Can Your Accountant Owe Your Payroll Taxes?

You own an accounting firm. A potential client is willing to pay you $4,900 month to do their accounting, including payroll. You will be writing checks and paying vendors, including deposits with the IRS.

Are you interested?

What can go wrong, you ask. Since this is a tax blog, you can anticipate that someone is going to step on the IRS’ or state tax agency’s tail, but that does not means that someone is automatically wrong. A significant part of my practice is representation, for example, which usually entails arguing that my client is right.

Buddy and Barry are brothers and together own an accounting firm. There is a North Carolina entrepreneur (Erwin) who owns or operated at least 60 restaurants. He has a new deal to start a Golden Corral franchise, which he does under the name GCAD. There will eventually be five franchises under GCAD. 

The restaurants start to lag. There is negative cash flow of approximately $2 million. Understandably, GCAD has difficulty paying its creditors. Erwin hires a new business manager (Pintner), who knows Buddy and Barry.  They are hired to handle the accounting and taxes for GCAD.

Buddy and Barry obtain data by accessing the restaurant computers remotely. After running payroll, they send the checks to Pintner for distribution to employees. GCAD allows them direct access to the bank account to remit withholdings. They do not need further authorization to make payroll tax deposits.

They are also responsible for paying vendors, but that process is a bit different. Initially they send checks for signature, but eventually they are given a signature stamp.

By the way, remember that they too are a vendor of GCAD. They are paid $4,900 a month.

The brothers are aware of the cash stress. They inform GCAD and Erwin that there is not enough money to pay everybody.

Erwin learns that the brothers had failed to remit payroll taxes. He and another partner fund a capital call, sending the brothers $150,000 with the following instructions:

“that absolutely under no circumstances whatsoever were [you] to be late with any taxes.”

That did not seem to take, and GCAD is again late with payroll taxes.

Business does not improve. Erwin obtains release from one of the leases. GCAD goes three more quarters without remitting payroll taxes. Erwin and his partners make another capital call.

Erwin eventually fires Buddy and Barry. He moves the accounting to North Carolina, and GCAD gets current with its payroll taxes. GCAD however does not pay its back taxes. It can’t. It needs all the money it has to remain in business.

GCAD finally folds.

Uncle Sam shows up, and he wants his payroll taxes. Erwin pays some, then immediately countersues to get the monies back. The IRS starts swinging, suing Erwin and Pintner and Buddy and Barry.

Erwin lawyers up. Pintner lawyers up. The brothers do not. They show up in court “pro se,” which means they are representing themselves. I consider that decision to be suicidal.

Why suicidal? The IRS considers the brothers a “responsible person,” and the IRS has a point. The brothers did have quite a bit of discretion over who was paid with the limited cash available. The IRS argues that it gets paid first, a point they are now emphasizing by going after Erwin and Pintner and the brothers for trust fund penalties. This is the “big boy” penalty, and it is 100 percent of the withholding taxes.

How did it turn out? Read the court’s verdict for yourself:

... the Light Brothers are jointly and severally indebted to the United States for the unpaid withholding taxes assessed against them, plus the applicable interest accruing according to law.”

The tab?  Try $325,734.

The monthly $4,900 fee was sweet, but not enough to cover the penalty.

Could representation have saved the brothers? I am speculating at this point, but I do not believe so. The brothers took on too many of the trappings of a corporate officer. The IRS would be harsh on their control over the checking account, for example. The IRS takes priority when it comes to payroll withholdings, and it reserves the right to disregard other vendors – even if not paying other vendors would put one out of business. The brothers paid other vendors (including themselves) before paying the IRS.  They walked directly into the IRS crosshairs.

Tarpoff, Payroll Taxes and Responsible Person Penalties

John Tarpoff was the head cattle buyer at Gateway Beef, LLC (Gateway). Gateway was formed in 2003 by Gateway Beef Cooperative and Brach’s Glatt Meat Markets (Glatt). Glatt was owned by Sam Brach (Brach).  The co-op sold cattle to Gateway, which then produced kosher beef for Glatt.

In addition to buying cattle, Tarpoff did the following:

·         Filed Gateway’s articles of incorporation, signing as “organizer’

·         Was a signatory on two Gateway checking accounts

o   When opening the accounts, he presented company resolutions which he signed above lines that said “secretary” or “member.”

·         With the resolutions he could open accounts and withdraw funds

Brach was the wallet and financed Gateway. The bookkeeper, Marsha Caughron (Marsha), handled accounts receivable and payable, payroll, and some sales. She received all the mail, including bills and any notices from the IRS. She would print checks, attach the bills and initially send them to Brach. He would sign some, sometimes not all, and send them back. Brach was pretty strict that nothing could be paid without his permission.

Procedures changed and Tarpoff started signing all Gateway checks from January to May 2004 and most checks after that through July 2004. Once again, he signed nothing without Brach’s permission. Some of the checks he signed were for delinquent 2003 taxes, although he could not easily recognize them as such. He would review invoices to be sure they matched the check, but that was pretty much all. He did not even know whether Gateway had sufficient funds to cash the checks. Remember: he was the head cattle buyer, not the accountant.

Tarpoff explained to the Court:

            Whatever checks were given to me, I would look at them, glance at them and sign them.”

He could not recall ever refusing to write or sign a check.  

Gateway was a shooting star, living a short life and burning through a lot of money. At some point, Brach stopped paying the payroll taxes. The bookkeeper, Marsha, would calculate the taxes, attach checks and send them to Brach. Brach would not sign or return the checks. When she pressed, he told her to speak with his accountant, Michelle Weiss. Brach also instructed Marsha to fax all IRS notices to Michelle. Tarpoff was unaware of these faxes.

Tarpoff wrote at least 10 checks that bounced. One (for approximately $49,000) must have been pretty important, as he tried to get it paid. Meeting with resistance, he paid it out of personal funds. He said this was the only bad check he was aware of. He was never repaid his $49,000 and ultimately had to refinance his home because of it.

Gateway finally folded in July 2004. Tarpoff left. After learning that some vendors had not been paid, he suspected shenanigans with the payroll taxes. He was informed that Brach had not paid the taxes and the bookkeeper (Marsha) told him she had been receiving IRS notices. That was the first he learned of the matter.

The IRS came in. They wanted the payroll taxes. They also wanted almost $67,000 in penalties from Tarpoff for quarters March and June, 2004.

The IRS said that Tarpoff was responsible because:

·         He held himself out as secretary or manager.

·         He attended board of directors meetings.

·         He was the organizer of Gateway Beef, LLC.

·         He could open accounts and withdraw funds.

·         He signed over 1,800 checks.

·         He could hire and fire employees.

·         He could refuse to sign checks.

·         He invested approximately $50,000.

·         He knew the government had not been paid.

·         Even if he did not know the government had not been paid, he could have deduced it. He had paid payroll taxes in the past (at another company), and he signed enough checks to realize that all taxes had not been remitted.

·         The company was losing money; he was in a position to know and review the books and records to be sure taxes were being paid.

·         He used monies to pay creditors ahead of the government

                       

The Court held the following:

·         Other than puffery, the only evidence of officer status was preprinted checks. He did not write any business title himself.

·         He never attended a board of directors meeting.

·         He only looked at the checks and invoices to see that they matched. He could not pay anything without Brach’s permission.

·         He could interview prospective employees and he handled relations with the union, but he could not hire or fire without Brach’s permission.

·         Perhaps he could have refused to write checks, but Brach would have signed instead. Brach had previously signed checks.

·         He did not “invest” $50,000. To the contrary, he had so little control he could not get his own money back.

·         He did not know about the payroll issues and did not receive IRS notices. They went instead to the bookkeeper and then to Brach’s accountant.

·         Saying that he knew in general about an employer’s responsibilities over payroll taxes is not the same as saying he willfully and consciously failed to remit Gateway taxes.

·         There was no evidence he knew the company was losing money, and he did not have authority to look at the company books.

·         He paid creditors ahead of the government because he did not know about the payroll taxes until after he left Gateway.

Tarpoff finally won, but in Court and after much time and expense.

I am curious why the IRS did not go after Brach. From reading the case it seemed quite clear that he had more control than Tarpoff. The IRS thought they saw the fact pattern they like: looks like an officer, makes business decisions, pays bills, writes checks, decides who gets paid, “in the loop” enough to know that the IRS is getting ignored.

From what I see Tarpoff was in a terrible position. He was associated with a money pit, had responsibility but no authority, was intimidated by a boss (Brach), reached into his own wallet (I can only imagine he was preserving his business reputation) and lost the money, and at the end was hounded by the IRS. Frankly, I am cynical about Brach’s behavior in this matter, as I sense that Tarpoff was set-up as a “fall guy.”

If there was a truck or dog or past girlfriend in the story, one could write a country song.

Seriously, be very careful if you have some of the “sexy” fact patterns the IRS likes and you are somehow associated with payroll at a struggling company. The IRS has a track record on this issue. You do not want to run on this track. In some areas you can work with the IRS. This is not one of them.

The IRS refers to it as the “responsible person” penalty.  It applies to failure to remit withheld federal payroll taxes.  You can think of federal withholding taxes as having five pieces, as follows:

·         Federal income tax withheld

·         Social security withheld

·         Medicare withheld

·         Employer match of social security

·         Employer match of Medicare

Here is the concept: the IRS considers the first three to be the employees’ money, which the employer holds in trust. When the employer fails to remit these, it is not only tax noncompliance but also theft. The IRS is very harsh on this issue and will impose one of its harshest penalties: the “responsible person” penalty. This penalty is 100%. Yes, you read that correctly.

You never want to be “responsible” for this purpose. The IRS can chase to ground anyone it considers responsible and assess the penalty. It doesn’t matter whether you own the company, or are an officer, or even still work there. 

Think about the math for a moment. The company falls behind on its payroll taxes. The IRS will proceed against the company for the taxes. If it then chooses to assess penalties, it does so against the responsible person. That penalty is 100%. The company pays. The responsible person pays. The IRS is paid twice.

Let’ go over a quick example: Let’s say that the amounts are as follows:

·         Federal income tax                 $1,800

·         Social security withheld         $   336

·         Medicare withheld                 $   116

·         Employer social security        $   496

·         Employer Medicare                $   116

When the IRS goes against the company, it will want a check for $2,864 ($1,800 + 336 + 116 + 496 + 116).

NOTE: The employer social security is higher than the employee withholding because of the 2-point reduction in employee social security for 2012.  The employer percentage remained at 6.2% whereas the employee share was reduced to 4.2%.  This was part of the effort to stimulate (or at least not de-stimulate) the economy. It is also slated to expire at the end of 2012.

If the IRS assesses the responsible person, that penalty will be $2,252 ($ 1,800 + 336 + 116). Notice that the employer share doesn’t count for purposes of this penalty. Small consolation.

There are two major tests that the IRS will consider to determine if someone will be charged with the “responsible person” penalty:

(1)   Did the person have a responsibility to collect, account for and pay the trust fund taxes; and

(2)   Did the person willfully fail to perform this duty?

Let’s break down the first test. What if you are a payroll manager, responsible for running payroll and correctly accounting for withholding taxes? Are you responsible? No, not by itself, because you do not have authority to pay bills and write checks. What if you are the treasurer, with authority to write checks? Are you responsible? You will have the IRS’ attention, but the technical answer is no, not by itself. In our next blog we will discuss a taxpayer who wrote over 1,800 checks but argued that he was not a responsible person. The IRS did not believe him, of course, so off they went to court.

On to the second test. We are presently representing a responsible person client on the issue of willfulness. Willful means that one voluntarily and intentionally paid, or continued to pay, other creditors while knowing that the company failed to pay over withheld funds to the government. The IRS in the past has argued that payments to a creditor – mind you, any payments to any creditor – could be sufficient to show willfulness.

Fortunately the courts have slowed down the IRS. Let’s say the check writer was unaware of the lapsed payroll deposits, for example. How? One way is lack of financial sophistication. What if the bookkeeper “took care of it,” and the bookkeeper suddenly took ill, became disabled or left town? The business owner or manager could well need time to ramp-up, whether that means payroll, using QuickBooks or any other duty previously performed by the bookkeeper. Can one say there is “willful” intent while the owner or manager is struggling through the learning curve? Let’s swing the other way and say the check writer was financially sophisticated. What is your opinion if told that the check writer wrote checks only infrequently, and that when the primary signor was on vacation or otherwise unavailable? What if the check writer was unaware of any payroll problems? What if the check writer is authorized pay to vendor payables but excluded from any payroll responsibilities? What if the check writer was intimidated by his/her boss?

This area is of concern because of the poor economy in the last several years. There is great temptation to consider payroll taxes as yet another funding source, reasoning that the IRS can wait like any other creditor. That is not true. The IRS is not just any other creditor. The IRS can assess and collect tax for 10 years past the assessment date, and longer than that if it reduces the assessment to a judgment. And do not assume this is automatically dischargeable in bankruptcy court.  This is called “expensive money.”

Next blog: we will talk about Tarpoff and his responsible person penalty.

Hazard of Being a Volunteer Nonprofit Director

Can you be on the hook for unpaid payroll taxes if you are a volunteer director for a nonprofit? What if you do not have authority to write checks?

Let’s take a look at the recent (March 8, 2012) U.S. District Court decision Bunch v Commissioner.

Perceptions, Inc. was a Tennessee nonprofit formed in 2004, Perceptions provided supportive living service for developmentally disabled clients. The incorporators and initial directors were replaced by Roy Don Bunch (Bunch) and two others. Documents filed with Tennessee listed Bunch as the chairman of the board. He was also the registered agent.

Bunch was benevolent with Perceptions. He allowed it to use one of his properties rent-free. He also made start-up loans and – later – bridge loans when Perceptions did not have sufficient money to pay its bills. His generosity was not insignificant. Between February, 2005 and August, 2007, Bunch made loans of approximately $648,000.

When Perceptions had money, it would repay him. Between 2006 and 2007 Bunch was repaid approximately $558,000.

Bunch never received a paycheck. He never hired or fired employees. He never asked to see the books. He never asked if taxes were being paid. He did speak up in December, 2006 when he learned that Perceptions was thinking about employee raises. His question was reasonable: we are almost bankrupt. Why are we talking about raises? No raises were given, but Bunch’s hopes for a Congressional career were jettisoned.

In December, 2006 Bunch learned that quarter 3, 2006 employment taxes were unpaid. He loaned money to Perceptions to pay these taxes.

In June, 2007 he finally gave up and took over financial responsibility, including writing checks. He was hoping to make Perceptions a viable business. Payroll was met, providers were paid and Bunch was repaid on his loans. Perceptions however did not pay its current or back employment taxes.

The IRS finally shows up wanting to know what is going on. In March, 2008 the IRS decides that Bunch is a “responsible person” for the second and fourth quarters of 2006 and all of 2007.  You do not want to be a “responsible person,” as this means the IRS is coming after you. The IRS wanted almost $194,000 from Bunch.

Bunch was an inquisitive sort. His attorney asked the IRS for their basis in concluding that Bunch was a “responsible person.”  The IRS sent the attorney copies of an interview questionnaire but no reasoning or other basis for their determination.

Bunch filed an appeal on April 25, 2008.

Summer comes. Fall comes. Winter comes. In January, 2009 Bunch received a letter from IRS Appeals. They want affidavits and documents, which he provides. What he did not receive, however, is the basis on which the IRS concluded he was a responsible person.

Spring comes. Summer comes. In September the IRS tells him to pay the penalties. They again fail to tell him why.

In October, 2009 Bunch filed a Request for Abatement. He attaches and documents everything.

The IRS tells him his claim would open for review on January 10, 2010. Two weeks later – January 25 – Bunch receives the IRS’ denial of his claim. Bunch can almost hear the tires squealing as the IRSmobile speeds away. The IRS still failed to tell him why he was responsible.

On February 9, 2010, Bunch sends the IRS almost $194,000. He then files a court motion. He wants his money back. And to find out why he is responsible.

In court Bunch admits that he was a responsible person as of June 22, 2007, when he took over financial responsibility for Perceptions. He disagreed that he was a responsible person before that date. He had a point. One of the key indicators is whether the person in question had discretion over cash disbursements, including signature authority. A bookkeeper who pays what he/she is instructed to pay would not be a responsible person, whereas his/her boss could be.

The court disagreed with Bunch. It did not matter that he did not hire or fire, have ownership, get paid or write checks. The court reasoned that he had authority as a director and significant financial authority because he lent a lot of money to Perceptions. In fact he could have forced Perceptions out of business by simply not loaning them money. The court did not care that he did not know or did not exercise authority. The court reasoned that he could have, and “could have” was sufficient.

Bunch was a responsible person for all periods. The IRS could keep his $194,000.

Yipes!

My take: sadly, I have to agree with the court. There is a long-standing tax doctrine that one cannot intentionally stick his/her head in the sand and claim ignorance. Bunch was involved enough to lend Perceptions money on an almost-monthly basis. As a director, he had the right to ask why, where the money was going, what bills were being paid and – importantly – what bills were not being paid. He already had one fright with unpaid employment taxes, and it was not unreasonable for a director to oversee that such taxes not be overlooked in the future.

The difficult part here is separating his duty as a director from his obvious generosity with the charity. As director he had authority to inquire, berate and insist. Events came to his attention which reasonably required him, as director, to get involved. It was not reasonable for a director to turn a blind eye. He was a tremendous benefactor, but not a very good director. Had he just been a benefactor, I doubt the court would have arrived at the same decision.

On April 6 Bunch filed a motion seeking to alter or amend the court’s decision. We’ll see how it turns out, but I doubt he will be pleased.