The IRS May Allow Videoconferencing

I am just finished reading Nina Olson’s most recent blog post. Nina Olson is the National Taxpayer Advocate with the IRS. The Advocate’s office is independent from the IRS, although it works with the IRS to resolve tax problems. I have worked with the Advocate’s office before, and in general I have been pleased. Recent contacts have concerned me, though. It sounds to me that they are being overworked, at least here in Cincinnati. I suspect they are feeling IRS budget restrictions.

Ms Olson commented on taxpayer frustrations with “corr exams.” These are correspondence exams and frequently address areas using computer matching. You may get a “corr” notice concerning missing dividends or interest income, for example, or possibly the sale of stock. The corr notices are notorious and can frequently take multiple contacts to resolve. Why? Well, a key reason is that no single examiner is assigned to work on your case. Rather, it floats in a pool, and when you send a letter it gets randomly assigned to an examiner. Say that the letter resolves many, but not all, the issues. The IRS sends out another notice. You respond, but it will not go to the same person who earlier worked on your file. There is no continuity in the corr exam process.

Ms Olson is proposing the use of videoconferencing in conjunction with corr exams. Upon receiving a notice, a taxpayer would have the option of making an appointment for an online meeting. The taxpayer gets a PIN and logs on from his home or office computer. If the taxpayer does not have a computer, he/she could alternatively go to the local IRS office or perhaps to a specially designated room at another government building. With a high-resolution camera, the examiner could even read a document that the taxpayer brought to the videoconference. The examiner would retain the case, and all future correspondence would contain his/her name, phone number and e-mail address.

Here is how Ms Olson phrased it:

As anyone who has looked at both the literacy levels of the United States population and the poor quality of IRS exam notices can attest, there is not a whole lot of communicating going on in IRS correspondence exams.”

A virtual face-to-face meeting would allow for diversity in taxpayers’ ability to read, write and express themselves verbally. The taxpayer would be able to explain himself and the examiner could better explain any necessary documentation without the back-and-forth of a correspondence exam.

What does this tax CPA think? Great idea! I am becoming quite the fan of Nina Olson.

New Jersey and the Telecommuter

We are visiting state taxation today. Our trip this time will take us to New Jersey, and it will highlight how tax law can simultaneously arrive at a technically correct but bumble-headed conclusion.

Let’s say you manufacture parts in New Jersey. Would you expect to file and pay state income tax to New Jersey?

That one is easy - of course. You are doing business there – in the meaningful sense of the phrase. You have a building, you have employees. You park your car out front. You visit Chipotle for lunch. You are there.

Let’s make this more challenging. You do not manufacture parts. You do not manufacture anything. You develop software. Your offices are in Rockville, Maryland. You do not have offices in New Jersey. You do not park your car in New Jersey or visit their Chipotle for lunch. You are not there. You have an employee who moves to New Jersey. You like her. You keep her on board.

Like a Jim Croce song, you have a name.  Your name is Telebright.

Let’s have her work from her new home. She begins her workday at 9:00 a.m. by checking with her project manager, who is based in Boston. She receives daily work assignments. When done, she uploads her work and sends it to you. She is expected to work 40 hours a week. She could live on the moon, for what location matters to her work.

She does not solicit customers. She does not have sales responsibility. She does not refresh products, or stock shelves, or install, or service. She does not supervise employees. She does not have management authority. You do not even reimburse for her office-in-home. She travels twice a year to Maryland. By the way, you do not pay for the travel – rather she pays for those trips out of her own pocket.

You – being enlightened – take New Jersey withholding taxes out of her paycheck so that she has no rude April 15^th surprise.

New Jersey surfaces, somewhat like the mutant alligator in a bad Sci-Fi network movie. New Jersey says that you are doing business in the state, and it wants you to … (wait on it) … pay corporate income taxes!

The case goes before the New Jersey Tax Court. The court cites the New Jersey statute:

Every domestic or foreign corporation which is not hereafter exempted shall pay an annual franchise tax for each tax year, as hereafter provided … for the privilege of doing business , [or] employing or owning capital or property … in this state.”

The Court then reflects philosophically:

The term ‘doing business’ is used in a comprehensive sense and includes all activities which occupy the time or labor of men for profit.”

It rolls up its sleeves and grittily reviews the law (N.J.A.C. 18:7-1.9(b)):

Whether a foreign corporation is doing business in New Jersey is determined by the factors in each case. Consideration is given to such factors as:

(4) The employment in New Jersey of agents, officers and employees.”

Oh, oh. This is going to go wrong, isn’t it? Or is it possible the court will recognize that a lone employee in the state hardly amounts to a corporate beachhead?  Here is the Court:

There is no one, single controlling factor nor is there a bright line standard that determines whether a foreign corporation’s in-state activities meet the Director’s regulatory requirements for doing business. Rather, it is only by close scrutiny of all the facts of the case, taken as a whole, that a final determination can be made. ”

It then digs in like a free agent seeking a new sports contract and drives for the bright line.

It cannot be disputed that plaintiff satisfies factor 4 … by employing Ms. … in New Jersey.”

[Telebright] agreed to permit Ms. … regularly to perform her duties at her New Jersey home.”

This consistent contact with New Jersey was not sporadic, occasional or intermittent.”

But the Court pauses. Will it realize that you are being a good sport for even keeping her employed after the move? Will it acknowledge that this is not a 19^th century economy, when a county seat could not be more than a day’s travel for any resident of the county? It hesitates:

“While it is true that [Telebright] has never maintained an office in New Jersey, nor solicited business here ….”

No! Not now Tax Court of New Jersey! You are so close!

The Court shakes it off:

 … [its] daily contact with the State through its employee is sufficient to trigger application of the CBT Act.”

The mere fact that Ms. … is the only … employee in this State does not change the court’s decision.”

Yes, the court determined that Telebright was responsible for New Jersey corporate tax because it permitted an employee to work from her home in New Jersey.

Why does this upset me?

One reason is that reasoning like this would have me filing taxes with India if I hired an on-line bookkeeper there.

Another reason is that I have read court decisions like this for more than two decades now. After a while it is like watching WWE wrestling – there really isn’t much suspense about who is going to win. There was a time when a state at least tried to develop coherent doctrines and workable principles. In recent years however state tax has become more like a hijacking on a Sopranos episode.

Another reason is this is an employee-hostile decision.

I have a friend and client, for example, who lives in Kentucky and commutes to California. Yes, you read that right. He works a week here in Kentucky and a week near San Francisco. He is situated well enough at the company that he floated the idea of having an “office” here. The company turned him down. Why? Because they do not have a footprint in Kentucky and his “office” could create one. So he commutes every other week to California. I suspect he may be their only Kentucky-resident employee.

If you were Telebright, what would you do? Would you not permit your employee to work from home, never mind the reasons? Would you even keep her as an employee?

Who gains here? Tony … er, Trenton gets a few dollars from its next mark … er, taxpayer. Who loses? For now, the company loses. In the future, the loser will be the next employee who wants to work from a New Jersey residence for an out-of-state company whose tax advisor has read Telebright.

Another Tax Chain Files for Bankruptcy

Another one of the tax resolution chains is going out of business. The newest one is TaxMasters, whose commercials featured a red-headed and -bearded fellow. That fellow was Patrick Cox, the CEO. TaxMasters had battled the attorneys general of Texas and Minnesota for fraudulent practices. I am reading that Texas had accused them of not commencing work for their clients until TaxMasters was fully-paid. So much for deadlines. Did you know that they were publicly-traded?

They follow on the heels of JK Harris, which was based out of South Carolina and filed for bankruptcy last October. JK Harris had been battling the attorneys general of Texas, West Virginia and Missouri.

Before JK Harris was Roni “Tax Lady” Deutch, who was sued by California, forfeited her law license and closed shop. She had done an “Arthur Andersen” and shredded documents. Nice.

I work tax representation, and I am not particularly surprised by the fate of these companies. They were working a specific area of representation – collections. Why? Many taxpayers first take the matter seriously only when the IRS sends them a letter indicating intent to lien or levy. 

I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have heard the refrain “What are they going to do to me? Put me in jail?” No, they will not put you in jail unless you crossed the line into criminal tax. They will take your stuff, however. We presently have a revenue officer here in Cincinnati who seems quite determined to take a client’s house, for example. At that moment those late-night commercials promising pennies-on-the-dollar sound appealing and one is willing to suspend disbelief. Don’t. If it were true I would have reduced my own taxes to pennies-on-the-dollar.

How can tax representation fit into a publicly-traded company? I am at a loss. There is no way I could do what I do being constantly worried about quarterly earnings and stock performance. Hey, sometimes it takes a client forever to assemble paperwork, or an examiner is unreasonable, or every issue goes to Appeals, or we spend time fending off an overly-aggressive revenue officer. We are not profitable on that engagement. It is part of practice. We do not rock the house every time.

My advice? If you are in a collection situation, find a local practitioner who works tax representation. Please stay away from those national tax warehouses. Ask yourself: who is paying for this airtime? You know better.

IRS To Monitor EINs

The IRS this past Wednesday issued proposed regulations requiring taxpayers with employer identification numbers (EINs) to update them periodically with the IRS.

EINs are issued to businesses, trusts and estates.

What the IRS is concerned about is listing nominees on the original EIN application as officers, partners and what not. The nominee’s authority to act and represent thereafter expires, sometimes as soon as the EIN is received, thus obscuring the true ownership of the entity.

The IRS will be revising its application form – the SS-4 – to identify when a nominee or agent is obtaining an EIN for a principal. The IRS will refer to such nominee as a “responsible party.”

The IRS also states that it will provide further rules on updating EINs – such as forms and frequency - in the future.

Senate Would Revoke Your Passport If You Owe Taxes

Harry Reid introduced an amendment to a transportation bill before the Senate. The provision allows the Secretary of State to deny or revoke a passport if you owe taxes. Here is the language:

SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.

If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.

Would you believe this nonsense PASSED the Senate? It now goes to the House, which hopefully has more common sense. The current transportation authorization expires at the end of March, so I suppose something will pass.

Do these people scare you – even a little bit?

Taxpayer Advocate Issues Directive to IRS Commissioner

I am starting to like Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate.

I have been negative on the IRS program called the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDI).  This was the government reaction to the UBS and offshore bank account scandals. That however was tax fraud committed by the extraordinarily wealthy.  My background has been the Foreign Service and expat community, primarily because my wife is the daughter of a (retired) Foreign Service officer. These are rather ordinary folk who just happen to live overseas.

Tax advisors who work this area know that the IRS pulled a bait-and-switch a year ago - on March, 2011 - with taxpayers trying to comply with the freshly-resurrected foreign reporting requirements.  The FBAR has, for example, been out there since at least the early 70s, but at no time did Treasury want to confiscate 50% or more of your highest account balance for not filing a one-page form. The IRS was waist-deep with 2009 OVDI and had previously encouraged taxpayers to enter the program with lures of reduced penalties for non-willful violations.

EXAMPLE:  You have expatriated to Costa Rica. You have next-to-no ties in the United States and pay little attention to tax developments here. You have even learned to like soccer (but why?). The requirement to file an FBAR comes as quite the surprise to you. You first thought it absurd that such reporting would apply to the most ordinary of taxpayers. Surely that is for rich people only. You have to qualify as non-willful, right?

Then last March the IRS trotted-out a memo directive that it would not consider non-willfulness, reasonable cause, or the mitigation guidelines in applying the offshore penalty. Let me phrase that a different way: the IRS instructed its examiners to assume that the violation was willful unless the taxpayer could prove that it was not. Would you further believe that, at first, the memo was kept secret?

Huh? Are you kidding? O.J. Simpson received more “benefit of the doubt” than the IRS was willing to provide.

Then in August Nina Olson issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive ordering IRS division commissioners to revoke this position and direct examiners to live up to their own promises to thousands of affected taxpayers.  The IRS division commissioners blew her off.

What?

Tax Analysts now reports that the main IRS commissioner – Douglas Shulman – has no intention of responding to Nina Olson on this matter. To aggravate the matter, there is a statutory requirement that the IRS commissioner respond to the Taxpayer Advocate within 90 days.  Do laws mean nothing to this crowd?

Is this a specialized tax area? Yes. Does it have greater import? I believe it does. It does because the tax attorney and tax CPA community – people such as me – pay attention, and this behavior diminishes confidence in the IRS and any trust in its word. The consequences are subtle, injurious and lasting. And for what purpose? To extract a penalty from someone whose only crime was not paying attention to increasingly obscure and inane U.S. tax law?

NOLs and Self-Employment Tax

Here is another one of those tax cases where you wonder how it got so far. Let’s set this up:

(1)    say that you are self-employed, and

(2)    you lost money, so you have a net operating loss carryover; and

(3)    you fail to file a later year tax return, and

(4)    the IRS prepares one for you, and

(5)    you owe a lot of tax, and

(6)    you ignore matters until you receive the statutory notice of deficiency, and

(7)    you clue the IRS that you have an NOL carryover, which reduces but does not eliminate your tax, and

(8)    the IRS still wants some tax (both income and self-employment) from you, and

(9)    you disagree because the you think the NOL reduced both your taxable income and self-employment income, and

(10) the IRS wants to know where in the tax code it says you can do that.

To understand what is happening here, think of your income tax and your self-employment tax as side-by-side railroad tracks. You use the same numbers to calculate how much is subject to income tax and to employment tax, but there comes a point where the tracks diverge. In our situation, that point is the net operating loss. There is no question you get a deduction for the NOL on your income taxes, but what is the answer for your self-employment taxes? Remember: different tracks = different trains.

Did I mention that you are an accountant?

So you are now preparing for the Tax Court. While preparing you come across this sharp rock from the tax code:

1402(a) Net Earnings from Self-Employment – The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed…; except that….

                                (4) the deduction for net operating losses provided in section 172 shall not be  allowed.

Oh no. Now what do you do? Well, our taxpayer (Joseph DeCrescenzo v Commissioner T.C. Memo 2012-51) comes up with a two-pronged attack:

               

(1)    Argue that the IRS cannot raise the issue because they did not raise the issue in the notice of deficiency. The problem with this is … that they did by including the NOL in the notice.

(2)     And even if the IRS did, it was not binding on you because you suffer from acute anxiety disorder.

You can probably guess that this did not turn out well for the taxpayer. It cost him over $70,000 in penalties (late filing, late payment and etc.) alone.

It would have been much cheaper to have hired a competent tax CPA.