is “separation of liability.”

Under this method, you separate your income and deductions from your (ex) spouse’s income and deductions. You then calculate your separate tax on such separate income. You are trying to get the IRS to agree that your share of the joint tax is that amount and not more.

It does have the advantage of appearing “fair.”

Oh, the IRS requires that you be divorced, legally separated or at least living apart for the 12-month period preceding the innocent spouse filing. Don’t be surprised if your tax planning includes advice to get divorced.

What is going to sour the IRS on this deal, other than their general reluctance to let anyone off the hook?  Well, that “knowledge” requirement we discussed previously will derail you, with one important distinction: you must have actually known of the tax understatement. The “you should have known” argument is not good enough to deny you the second type of innocent spouse relief.

A second thing that will sink the separation of liabilities is transferring assets for the main purpose of avoiding payment of tax. You can expect the IRS to want to review every significant asset move between you and your ex.

You must request Type I and Type II innocent spouse relief within 2 years after the date on which the IRS first begins collection activity against you. This is not the same as the date you filed the return. Rather it is the date that the IRS sends you a letter or asks you to go downtown for a meeting.

Type III is “equitable relief.”

Equitable relief is only available if you meet the following conditions:

• You do not qualify for innocent spouse relief or separation of liability.
• The IRS determines that it is unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax taking into account all the facts and circumstances.

Well, unfair is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? What facts and circumstances will the IRS consider as they ponder whether to be fair or unfair?

·        

• Current marital status
• Abuse
• Reasonable belief of the spouse requesting innocent spouse, at the time he or she signed the return, that the tax was going to be paid; or in the case of an understatement, whether that  spouse had knowledge or reason to know of the understatement
• Current financial hardship or inability to pay basic living expenses
• Legal obligation to pay the tax liability pursuant to a divorce decree or other agreement to pay the liability
• To whom the liability is attributable
• Significant benefit received by the spouse asking for innocent spouse
• Mental or physical health of the spouse requesting innocent spouse on the date that spouse signed the return or requested relief
• Compliance with income tax laws following the taxable year or years to which the request for relief relates

The IRS had previously held Type III relief to the same time limit as Types I and II. While not in the Code itself, the IRS inserted the time limit into its Regulations and battled hard to have the courts accept its position.

The IRS lost a high profile case (Lantz) on this issue in 2010. Lantz was the former wife of an Indiana dentist. In 2000 her then-husband was arrested for Medicaid fraud. Shortly thereafter came a $900,000 IRS bill. She didn’t file for innocent spouse because he told her that he had taken care of it. He did not, of course. Shortly thereafter he died.

And of course more than two years had gone by…

Mrs. Lantz filed for Type III innocent spouse. In 2009 the Tax Court sided with her. In 2010, however, the Appeals Court sided with the IRS.

The IRS Taxpayer Advocate howled at what was happening to Mrs. Lantz. Forty-nine members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner demanding a stop to such behavior.  

The IRS did, and in 2011 it announced that it was backing-off the two-year requirement for Type III innocent spouse claims. 

The IRS has now published Regulations formalizing what it announced back in 2011.   

So how long do you have now to file a Type III innocent spouse claim? You have ten years – the same period as the IRS has to collect taxes from you.

Note though that Type I and Type II still have the two-year requirement. It is only Type III that has changed. Why the difference? Because for Types I and II, the two-year requirement is written into the law.

My Thoughts: To hold an innocent spouse to a two-year window – when the law passed by Congress said nothing about a two-year window for Type III relief – was a clubfooted mistake by the IRS. It is a bit late, but the IRS finally got it right.

By the way, if you have been turned down for innocent spouse – and you are still within the ten-year window – please consider filing again under the new rules.

IRS Penalties and First Time Abatement

I drafted a letter this past Monday. Later in the day I saw a report from the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration (TIGTA) on the same topic. Serendipity.

We have a newer client who set-up an S corporation in 2011. That’s fine, except that he had not spoken with an accountant and did not meet us until April, when his individual tax return was due. This meant that his S corporation return was already late, as corporate returns are due a month earlier than individual returns.

Sure enough, he received a letter from the IRS asking for $195 – because the S corporation return was a month late.

So I drafted a letter that included the following magic words:

The taxpayer requests first-time abatement under IRM 20.1.1.3.6.1. Tax year 2011 was the taxpayer’s initial year of existence.”

The “IRM” is the Internal Revenue Manual.

The idea behind the first-time abatement (FTA) is “get out of jail free.” You haven’t had problems with the IRS before, and the IRS spots you a mulligan.

IRS penalties normally do not work this way. One usually has to provide “reasonable cause”for why one failed to file, pay or whatever. Penalties can add up. There are two common ones:

(1) The failure-to-file (FTF) penalty is usually 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late, not to exceed 25 percent. If you file the tax return more than 60 days late, figure the minimum FTF penalty to be the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of tax due.

(2) If you file but do not pay in full, then the failure-to-pay (FTP) is usually one-half of one percent each month or part of a month that the taxes remain unpaid. This penalty can be as much as 25 percent of the unpaid taxes.     

The IRS can abate both penalties if one shows reasonable cause. A top-of-the-line reasonable cause is to get hit by a bus and be in the hospital. As you can guess, the IRS does elevate the bar a bit for reasonable cause. “I was busy” is almost a guaranteed loser.

Let’s circle back to the FTA. You do not need to show reasonable cause; all you have to do is ask for it. And with that we have the following from the TIGTA report:

“Penalty waivers should not be granted only to taxpayers or preparers with knowledge of IRS processes,” said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George.

TIGTA estimated that for 2010, approximately 250,000 taxpayers with FTF penalties and 1.2 million taxpayers with FTP penalties qualified for FTA but not receive abatement. The reason? The taxpayers did not to ask for it. TIGTA estimated the unabated penalties at more than $181 million.

TIGTA is requesting that the IRS review its procedures for penalty assessment, especially with an eye toward first-time abatement. For example, perhaps the IRS could send a notice but immediately apply the FTA. It would inform the taxpayer of the penalty and abatement, thereby saving on IRS manpower and reducing the number of times folks like me have to write an FTA letter. Sounds like a winner.

Until then, remember that first-time abatement is available. Do not be one of the $181 million.