There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

A Tax Refund When The IRS Fails To Process A Return

I am looking at a case involving a tax refund. The IRS bounced it, and I am having a hard time figuring out what the IRS was thinking.

Let’s talk about it.

James Willetts filed an extension for his 2014 individual tax return. He sent a $8,000 payment and extended the return from April 15 to October 15, 2015.

Standard stuff.

He did not file the return by October 15, 2015.

Oh well.

He finally filed the 2014 return on April 14, 2018.

April 15, 2015 to April 14, 2018 is less than three years, and that is not even including the six-month extension on the 2014 return.

The IRS rejected the return because of potential identity theft.

I presume that the IRS sent a notice, but Willetts did not respond. The Court goes on to observe that it was unclear whether Willetts even knew there was an identity issue before bringing suit.

COMMENT: That struck me as odd, as one of the first things a tax professional would do is obtain a transcript of Willett’s tax account. I then noted that Willetts brought suit as “pro se,” generally interpreted as going to Court without professional representation. Technically, that is incorrect, as one can go to Court with a CPA and still be considered “pro se,” but, in Willetts’ case, I am inclined to believe he was truly pro se.

The issue before the Court was straight-forward: did Willetts file his return in time to get his refund?

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment:

(1)  A taxpayer may recoup a tax overpayment by filing a claim within a statutorily-prescribed period of time.

(2)  That period of time is:

a.    Three years from when the return was filed, if the return was filed within three years of when the return was due; otherwise

b.    … two years from when the tax was paid.

(3)  The three years in (2)(a) extends with a valid tax extension.

Let’s parse this.

(1) Willetts' 2014 tax return was due April 15, 2015.

(2) He had a valid extension until October 15, 2015.

(3) His three-year period for filing a refund claim would run – at a minimum - until April 15, 2018. Since he also had a valid extension, the extension period gets tacked-on. He therefore had until October 15, 2018 to file a refund claim within the three-year lookback period.

You can see where the IRS was coming from. It did not have a tax return in its system until after October 15, 2018.

However, Willetts filed - or at least attempted to file - a return on April 14, 2018. It wasn’t his fault that the IRS held up processing.

The Court made short work of this.

A tax return is deemed filed the day it is received by the IRS, regardless of whether it is accepted, processed, ignored or destroyed by the IRS. The IRS’ own records showed Willetts' return as received on May 2, 2018, well within the period ending October 15, 2018.

The return was filed timely. Willetts was due his refund.

I have a couple of observations:

(1)  I do not understand why the IRS pursued this. The rules here are bright-line. The IRS did not have a chance of winning; in fact, the case strikes me as borderline harassment. 

What concerns me is the mountain of paper returns – especially amended returns – waiting unopened and unprocessed at the IRS as I write this. Are we going to see Willetts-like foot-dragging by the IRS on those returns? Is the IRS going to force me to file with the Tax Court to get my clients their refunds?   

(2)  Let’s play what-if.  

Say that Willetts had filed his return on November 1, 2018, so that all parties would agree that he was outside the three-year lookback period. Once that happened, his refund would be limited to any taxes paid within the previous two years. His 2014 taxes would have been deemed paid on April 15, 2015, meaning that none, zero, zip of his 2014 taxes were paid within two years of November 1, 2018. There would be no refund. This, by the way, is the how-and-why people lose their tax refunds if they do not file their returns within three years.   

Our case this time was Willetts v Commissioner, Tax Court November 22, 2021.

Literacy And Tax Penalties

I am looking at a Tax Court case.

It does not break any new ground, but there is a twist I do not remember seeing before.

Michael Torres and Elizabeth Ruzendall founded an S corporation (Water Warehouse).

In 2016 Michael found himself in a bad way health-wise. Elizabeth was around, though, even though she was no longer an owner. She ran the company in Michael’s absence.

It must have been a sweet gig, as Water Warehouse issued her a $166,494 Form 1099 for 2016.

Here is the oddball fact: Michael could not read or write. He was sick for so long, however, that he had time to learn.

Good for him.

In 2017 he came across the Form 1099. He could now read.

In 2018 he filed civil suit against Elizabeth.

Both the company’s and Michael’s personal 2016 tax returns were due in 2017. That did not happen, and both returns were filed in 2018.

Remember that an S corporation normally does not pay its own taxes. Instead, the S income would be included on Michael’s personal return, and he would pay tax on the sum.

Michael amended the 2016 S corporation return to subtract the $166,494 paid Elizabeth. Amended returns take an explanation, and it appears that the word “theft” may have come up.

As the corporate income went down, Michael’s personal income would simultaneously go down. Michael was now expecting a refund for 2016.

The IRS told him to pound sand.

And off to Court they went.

Embezzlement or theft are maddening topics in the tax Code.

A key question was whether a theft even occurred. When Elizabeth was running the show in 2016, Michael told her to take “what she felt was her pay.”

Be fair: Elizabeth could easily argue that she had done that.

Except she testified to taking the funds without Michael’s authorization.

And then you have the hurdles of the tax law itself.

The Code says that a theft is deductible when discovered.

Matthew discovered the theft in 2017.

He amended the 2016 corporate and personal tax returns.

That were due in 2017.

But filed late in 2018.

When was the theft discovered?

That would be 2017.

It cannot go on a 2016 return. It could go on a 2017 return, though.

Michael struck out. He claimed the theft a year early.

COMMENT: Once tax year 2016 became an issue with the IRS, he should have filed a protective claim for 2017. The purpose of the claim would be to keep the 2017 tax year open if the theft deduction in 2016 went against him.

The IRS however marched on: it wanted penalties.

I get it: he failed to file those 2016 returns on time.

However, the penalty can be abated for reasonable cause.

The Court said the IRS had reached too far. Michael had been sick for an extended period of time. He hired a new accountant upon learning of the 2016 issues. He taught himself to read and write. e taught himself to read and writeHe could now review his own accounting records rather than having to rely on others.

 

It sounded reasonable to the Court.

To me too.

This is the first time I can remember somebody receiving penalty abatement citing illiteracy.

However, it is probably more correct to say that Michael received abatement for becoming literate. I would say the Court liked him.

Our case this time was Torres v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-66.

When Is Divorce A Tax-Deductible Theft?

 

I am reading a case involving tax consequences from a divorce.

More specifically, the (ex) wife trying to deduct $2.5 million as a theft loss.

That is a little different.

He and she got married in 1987. Husband (Bruno) lifted a successful career in the financial sector, and by 2005 was earning over $2 million annually.

There was an affair.

There was a divorce.

The Court ordered an equitable distribution of marital properties.

That did not seem to impress Bruno, who transferred no marital properties. The court held him in contempt, ordered him to pay interest and yada yada yada.

QUESTION: Can’t a court place someone in jail for contempt?

It appeared that the Court had enough of Bruno, and in 2010 the Court transferred real estate to the (ex) wife, with instructions to sell, keep the first $300 grand and transfer the balance to an escrow account. The property sold for $1.9 million. Th (ex) wife kept all the money, placing nothing in escrow.

Yep, the Court held her in contempt.

By now I am thinking that the contempt of this court is clearly meaningless.

In 2015 our esteemed Bruno filed for bankruptcy. He claimed he was down to his last $2,500.

Which raised the question of where all the money went.

In 2016 the (ex) wife filed suit against Bruno’s new wife and several companies that he, she or both owned.

Methinks we found where the monies went.

She filed a claim against the bankruptcy estate for $3.5 million.

Apparently, there was something to the (ex) wife’s claim, as the bankruptcy trustee filed suit against the new wife, against Bruno’s mother, the Bruno companies previously mentioned and some poor guy Bruno talked to while walking his dog around the neighborhood.

That case was settled in 2019.

Let’s be honest: there is really no likeable character in this story.

The (ex) wife amended her 2015 tax return to report a $2.5 million theft.

That – not surprisingly – created a net operating loss that went springing across tax years like kids at a pre-COVID McDonald’s Playland.

The IRS caught the amended return and said: No way. No theft. No loss. Get outta here.

And that is how we got to the Tax Court.

Establishing the existence of a deductible theft can be tricky in tax law. Yes, one always has the question of what was stolen, how much was it worth and all that. Tax law introduces an additional requirement:

·      One must establish the year in which the loss was sustained.

The blade is in Reg 1.165-1(d):

However, if in the year of discovery there exists a claim for reimbursement to which there is a reasonable prospect of recovery, no portion of the loss with respect to which reimbursement may be received is sustained  .. until the taxable year in which it can be ascertained with reasonable certainty whether or not such reimbursement will be received.”

It is not the “what” that will trip you up; it is the “when.”

There of course some Court guidance over the years, such as:

·      The evaluation should not be made “through the eyes of the ‘incorrigible’ optimist,” or

·      … the “mere possibility or the bare hope of a future development permitting recovery does not bar the deduction of a loss clearly sustained.”

Yep. That is like telling a baseball player to step to the plate against Jacob deGrom and “just swing the bat.”

Thanks for the advice there, pal.

And the Court decided against the (ex) wife.

No one believed Bruno when he filed bankruptcy in 2015 and claimed he was worth only $2,500. The trustee filed suit; the (ex) wife filed suit. Lawsuits were everywhere.

The Court stated that the (ex) wife may well have a theft loss. What she did not have was a theft loss in 2015.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Bruno v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2020-156.

Data Security And Your Tax Preparer

I annually reflect on what was unique about every tax season, other than this is a difficult profession. I can understand why accounting graduates increasingly dismiss public accounting as a career choice.

I am concerned with the increasing concentration of confidential information in an accounting office.

We have always had your name, address, birthdate and social security number.

Right there is big bucks to an Eastern European identity thief.

Riding the best-intentions train, you now have states – Tennessee comes to mind – that will not allow you to pay their (Hall) tax with a check. No sir, you have to have that bad boy drafted against your bank account. I understand Tennessee’s position – it is cheaper than handling a check – but I do not care about their position. How dare they coerce you to make it convenient for them to Soprano your money. If it is so much trouble, then stop taking the money!

You have no choice with those states.

So we have your bank information.

We now have additional “identity theft” safeguards. For example, some states require driver’s license information before you can file your return. Wow, I now have a copy of your driver’s license. And your spouse’s, if you are married.

Seems the government has shifted data protection responsibility to your friendly neighborhood tax preparer.

I did not want your data. I still don’t want it, but there it is - on my server.

Which can be carried away in an instant.

How hard would it be for someone to take down my office door, walk to the server, pull out all the wires and walk out with the thing?

And their goes your name, address, birth date, social security number, bank account information, driver’s license, those of your spouse and children, and who knows what else.

Identity thieves are spending way too much time hacking into Target and other major corporations.

It would be easier to break into CPA offices across the fruited plain. One person. One server. Repeat. You could probably knock out a dozen or two in a day.

Thank heavens our government is standing guard over all CPA firm servers in all the offices in all the cities across the land. 

Otherwise we would have reason to be concerned.

Can The IRS Use A Private Debt Collector Against You?

On December 4, 2015 the President signed into law a five- year $305 billion highway bill.

One of the contentious issues was the 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax. You know the politics: one side wanted to increase it and the other did not.  Unable to come to agreement, Congress looked elsewhere for the money.

One place they looked was the use of private debt collectors for IRS debt.

Ohio routinely farms out its tax collection to private agencies. Does it work? Well, let me answer the question this way: I usually request the file be returned to the Ohio Department of Taxation. Why? Because the collection agency could not care less whether the debt is accurate or not, whether the penalties are correctly calculated, or whether there is even a tax case to be collected. I have, for example, seen Ohio farm out collection on cases where the appeal period was still open. Although Ohio is not especially friendly to work with, they are better than dealing with a debt collector. You would be pressed to find too many Ohio tax CPAs that have positive opinions about this arrangement.

Congress has gone down this path before. The most recent collection program started in 2006 and ended in 2009. The program was widely considered a failure, as was its predecessor in 1996-1997. After accounting for commissions paid as well as internal IRS costs to administer, both programs actually caused losses for the Treasury.  

The National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olsen, expressed her feelings clearly to Congress:

Based on what I saw, I concluded the program undermined effective tax administration, jeopardized taxpayer rights protections, and did not accomplish its intended objective of raising revenue. Indeed, despite projections by the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation that the program would raise more than $1 billion in revenue, the program wound up losing money. We have no reason to believe the result would be any different this time.”

The Federal Trade Commission routinely reports more complaints about debt collectors than any other industry. FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez stated that over 280,000 federal complaints were filed in 2014 alone.

You know that Congress would not care.

Section 6306 of the highway bill requires the IRS to enter into collection contracts for the collection of certain inactive tax receivables, defined as:

·        A receivable removed from active inventory for lack of resources or because the taxpayer cannot be located;

·         A receivable where at least one-half of the statute of limitations period has expired and no IRS employee has been assigned; or

·        A receivable assigned for collection but at least one year has passed since taxpayer contact

Did you catch the use of the word “requires?” That is quite the departure from pre-existing law, which “authorizes” the IRS to use private debt collection agencies.

There are some exceptions, such as:

·        Pending or active offers in compromise or installment agreements

·        Innocent spouse

·        Deceased taxpayers

·        Minors

·        Taxpayers in designated combat zones

·        Taxpayers in examination or appeal

·        Victims of identity theft

The last one is disconcerting, especially after the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported in 2014 that it received over 90,000 complaints about scam telephone calls demanding payment from impostors claiming to be the IRS.  IRS Commissioner Koskinen cited the TIGTA report and reminded taxpayers that:

Taxpayers should remember their first contact with the IRS will not be a call from out of the blue, but through official correspondence sent through the mail.”

Well, that used to be true.

What Happens When Hacking Concerns Conflict With A State Electronic Payment Mandate?

Let’s travel to the Bay State for a taxpayer requesting reasonable cause against the imposition of penalties.  

The amount in dispute is $100.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Our protagonist is Jonathan Haar, and he lives in Massachusetts. On April 15, 2011 he had the audacity to file a paper extension and include a $19,517 check for his tax year 2010 state return. The paper extension and payment

“… did not comply with the requirements set forth in Technical Information Release (“TIR”) 04-30 (“TIR 04-30”), which states that if a payment accompanying an extension application equals $5,000 or more, such extension application and payment must be submitted electronically.”

Got it. The state says that it is less expensive to process electronic than paper tax filings and payments. Seems reasonable. How do we get people to follow along, however? One way is to make whatever the state wants mandatory.

Our protagonist unfortunately had travelled this path before, and he had been warned for tax year 2005 and penalized for year 2006.  Massachusetts had a tax recidivist! They assessed the above-mentioned $100 penalty on our ne-er-do-well.

If you were my client, I would have told you to pay the $100 and move on. Mr. Haar is not my client, and he refused to pay. He instead filed an appeal, which appeal went to the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board.

His argument?

“Mr. Haar maintained that the Commissioner’s electronic payment mandate is a ‘serious invasion of both [his] privacy and [his] personal business practices,’ as it exposes his finances to risk of cyber attack.”

 “I intentionally do no electronic banking nor direct bill paying, I have none of my credit cards linked to my bank accounts directly and I think anyone who does any of the above is exposing themselves to multiple risks of cybercrime and identity theft.”

Mr. Haar further expressed doubts as to the security of the computer systems used by the Department of Revenue (“DOR”), noting that "if the Pentagon can be hacked," he had little confidence that DOR could protect his – or anyone’s – personal data from theft.

Massachusetts argued that it had the authority to mandate electronic filing and payment, as well as assess penalties if a taxpayer failed to comply with their filing and payment mandates. Massachusetts does recognize exceptions for reasonable cause, but its own Administrative Procedure 633 (“AP 633”) provides that

… the fact that a taxpayer does not own a computer or is uncomfortable with electronic data or funds transfer will not support a claim for reasonable cause.”

COMMENT: Call me quaint, but I would say that someone not having a computer is prima facie reasonable cause for not being able to file an electronic return or transfer funds electronically. The issue I see with AP 633 is its absolutism: the language “will not support” leaves no room. Why not say instead “generally will not support,” if only to allow space for unexpected fact patterns? 

In support of its position, the DOR trotted out two officials: the first was Robert Allard, a tax auditor. He pointed out that Mr. Haar filed an electronic return, presumably through a professional preparer. I suppose that Mr. Allard felt that if one could electronically file then one should be able to electronically pay. 

The second was Theresa O’Brien-Horan, a 26-year employee and Deputy Commissioner, who testified that

… the mandate at issue in this appeal – requiring individual taxpayers who apply for an extension with an accompanying payment of $5,000 or more to file and pay electronically – is helpful to DOR because it maximized up-front revenue intake.”

… the $5,000 threshold was chosen because it would ‘impact 17% of the taxpayers, but … get the money banked for 84% of the revenue.”

You can virtually feel the customer service vapor emanating from Ms O’Brien- Horan.

When asked whether reasonable cause was the Massachusetts equivalent of an ”opt out,” Ms. O’Brien-Horan answered “yes.”

OBSERVATION: The IRS, for example, prefers that one file an electronic return. The IRS however did not put the burden on the taxpayer; rather it put the burden on the preparer. If a preparer prepares more than a minimal number of returns annually, the preparer is required to file the returns electronically. This is awkward, as the return belongs to the taxpayer and not to the preparer. The preparer is not allowed to release any return – even to the IRS – without the taxpayer’s approval. What does the preparer do if the taxpayer does not grant approval? The preparer includes yet-another-form with the return indicating that the taxpayer has “opted out.” This prevents the IRS from penalizing the preparer for not filing electronically.

If Mr. Haar’s position was reasonable, then Mr. Haar could “opt out,” irrespective of any self-serving Massachusetts Administrative Procedure.

Ms. O’Brien-Horan just didn’t think that Mr. Haar was being reasonable.

But the Board did.

“Given his reference to the hacking of the Pentagon’s computer system, and in light of the many well-publicized instances of large-scale thefts of financial information following computer breaches at businesses and other institutions, and the appellant’s consistent practice of avoiding electronic payment of all his bills, including his tax obligations, the Board found that the appellant’s failure to utilize the Commissioner’s mandated electronic tax payment to be reasonable.”

Two things strike me immediately.

The first is the cause for concern comprising Mr. Haar’s argument. It had not occurred to me to off-grid all of one’s banking transactions, but he gives one pause. I recently read the following on www.marketwatch.com, for example:

A Russian gang has stolen 1.2 billion user names and their passwords as well as more than 500 million email addresses, the New York Times reports.

The information came from more than 400,000 websites, according to the Times, which says researchers at Milwaukee-based Hold Security discovered the cyber heist.

Mr. Haar is highly cautious. His position is somewhat eccentric but not unfounded. A reasonable tax collection agency would have granted him this one and moved on.  

The second is the inanity of Massachusetts DOR. Rather than abate a $100 penalty, it preferred to pursue the matter, at who knows what cost to state and citizens. We know that cost would include Mr. Allard and Ms O’Brien-Horan’s payroll, not to mention that of their superiors, legal counsel and who-knows-what else. I can understand not wanting to set a precedent, but … really? My take is that the DOR is too well-funded if they have the time and money to pursue nonsense like this. Perhaps DOR budgets cutbacks are in order for Massachusetts.