FATCA Filing Season

This past Saturday the IRS released the final version of Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, and on Monday released the instructions. This form is in response to FATCA, and represents a further tightening of reporting requirements for foreign income and assets.

What do you have to report? The easy answer is overseas bank accounts and securities accounts. It gets a little trickier with hedge and private equity funds. It will also pick up your loan to Grandma Gretchen. This is reporting for foreign assets, not just foreign bank accounts.

Here are the dollar amounts if you live in the U.S.:

·         If single or married filing separately

o   $50,000 on the last day of the year or $75,000 at any time during the year

·         If married filing jointly

o   $100,000 on the last day of the year or $150,000 at any time during the year

Here are the dollar amounts if you live overseas:

·         If single or married filing separately

o   $200,000 on the last day of the year or $300,000 at any time during the year

·         If married filing jointly

o   $400,000 on the last day of the year or $600,000 at any time during the year

Are the dollar thresholds ridiculously low? Of course.

Form 8938 does not replace the FBAR (TD-F 90.22.1), which is filed separately from your income tax return and is due in Detroit by June 30^th every year.

Eventually the IRS intends for Form 8938 to also apply to domestic entities, but for right now the IRS is limiting its reach to only individuals.

My take?

We used to expect that the IRS would not assess penalties unless tax was due. That in turn meant that we did not overly fear information returns - that is, returns with numbers on them but no line that said “tax due.” There were some exceptions, such as W-2s and 1099s, of course; otherwise, this rule of thumb worked reasonably well.

No longer. There are penalties to these forms even if there are no taxes due or all taxes have been reported.  Congress has taken umbrage on Americans having assets overseas. I am at a loss why a married couple (say my wife and I) would draw Congress’ attention solely by having $100,000 overseas. That is not enough money to get a starring role next to Michael Douglas in Wall Street II. It is not enough money to get me invited to a White House dinner, and certainly not enough to join a presidential vacation.

If you are even close to the dollar limits, please see a professional. Do not fool around with this, as the penalties can be severe.

How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Status of the Payroll Tax Cut

The Senate today approved a two-month extension of the employee Social Security tax cut.

You will recall that the employee FICA rate was cut from 7.65 to 5.65 percent, but only for 2011. The FICA tax is composed of two parts: a social security tax of 6.2 percent and a Medicare tax of 1.45 percent. Together they add-up to 7.65 percent and are referred to as FICA. The social security portion was reduced in 2011 by 2 points – from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. It is this portion that we are discussing.

A number of economic and financial commentators have pointed out that 2011 economic growth has been roughly equivalent to this payroll tax cut.  Add to the mix an upcoming election year and the issue of extending the cut has become quite electric.

The bill will next go to the House, where there has been some activism to cut the tax for all of 2012, not just two months.

The President has indicated his intention to sign the bill when it arrives.

My take?

Payroll is reported to the IRS on a quarterly basis. The first quarter is January through March. Accountants and payroll services now have to subdivide the quarter to determine which tax rate to apply to the payroll. Would it have been that difficult - especially since nothing has been accomplished anyway – to have the payroll tax cut run the full quarter?

The Honeymooners Income Tax Episode

The IRS Wants More Levy Power

The IRS wants Congress to expand its tax levy authority.

This is a response against the taxpayer protections under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA). One of the changes required the IRS to provide at least 30 days notice of a levy action, as well as the taxpayer right to appeal such action. The purpose is to slow down collections and allow the taxpayer to propose alternatives or to reiterate information that collections has chosen to ignore.

After enactment of the RRA, the number of IRS levies dropped by approximately 85 percent, from 473,000 for fiscal 1998 to 75,000 in fiscal 2000. This has reversed recently, and there was a 73 percent increase from fiscal 2009 to 2010. During fiscal 2010 the IRS filed approximately 667,000 levies.

The IRS does have some valid arguments. In some circumstances, timing requirements may require multiple levy actions. Some sources of income are difficult to reach and are currently beyond the reach of a continuous levy.

NOTE: A continuous levy remains in effect until cancelled and provides recurrent cash to the IRS. The most common example is a wage garnishment. This is in contrast to a bank levy, which is good for only one instance. Should the IRS want more cash, it has to file another bank levy.

The IRS wants to expand the continuous levy to reach rental income, nonemployee compensation, royalties and fishing boat proceeds.

Then there are questionable IRS arguments. For example, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reviewed a sample of 30 cases where the taxpayer appealed a levy action. It found that appeals can be used to delay collection action. Gosh, I could have told them that without a study; it doesn’t mean, however, that the appeal right per se is without merit. In 28 cases Appeals upheld the levy action. The IRS extrapolates this to mean that the appeals protection under RRA is being abused.

Let’s talk about IRS abuses. The RRA protections were not enacted because the IRS was an innocent party. There are cases where the IRS has pursued levies for less than $30.  There are cases of IRS levies without any notification. We presently have a representation client where collections is pursuing more than $20,000 while we simultaneously are reducing that amount by almost 80 percent through a reconsideration. We put in a CDP request to put the brakes on collections and clue them that there is a favorable adjustment coming from exam. Do I even need to comment on IRS inflexibility with an unemployed/underplayed taxpayer who cannot continue a payment plan at the same amount as before being unemployed/underemployed?

Let me clue you in on a tax “secret.” The IRS says it will work with you if circumstances overwhelm your payment plan. However, the IRS keeps a golden key to itself. The IRS can reject a restructuring if one has defaulted on a payment plan. Think about this. I have a client who entered into a payment plan. Circumstances have been difficult, including foreclosure. She has continued her payments to the IRS, although sometimes in smaller amounts than agreed to. She takes pride in having lived up to her obligation. I contacted the IRS to formally restructure the plan to something like the following:

                First three months          $25 per month

                Next three months         $50 per month

                Next three months         $75 per month

               

The IRS refused. Why? Because she “defaulted” on her plan. Now think about this for a moment. My client is held in the same regard as a tax scofflaw who has never paid and has no intention of ever paying. Her default? She reduced her payment because she works for $7.50 per hour and is broke. She did not miss a payment, mind you, only reduced it. To be fair, we will work something out with the IRS, but it is a needless headache for both her and me. I do think it shows a blockheaded attitude at the IRS. Some of us – government employees excluded, apparently – can be fired.

Count me on the “nay” side of any proposal to expand IRS levy authority. Show me some proof of “kinder and gentler” before I board this bus.

Be Careful With Foreign Tax Information Returns

Today we filed an extension for a client company with a foreign subsidiary. I was recently reading a Chief Counsel’s Advice concerning the same type of tax return that our client will be filing in a few months.

There is an additional form to file when one owns a foreign corporation. That is Form 5471 “Information Return of U.S Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations.” The common ownership threshold for filing is 10 percent. There is a twist in which an officer or director has a responsibility to file, even if the officer or director owns no shares directly, as long as a US citizen owns at least 10 percent.

Frankly, this is a confusing return. There are four types of “filers,” and each has to fill-out – or not fill-out- certain sections of the return. One may have to provide an income statement for the foreign company, for example, or track its earnings and profits.

The 2010 HIRE Act amended the tax Code (Section 6501(c )(8)) so that the statute of limitations for an income tax return to which an international “information return“ relates does not start until the information return is filed.

What does this mean? Well, Form 5471 is considered an “information return.” This means that it has numbers on it, but there is no line that says “tax due.” There is a similar form (Form 8865) for foreign partnerships and another (Form 3520) for foreign trusts.

So you own (enough of) a foreign corporation to file Form 5471. The accountant doesn’t think about it and files the corporate return without it.  The IRS in CCA 201104041 clarified that the statute of limitations on the corporate return does not begin to run until the Form 5471 is filed.

The client referred to above is new to the firm. One of the reasons that they switched firms? Their former CPA had not been filing Forms 5471.

If you remember, there are also penalties for not filing foreign information returns, including Form 5471. That however is for another blog post.

Olsen v Commissioner

You may recall that there is a”super” penalty that the IRS can assess if one understates his/her tax by too much. This penalty is not trivial: it is 20% and is called the accuracy-related penalty. In many cases the IRS assesses the penalty as a mathematical exercise. You can however request that the penalty be abated by providing a reasonable cause for doing so. A long illness or the death of a close family member, for example, has long been considered as reasonable cause.

We now have a new reasonable cause. I suspect that it will enter the tax lexicon as the “Geithner” defense, for the secretary of the Treasury under President Obama.

Here is what happened.

Kurt Olsen (KO)’s wife received interest income for 2007 from her mother’s estate. This means that she received a Schedule K-1, an unfamiliar form to the Olsens. KO normally prepared the tax returns, and he liked to use TurboTax. Upon receipt of the K-1, he upgraded his version of TurboTax as a precaution in handling this unfamiliar tax form.

TurboTax uses an interview process to obtain information. Using this process, KO entered the name and identification number of the estate. He also took a swing at entering the interest income, but something went wrong. The interest income did not show up on the return. KO was quite responsible and used the verification features in his upgraded software, but he did not discover the error.

The IRS did, though. They sent him a notice requesting an additional $9,297 in tax. The change in tax was large enough to trigger the “super” penalty of $1,859 ($9,297 times 20 percent).

KO knew he owed the tax, but he felt that the penalty was unfair. He felt strongly enough about the penalty that he pursued the issue all the way to the Tax Court. He represented himself under a special forum for small cases.

                Note: The tax term for representing yourself is “pro se.”

Now, the Tax Court has not been forthcoming in considering “tax software” as a reasonable cause. The Court has long expected one to use the software properly. In fact, a famous case (Bunney v Commissioner) has the Court stating that “tax preparation software is only as good as the information one inputs into it.”

The Court however took pains to distinguish KO, commenting that…

·         “We found petitioner to be forthright and credible.”

·         “It is clear that his mistake was isolated as he correctly reported the source of the income.”

·         “He did not repeat any similar error in preparing his tax return.”

·         “Petitioner acted reasonably in upgrading his tax preparation software to a more sophisticated version.”

The Court found reasonable cause to abate the penalty.

The key thing is that the taxpayer had an unusual source of income. He did not know where to look to check that the income had been properly included on his return. He did however meticulously follow the verification features in the software, and he relied – not unreasonably – on the software to report this transaction correctly.

This type of case unfortunately cannot be used as precedent. Tax Court Judge Armen also took care to cite the “unique facts and circumstances of this case.” Nonetheless, as more and more taxpayers use software to prepare their returns, it is expected that we will see more and more instances of the “Olsen” defense.