Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)

A Cannabis Business Offer In Compromise

 

Let’s talk reasonable collection potential (RCP).

If the conversation turns to RCP, chances are good that you owe the IRS and are hoping to settle for less than the full amount. A couple of programs come immediately to mind:

• Offer in Compromise

• Partial Payment Installment Agreement

 As you might guess, the IRS requires paperwork before agreeing to this. The IRS wants to look at your:

• Income

• Expenses

• Assets

• Liabilities

• Future Income Potential

Yes, the process is intrusive. I have had clients balk at the amount of disclosure involved, but in truth it is not much different from what a bank would request. I rarely work with OICs or partial pays these days. Some of it is the client base, but some also reflects past frustration. I have started this process too many times with a client and the first wave of documentation comes in quickly enough; the second wave takes longer. The last wave may take long enough that we must start the first wave over again, and sometimes we never even receive the last wave. It has happened enough that I am now reluctant to get involved, unless it is a client I have known for a while and am confident will follow instructions. The IRS is going reject a partially completed application anyway, so there is no upside to submitting one.

COMMENT: This is a repetitive tactic of the reduce-your-tax-debt mills. They will assemble and file whatever, knowing (or at least should know) that the application will be rejected. That does not matter to them, as they are paid in advance.

The IRS is trying to pin down how much you can pay: the RCP.

And it is not what you may think.

Assets are relatively easy: you must list and value all your assets. You may not want to disclose that restored Corvette or gun collection, but you really should.

Liabilities are tricky. You will submit all your liabilities, but the IRS may not allow them. Credit card debt comes to mind. Let’s just say that the IRS is not overly concerned whether you fail to repay your credit card balances.

Income again is easy, unless you have unusual sources of income. In practice, I have found that the IRS also has difficulty with erratic (think gig) income, sometimes to the point that one cannot get a plan in place.

Expenses can break your heart. Just because you have an expense does not mean that the IRS will allow it. Examples? Think an expensive car lease, private school tuition, even veterinary expenses for an aging dog. For some expense categories, the IRS will look to tables listing normalized allowances for your region of the country. You supposedly can persuade the IRS that your situation is different and requires a larger number than the table. I wish you the best of luck with that.

Future income potential has disqualified many. Let me give an example:

·      A retiree has substantial health issues. It is unlikely that the retiree will (or can) return to work, meaning that current income (sources and amount) is likely all there is into the foreseeable future.

·      A young(er) nurse practitioner is bending under the weight of credit cards, car loan, day care, and aging parents.

The IRS is not going to view the retiree and nurse practitioner the same. One’s earning power is behind him/her, whereas the other likely has many years of above-average earning power remaining. Granted, both may be in difficult straits and both may receive relief, but it is unlikely that the relief will be the same. The retiree may receive an OIC, for example, whereas the nurse practitioner may receive a temporary partial-pay with a two-year revisit. Even then, I anticipate that getting a partial pay for the nurse practitioner is going to be … challenging.

Let’s talk about a recent RCP situation that irritates me. It involves a business.

Mission Organic Center (Mission) is a state legal marijuana dispensary in California.

COMMENT: Two things come into play here. The first is the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 substance. The second is a Code section (Sec 280E) that prohibits businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses from their gross income if the business consists of trafficking in controlled substances. This gives us the odd result of a state-legal business that cannot deduct all its expenses on its federal tax return. Perhaps the state will allow those expenses on its return, but there is no federal equivalent. An accounting firm can deduct its payroll, rent and utilities, by contrast, but a cannabis business cannot (there is an exception for cost of goods sold, but let’s skip that for now).

This raises the question: what is the reasonable collection potential of that cannabis business?

Did you know that there are different accounting methods for different purposes?

Let’s say that you are auditing a Fortune 500 company.  You probably want to keep the accounting on the pavement, something the accounting profession refers to as “generally accepted accounting principles.” Leave the pavement too long or too far and you might have liability issues.

Switch this to the tax return for the Fortune 500, and it is a different matter. The IRS is likely telling you which bad debt – or inventory, or asset capitalization, or depreciation, or deferred compensation, or (on and on) - accounting method to use. The profession calls it “tax accounting,” and that is what I do. I am a tax CPA.

Here is the Supreme Court in Thor Power Tool distinguishing generally accepted accounting income from taxable income:

The primary goal of financial accounting is to provide useful information to management, shareholders, creditors, and others properly interested; the major responsibility of the accountant is to protect these parties from being misled. The primary goal of the income tax system, in contrast, is the equitable collection of revenue; the major responsibility of the Internal Revenue Service is to protect the public fisc. Consistently with its goals and responsibilities, financial accounting has as its foundation the principle of conservatism, with its corollary that "possible errors in measurement [should] be in the direction of understatement rather than overstatement of net income and net assets." In view of the Treasury's markedly different goals and responsibilities understatement of income is not destined to be its guiding light. Given this diversity, even contrariety, of objectives, any presumptive equivalency between tax and financial accounting would be unacceptable.”

Got it: financial accounting provides useful information to stakeholders and tax accounting funds the fisc. Both use the word “accounting,” but they are not the same thing.

Question: what does a business pay bills with?

With cash. Unless somebody is throwing in equity or loaning money, profit is the sole remaining source of cash.

Mission owed a lot of taxes. It submitted an OIC. An IRS Settlement Officer reviewed the OIC and disallowed the Section 280E expenses. The reasoning? The IRS has a policy of disregarding for RCP purposes those business expenses nondeductible under Code Sec. 280E.

I do not see this is an issue of discretion. I see it as a matter of economic reality. Mission needed cash to pay the IRS, and merely making something nondeductible does not create cash. The IRS missed a step here by conflating RCP (an economic measurement of cash) with taxable income (which might mirror cash by luck or accident but then only rarely).

Mission however had a history of filing tax returns without paying. We are not making friends and influencing people here, Mission.

The Tax Court looked at this and decided that the policy was within IRS discretion, and the Settlement Officer did not abuse her discretion by following that policy.

I disagree.

We now have a precedential case that Congressional tax-writing caprice will override an economic evaluation of a business’ ability to generate and retain the cash necessary to pay its tax obligations to the IRS. Let me restate this: Congress - via tax law - can bankrupt you.

Bad facts.

Bad law.

Our case this time was Mission Organic Center v Commissioner, 165 T.C. 13 (2025).