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.

A CPA’s Signature And The Informal Claim Doctrine

 

I am looking at case where the CPA signed a return on behalf of a client.

Been there and done that.

There is a hard-and-fast rule when you do this.

Let’s go through it.

The Mattsons were working in Australia for the Raytheon Corporation.

In April, 2017 they timely filed their 2016 individual tax return, paying $21,190 in federal taxes.

COMMENT: This immediately strikes me as odd. I would have anticipated a foreign income exclusion. Maybe they were over the exclusion limit, meaning that some of their income was exposed to U.S. tax. Even so, I would then have expected a foreign tax credit, offsetting U.S. tax by taxes paid to Australia.

Turns out they had signed a closing agreement when they went to Australia. The agreement was with the IRS, and they waived their right to claim the foreign income exclusion.

Ahh, that answers my first question.

Why would they do this?

In return for agreeing not to claim the 911 exclusion, the government of Australia has entered into an agreement with the United States Government not to subject the income earned by the taxpayer to Australian taxes."

Yep, there are advantages to working with the big company. It also answers my second question.

Seems to me that we are done here. Taxpayers paid taxes on their Australian wages solely to the United States. In exchange they forwent the foreign income exclusion. Makes sense.

The Mattsons changed CPA firms. The new firm prepared an amended 2016 return for – you guessed it – the foreign income exclusion.

COMMENT: I presume the new firm did not know about the closing agreement.

A CPA at the firm signed the amended return on behalf of the Mattsons.

No problem, but she did not attach a power of attorney authorizing the CPA to sign the return.

Not good, but there is time to fix this.

The IRS held the amended return and sent a letter wanting to know why the Mattsons had taken a position contrary to the closing agreement.

Me too.

In May, 2019 the CPA firm requested an Appeals hearing.

OK.

In July, 2019 the IRS sent a letter that they were disallowing the refund.

The taxpayers filed suit in Court.

To me, the controversy was done with discovery of the closing agreement. There is a Don Quixote quality to this story once that fact came to light.

There is a requirement in the tax Code and a list of cases as long as my arm that taxpayers have to sign a return, especially a claim (that is, a return requesting a refund). A CPA can sign the return on behalf of a client, but the CPA is charged with attaching a copy of a power of attorney to the return.

Hold on, argued the CPA. We sent a power of attorney to the IRS in November, 2018.

This is new information.

And it introduces the “informal claim” doctrine to our discussion.

The idea is that the taxpayer can correct the defect in a claim. That is what “informal” means in this context – think of the first claim as a placeholder until it is perfected. The CPA firm had failed to initially attach a power of attorney, but it subsequently corrected this error in November, 2018.

Issue: the claim has to be perfected BEFORE the start of a lawsuit.

Fact One: the lawsuit was filed in July, 2019.

Fact Two: the power was sent to the IRS in November, 2018.

Reasoning: the dates work.

Question: did the taxpayer correct their claim in time?

I sign powers of attorney all the time. I doubt I go a week without filing at least one with the IRS. I like to explain to clients (unless they have been through the process before) what the limitations are to a standard tax power of attorney. I can call the IRS, request and/or agree to adjustments or stays, and so forth.

However, what our standard power does not do is allow me to sign the return. A client can give me that authority, true, but is has to be separately stated on the power. Our routine powers here at Galactic Command, for example, do not include the authority to sign a return on behalf of a client. In truth, unless there are exceptional circumstances, I do not want that authority. I don’t want to receive a client’s refund check, either.

I can almost visualize what happened.

The CPA signed the return. She knew that she needed a power, so she – or a staff accountant – generated one from their software. It was a default power, the one they – like we – use in almost all cases. No one paused to consider that the default power was not appropriate in this instance.

There was still time to fix this. The firm could revise the power to allow the CPA authority to sign, collect the appropriate signatures and record the power with the IRS.

But they had to do this before bringing suit.

Which they did not.

The informal claim doctrine did not apply, because the placeholder claim was not perfected before filing suit.

Our case this time was Mattson v U.S., 2021 PTC 110 (Fed Cl 2021).

Talking Tax Levies

I don’t see it very often.

I am referring to an IRS bank levy.

However, when it happens it can be disrupting.

Let’s distinguish between a lien and a levy.

A lien is a claim against property you own to secure the payment of tax that you owe. The most common is a real estate lien, and I have one on my desk as I write this.

A lien means that you are fairly deep into the collection process. It does not necessarily mean that you have blown-off the IRS. Owe enough money and the IRS will file a lien as a matter of policy. It does not mean anything is imminent, other than the lien hurting your credit score. When I see one is when someone wants to either sell or refinance a property. In either case the lien has to be addressed, which – if you think about it – is the point of a lien.

A levy is a different matter. A levy takes your stuff.

The threat of a levy is a powerful inducement to come to a collection agreement with the IRS. Perhaps the agreement is to pay-off the liability over time (referred to as an installment agreement). There is a variation where one cannot – realistically – pay-off the full liability over time. The IRS settles for less than the full liability, and this variation is called a partial-pay agreement.  A cousin to the partial-pay is the offer in compromise, that of notorious (“pennies on the dollar”) middle-of-the-night TV fame. If one is in dire enough circumstances, there is also currently-not-collectible status. The IRS will not collect for a period of time (around a year). A code is posted on your account and further collection action will cease (again, for about a year).

What collection agreements do is put a stop to IRS levies – with one exception.

Let’s talk about the three most common levies that the IRS uses.

The first is the tax refund offset.

This happens when you file a tax return showing a refund. The IRS will not send you a refund check; rather they will apply it to tax due for other periods or years. It is a relatively innocuous way of collecting on the debt, and I have seen clients intentionally use the offset as a way of paying down (or off) their back taxes.

The offset, by the way, is the one exception to continued IRS levy action mentioned above.

The second is the garnishment. The most common is the wage garnishment. The IRS sends a letter to your employer, advising them to start withholding. Your employer will, because – if they don’t – they become responsible for any amounts that should have been garnished. I have heard of people who will then keep changing jobs, with the intent of staying one step ahead of the IRS.  

There are other types of garnishments, depending on the income source. An independent contractor can be garnished, for example. Even social security can be garnished.

In general, if you get to this type of levy, you REALLY want to work something out with the IRS. The tax Code addresses what the IRS has to leave for you to live on; it does not address how much it can take.

The third is the bank levy.

The IRS sends a notice to the bank, which then has to freeze your account. The notice can be mailed (probably the most common way) or it can be hand-delivered by a revenue officer. The freeze is for 21 days, after which the bank is (unless you do something) sending your balance (up to the amount due) to the IRS.

That is how it works, folks. It is not pretty, and it is not intended to be.

You may wonder what the 21 days is about. The IRS wants you to contact them and work-out a collection plan. Hit the ground running and you might be able to stop the levy. Delay and all hope is likely gone.

The risk of a bank levy is one reason why some taxpayers are hesitant to provide bank information with their tax returns. Granted, as private information becomes anything but and as tax agencies are mandating electronic bank payments this issue is receding into the distance.

Did you, for example, know that the IRS can ping your bank account, just to find out your balance?

Take a look at this:

         § 6333 Production of books.

If a levy has been made or is about to be made on any property, or right to property, any person having custody or control of any books or records, containing evidence or statements relating to the property or right to property subject to levy, shall, upon demand of the Secretary, exhibit such books or records to the Secretary.

There is something about a bank levy that you may want to know: it is a one-time shot.

An offset or wage levy is self-sustaining. It will continue month after month, payment after payment, until the debt is paid off or the levy expires.

The bank levy is different. It applies to the balance in your bank account when the levy is delivered.  This means that it cannot reach a deposit made to the account the following day, week or month. If the IRS wants to reach those deposits, it has to reissue the levy (the term is “renew”).

What got me thinking about bank levies is a Chief Counsel Advice I was reading recently. A bank received a levy, and, wouldn’t you know, the taxpayer made a deposit to the account the same day – but after the bank’s receipt of the levy. The bank had zero desire to mess with surrogate liability and asked the IRS what it should do with that later deposit.

Remember that a bank levy is a photograph – a frozen moment in time. The IRS said that the later deposit occurred after that moment and was not in the photograph. The bank was not required to withhold and remit that later deposit to the IRS.

Makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that the IRS would have/should have issued a blizzard of paperwork to the taxpayer, including an ominous “Notice of Intent to Levy” and “Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing.” Both those notices give one collection rights. I prefer the rights given under the “Final Notice,” but sometimes it takes a saint’s patience to explain to a client why we are not responding to the “Notice of Intent” and instead waiting on its sibling “Final Notice of Intent.”

Anyway, the taxpayer apparently blew-off these notices and kept depositing to the same bank account as if nothing was amiss in their world. Everything in the CCA made sense to me, with the exception of the taxpayer’s behavior.

This time we talked about Chief Counsel Advice 202118010.

Sell Today And Pay Tax in Thirty Years

Sometimes I am amazed to the extent people will go to minimize, defer or avoid taxes altogether.

I get it, though. When that alarm clocks goes off in the morning, there is no government bureaucrat there to prepare your breakfast or drive you to work. Fair share rings trite when yours is the only share visible for miles.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Council Advice.

Think of the Chief Counsel as the attorneys advising the IRS. The Advice would therefore be legal analysis of an IRS position on something.

This one has to do with something called Monetized Installment Sale Transactions.

Lot of syllables there.

Let’s approach this from the ground floor.

What is an installment sale?

This is a tax provision that allows one to sell approved asset types and spread the tax over the years as cash is collected. Say you sell land with the purchase price paid evenly over three calendar years. Land is an approved asset type, and you would pay tax on one-third of your gain in the year of sale, one-third the following year and the final third in the third year.

It doesn’t make the gain go away. It just allows one to de-bunch the taxation on the gain.

Mind you, you have to trust that the buyer can and will pay you for the later years. If you do not trust the buyer’s ability (or intention) to do so, this may not be the technique for you.

What if the buyer pays an attorney the full amount, and that attorney in turn pays you over three years? You have taken the collection risk off the table, as the monies are sitting in an attorney’s escrow account.

You are starting to think like a tax advisor, but the technique will almost certainly not work.

Why?

Well, an easy IRS argument is that the attorney is acting as your agent, and receipt of cash by your agent is the equivalent of you receiving cash. This is the doctrine of “constructive receipt,” and it is one of early (and basic) lessons as one starts his/her tax education.

What if you borrow against the note? You just go down to Fifth Third or Truist Bank, borrow and pledge the note as collateral.

Nice.

Except that Congress thought about this and introduced a “pledging” rule. In short, a pledge of the note is considered constructive receipt on the note itself.

Not to be deterred, interested parties noticed a Chief Council’s Memorandum from 2012 that seemed to give the OK to (at least some of) these transactions. There was a company that need cash and needed it right away. It unloaded farm property in a series of transactions involving special purpose entities, standby letters of credit and other arcane details.

The IRS went through 11 painful pages of analysis, but wouldn’t you know that – at the end – the IRS gave its blessing.

Huh?

The advisors and promoters latched-on and used this Memorandum to structure future installment sale monetization deals.

Here is an example:

(1)  Let’s say I want to sell something.

(2)  Let’s say you want to buy what I am selling.

(3)  There is someone out there (let’s call him Elbert) who is willing to broker our deal – for a fee of course.

(4)  Neither you or I are related to Elbert or give cause to consider him our agent.

(5)  Elbert buys my something and gives me a note. In our example Elbert promises to pay me interest annually and the balance of the note 30 years from now.

(6)  You buy the something from Elbert. Let’s say you pay Elbert in full, either because you have cash in-hand or because you borrow money.

(7)  A bank loans me money. There will be a labyrinth of escrow accounts to maintain kayfabe that I have not borrowed against my note receivable from Elbert.

(8)  At least once a year, the following happens:

a.    I collect interest on my note receivable from Elbert.

b.    I pay interest on my note payable to the bank.

c.    By some miraculous result of modern monetary theory, it is likely that these two amounts will offset.

(9)  I eventually collect on Elbert’s note. This will trigger tax to me, assuming someone remembers what this note is even about 30 years from now.

(10)      Having cash, I repay the bank for the loan it made 30 years earlier.

There is the monetization: reducing to money, preferably without taxation.

How much of the original sales price can I get using this technique?

Maybe 92% or 93% of what you paid Elbert, generally speaking.

Where does the rest of the money go?

Elbert and the bank.

Why would I give up 7 or 8 percent to Elbert and the bank?

To defer my tax for decades.

Do people really do this?

Yep, folks like Kimberly Clark and OfficeMax.

So what was the recent IRS Advice that has us talking about this?

The IRS was revisiting its 2012 Memorandum, the one that advisors have been relying upon. The IRS lowered its horns, noting that folks were reading too much into that Memorandum and that they might want to reconsider their risk exposure.

The IRS pointed out several possible issues, but we will address only one.

The company in that 2012 Memorandum was transacting with farmland.

Guess what asset type is exempt from the “pledging” rule that accelerates income on an installment note?

Farmland.

Seems a critical point, considering that monetization is basically a work-around the pledging prohibition.

Is this a scam or tax shelter?

Not necessarily, but consider the difference between what happened in 2012 and how the promoters are marketing what happened.

Someone was in deep financial straits. They needed cash, they had farmland, and they found a way to get to cash. There was economic reality girding the story.   

Fast forward to today. Someone has a big capital gain. They do not want to pay taxes currently, or perhaps they prefer to delay recognizing the gain until a more tax-favorable political party retakes Congress and the White House. A moving story, true, but not as poignant as the 2012 story.   

For the home gamers, this time we have been discussing CCA 2019103109421213.

You Have To Look At Your Return

I am looking at a case that covers relatively well-trod ground. It did however remind me of a client from around 20 years ago. I got a different result than the taxpayer did in this case, but I suspect part of the reason is the IRS becoming noticeably more overbearing with penalties over the last two decades.

Anna Walton is a psychologist. In 2014 the firm where she worked informed her that their interests had diverged. This of course is jargon for termination, and she transitioned to her own firm with multiple clients, including Brown University and the National Geographic Society.

 Having multiple clients meant that she received multiple Forms 1099 at the end of the year. It is a poor idea to blow these off, as the IRS uses the 1099s for computer matching of reported income. Report less income than the 1099s on file and you can anticipate an automated notice from the IRS.

Let’s roll to January, 2016 and Ms Walton was looking at her 2015 records. She e-mailed her accountant of approximately 20 years that the practice had approximately $525 grand in revenues. The accountant used that number to arrive at an estimated tax payment.

So far there is no big deal.

She later sent her tax stuff in. A staff accountant working at the firm noted that the 1099s she remitted only added-up to approximately $351 grand. Cross-referencing the $525 grand e-mail, the accountant asked whether Ms Walton had or was expecting other 1099s. She also asked about other stuff, such as contributions, tuition plans and whatnot going into the tax return.

COMMENT: In case you are wondering, it is quite unlikely that your accountant personally prepares your tax return. It is more likely that he/she hires someone to prepare your return, including questions, and then reviews the draft return once fully or mostly prepared. I for example prepare very few returns, but I review a ton. There are not enough hours in the day for me to work with as many returns as I do if I also had to prepare them.

Ms Walton responded to the accountant but blew-off the 1099 question.

The accountant asked again.

Ms Walton blew her off again.

I think you get the drift.

The accountant prepared the return with the information available. The IRS caught the underreporting of 1099 income. The IRS wanted tax. It also wanted penalties.

Ms Walton agreed to the tax, but she did not think she should owe penalties.

Off to Tax Court they went

Her argument was easy: she relied on her accountant.

Folks, there are prerequisites to the reliance argument. For example, one has to provide all necessary information to the accountant. Secondly, that reliance is moot if even the most cursory review of the return would alert the average person to errors on the return.

The Court was quite curious why Ms Walton did not inquire why the return showed approximately one-third less revenues than she herself had previously told the accountant.

I also suspect that the Court did not take kindly to Ms Walton repetitively blowing-off the staff accountant. The repeated questioning would have/should have alerted a reasonable person that more attention was required on the matter.

The Court decided that she did not have reasonable cause to abate the penalty.

I agree.

My client back in the antediluvian days?

He left $3.5 million off his return.

The IRS wanted tax and penalties.

I argued the penalties.

What was my argument?

The client reported so much income from so many sources that $3.5 million could reasonably have been overlooked on that year’s return.

I wish I had a personal tax return like that.

I got penalty abatement, by the way.

Our case this time was Walton v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-40.

 

IRS Challenges Rent In A Small Town

Let’s look at a case involving rent.

What sets this up is a C corporation in Montana.

A C corporation means that it pays its own tax. Contrast this with an S corporation, which (with rare exception) passes-through its income to its shareholders, who then combine that income with their own income (W-2, interest and dividends) and pay tax personally.

As a generalization, a tax advisor working with entrepreneurial clients is much more likely to work with S corporations (or LLCs, an increasingly popular choice). The reason is simple: a C corporation has two levels of tax: once to the company itself and then to the owners when distributed as dividends. Now that may not be an issue to a Fortune 1000, some of which are larger than certain countries and themselves are near-permanent entities - expected to outlive any current corporate officer or investor. It however is an issue to a closely-held company that will be lucky to transition one generation and unlikely to transition two.

Plentywood Drug is a Montana corporation that operates the only pharmacy in Plentywood, Montana and serves four counties spanning 7,200 square miles.

The company has four owners, representing two families.

It leases a building owned by its four owners.

COMMENT: So far, there is zero unusual about this.

The company paid the following rent:

           2011                       $ 83,584

           2012                       $192,000

           2013                       $192,000

The IRS did not like this one bit.

Why not?

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. The IRS said that the company was paying too much in rent. Rent is deductible. Excess rent is considered a dividend and is not deductible. The corporation would lose a deduction for its excess rent. The owners however received $192,000, so they are going to be taxed on that amount. How will they be taxed if the IRS ratches-down the rent? The excess will be considered dividends and taxed to them accordingly.

Remember: a C corporation does not get a deduction for dividends. The IRS gets more tax from the company while the individual taxes of the four owners stays the same. It’s a win for the IRS.

An S corporation does not have this issue, as all income of the S is taxed to its owners. This is another reason that tax advisors representing entrepreneurial wealth prefer working with S corporations.

How does the IRS win this?

Well, it has to show that $192,000 is too much rent.

Problem: the town of Plentywood has 1,700 people.

Another problem: Montana is a nondisclosure state, meaning real estate data – such as sales prices – is legally confidential and simply not available.

The IRS brought in its valuation specialist. Third problem: Montanans do not tend to share financial information easily with strangers.

The IRS expert remarked that that he did not identify himself as an IRS agent while he was in Plentywood.

Probably for the best.

Then the IRS expert made a fateful decision: he would base his appraisal solely on Plentywood data.

Well, that should take about half a day.

He looked at the post office, two apartment buildings and a 625-square-foot commercial space.

He did the best he could to compensate by making adjustments: for commercial versus residential, for the safety of the Post Office as a tenant, for Aaron Rodgers possibly leaving the Packers.

The two families brought in their specialist, who supplemented his database by including Williston, North Dakota – the “big town” about an hour away and with a population about eight times the size.

The IRS argued that Williston was simply not comparable.

Here is the Court:

We therefore do not accept the Williston properties as being reasonable comparisons.”

Oh oh.

The two families argued that the IRS specialist was mixing tamarinds and eggplants.

Here is the Court:

His expert used two residential properties in his analysis. Government-subsidized multifamily residential housing is like a retail drugstore in that both are rented. But not in much else.”

You can tell the Court was frustrated.

How about the post office? Both sides used the post office.

Yet even though both sides agree that the post office is comparable, they disagree about the number of square feet it has.”

The Court – having to do something – decided that fair rent was $171,187.

The IRS then wanted penalties. The IRS always wants penalties.

What for?

The Commissioner alleges that the first cause on this list – negligence or disregard of rules or regulations … - applies to Plentywood Drug ….”

The Court squinted and said: What? You brought a trial, the rent turned out to be within $20 grand of what the families deducted in the first place, we have heard far too much about appraising properties over frontier America and you have the nerve to say that there was negligence or disregard?

The Court adjusted the rent and nixed the penalties.

Our case this time was Plentywood Drug Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-45.

Divorced Parents And A Dependent Child

 It is one of my least favorite issues in tax practice.

Who is entitled to a dependent?

Granted, there is no longer a dependency exemption available, but there are other tax items, such as the child tax credit, that require a dependent.

The issue can go off-the-rails if the parents are (a) divorced and (b) combative.

It occurs when both parents claim the same child for the same year.

One of the parents is going to lose the dependency, of course, but how the Code determines which one may surprise you.

The Code wants to know which is the custodial parent – that is, which parent did the child live with for the majority of the year. Granted, in some cases the answer may be razor close, but most of the time there is a clear answer.

The Code anticipates that the custodial parent will claim the child.

What if the noncustodial parent provides most of the child’s support?

The Code (for the most part) does not care.

How does the noncustodial parent get to claim the child?

If the parents get along, then there is no issue. Everyone follows the rules and there is no tax controversy.

If the parents do not get along and both claim the same child, the IRS is going to get involved. It will want to know: who is the custodial parent?

But the divorce decree says ….

You might be surprised how little the IRS cares about that divorce decree.

What it is interested in is whether a certain form was filed with the noncustodial parent’s return: Form 8332.

This form has to be signed by the custodial parent. If the parents do not get along, you can see the problem.

What happens if the noncustodial parent does not attach this form and both parents claim the child?

Let’s take a look at the DeMar case.

The divorce decree said that Mr Demar (Dad) was to claim the son in odd-numbered years. Dad claimed the son for 2015.

Mrs DeMar (Mom) also claimed the son.

The IRS came in. There (of course) was no Form 8332. The IRS could care less what that divorce decree had to say, so off to Tax Court they went.

Dad is going to lose this all day every day, except ….

Would you believe that – before the Tax Court hearing – Mom signed Form 8332?  

That doesn’t happen much.

There is a proposed Regulation on this point:

A noncustodial parent may submit a copy of the written declaration to the IRS during an examination to substantiate a claim to a dependency exemption for the child.

Did that save Dad?

Let’s keep reading:

A copy of a written declaration attached to an amended return, or provided during an examination, will not meet the requirement of this paragraph … if the custodial parent … has not filed an amended return to remove that claim to a dependency exemption for the child.

So one can file the 8832 late but one also has to prove that the other parent amended his/her return to remove the dependency for the child.

Guess what?

Mom did not amend her return.

Dad lost.

The IRS did not care about that divorce decree and the odd-numbered year.

I get it. The IRS has no intention of playing family court, so it established mechanical rules for the dependency. The average person focuses on the divorce decree – understandably – but the IRS does not.  Procedure is everything in this area.

Our case this time was DeMar v Commissioner T.C. Memo 2019-91.