Offers in Compromise and Tax Refunds – Part Two

In this post I will review which refunds the IRS will seize to when a taxpayer seeks an OIC, and discuss when the taxpayer has options to keep their refund.  

The rules depend on the type of offer. At the end of Part One, I summarized the four types of offers that a taxpayer can make the IRS to settle their tax debt. This background is important because the danger to the client’s refund depends on the type of offer they are seeking. The possible offers to the IRS are: 

  1. Doubt as to liability (DATL) 
  2. Doubt as to collectibility (DATC) 
  3. Doubt as to collectibility with special circumstances (DATC-SC) 
  4. Effective Tax Administration (ETA) 

read more...

A compromise is a binding contract between the government and a taxpayer. The terms of the contract for DATC, DATC-SC, and ETA offers can be found in the IRS’s Form 656 booklet. For doubt as to liability offers, the terms are in Form 656-L 

Refund Considerations: Pre-Offer 

When a taxpayer owes a debt to the IRS or to certain other agencies, the taxpayer’s refund may be applied to that debt pursuant to IRC 6402. Some taxpayers decide to stop filing as a result. This is generally counter-productive. If a taxpayer waits too long to file, they will lose the refund to the statute of limitations anyway, without receiving any reduction in their debt. Also, the IRS generally requires filing compliance before it will consider any proposal by the taxpayer for a collection process other than full payment or enforced collection.  

Many potential clients call LITCs seeking an Offer in Compromise even though they have unfiled returns. So, the first hurdle is getting the tax returns filed.  

A taxpayer should not have to be in filing compliance for a Doubt as to Liability offer to be processable. Alternatives to DATL – including audit reconsideration and Form 843 claims for refund or abatement – do not require filing compliance. A DATL offer is solely concerned with the correct liability for the tax period in question. Form 656-L lacks language on filing compliance which is present in the general 656 booklet, and a DATL offer does not include a 5-year compliance period post-acceptance. However, Rev. Proc. 2003-71 section 5.04 says that an offer can be returned if the taxpayer fails to file a return, and it does not appear to limit this statement by type of offer. I also found the IRM sections on offer processability unclear on this point. Perhaps I missed the relevant IRM provision, but it appears to me that IRM 5.8.2 could use clarification. Disagreements over processability of an offer are some of the most frustrating in tax representation, since the Service takes the position that its processability decision is not subject to appeal. Rev. Proc. 2003-71, sec. 5.05. I recall LITC reports a few years ago about centralized OIC processors refusing to forward an offer to the specialized DATL unit. If that is still a problem, it would be helpful to have a specific IRM provision on processability of DATL offers. I invite readers to comment on their recent experiences with this. 

Refunds generally don’t “count” towards the taxpayer’s offer 

If refunds are due for any unfiled years, our clients naturally would like the balances to count towards their offer. Taxpayers frequently ask whether they can just offer the IRS their next tax refund, or their refund from an unfiled year. Unfortunately for them, Congress in IRC 7122(d)(1) said that IRS gets to make the rules for the OIC program, and the IRS has decided that offset tax refunds don’t count as payments towards a DATC offer, nor do they reduce the taxpayer’s minimum offer amount for DATC, DATC-SC, or ETA offers. IRM 5.8.1.13.3, Amount Offered states 

The total amount of money offered must be indicated and must be more than zero. The amount offered may not include money already paid, expected future refunds, funds attached by levy, or anticipated benefits from capital/net operating losses. 

This is mirrored in the Form 656 booklet, p. 3.  

However, doubt as to liability offers are different – if IRS agrees that the correct liability should be lower, it will adjust the assessment and refund any excess payments that are within the refund statute of limitations. This is noted in the Form 656-L terms. So in that sense, refunds that have been offset will “count” as payment for DATL offers.  

The policy on not considering refunds as payments for DATC offers seems extremely unfair to most of my clients, but it is a logical policy. When the IRS is accepting less money than it is owed based on “doubt as to collectability,” it naturally wants to consider that refunds should be coming in to the Treasury anyway under section 6402. Taxpayers have filing obligations, and as mentioned above the IRS will not consider making a deal unless those obligations are being met. The taxpayer needs to offer more than that to make a compromise worthwhile for the IRS.  

This policy makes less logical sense when it comes to effective tax administration and DATC-SC. One could incorporate past or imminent refund offsets into the taxpayer’s economic hardship or public policy argument, and propose a lower offer due to the hardship or public policy implications of the offsets. However, this argument needs to be couched in the language of ETA hardship or public policy justifications. (See Part One.) It will not work to simply ask for past refunds to be credited towards the offer.  

There is one exception to the rule that seized refunds don’t count as payments towards an offer (DATC, DATC-SC, or ETA). If a taxpayer would receive their refund in the normal course of events (i.e. it is not due to be offset under the terms of the OIC or for any other reason), they can ask the IRS in writing to apply it to an outstanding offer amount. (IRM 5.19.7.2.21.3, Applying Refunds for Non Recoupment Tax Years.) As we’ll see below, this will mostly be applicable to DATC-SC and ETA offers 

Tax refunds while an OIC is under consideration 

The IRS will offset tax refunds while an offer is under consideration. This applies to all types of offers per the Procedure & Administration Regulations, sec. 301.7122-1(g)(5). This is business as usual for the Service under section 6402.  

Keith has written about circumstances where the IRS will not exercise its right of offset. If a taxpayer is facing serious economic hardship, it may be possible to receive an offset bypass refund (OBR). Taxpayers often ask if this is a possibility when an offer is pending.  

The question then arises whether requesting an OBR might violate the terms of the contract that the IRS requires for an OIC, in which case requesting an OBR could cause the IRS to reject the offer. Form 656-L does not contain any provisions regarding refund offsets. The DATC contract terms regarding offsets are: 

The IRS will keep any refund, including interest, that I might be due for tax periods extending through the calendar year in which the IRS accepts my offer. I cannot designate that the refund be applied to estimated tax payments for the following year or the accepted offer amount. If I receive a refund after I submit this offer for any tax period extending through the calendar year in which the IRS accepts my offer, I will return the refund within 30 days of notification.  

Thankfully the contract goes on to exclude DATC-SC and ETA offers from those terms: 

The refund offset does not apply to offers accepted under the provisions of Effective Tax Administration or Doubt as to Collectibility with special circumstances based on public policy/equity considerations. 

So taxpayers seeking offers based on doubt as to liability, doubt as to collectibility with special circumstances, or effective tax administration are free to request an OBR to save their refund while an offer is pending. For DATC the question is more complicated and is discussed below under planning concerns and uncertainties 

Tax refunds after an OIC is accepted 

Refund offsets should stop for taxpayers with DATC-SC and ETA offers when the offer is accepted.  Offsets will stop for taxpayers with accepted DATL offers after the agreed-upon correct liability is paid.  

For regular DATC offers, unfortunately, the OIC offset terms extend to the calendar year in which the offer is accepted. The 656 booklet explains on page 1 that  

The IRS will keep any refund, including interest, for tax periods extending through the calendar year that the IRS accepts the offer. For example, if your offer is accepted in 2018 and you file your 2018 Form 1040 on April 15, 2019 showing a refund, IRS will apply your refund to your tax debt. The refund is not considered as a payment toward your offer. 

This can come as a surprise to taxpayers, and it can cause serious hardships. (As we saw above, the DATC offset terms do not apply to ETA or DATC-SC offers.)  

The National Taxpayer Advocate has recognized that multiple refund offsets can cause hardships for low-income taxpayers who rely on refunds to pay basic living expenses. In her 2018 Annual Report to Congress, she designated problems with the OIC program as a Most Serious Problem facing taxpayers. This is particularly concerning where additional refunds are lost because of the time it takes the IRS to process the offer. If an offer is rejected and appealed, Office of Appeals consideration adds an average of 6.5 months in processing time. This can easily push the taxpayer into the next calendar year. To solve this problem as a matter of fairness and to prevent hardship, the NTA recommends that the IRS change its policy to only seize one tax refund while an offer is pending.  

DATC Offer Planning Considerations and Uncertainties  

One way to avoid the standard offset provisions of Form 656 would be to request a “special circumstances” offer. If the offer can be so categorized, you avoid the need to reform or change the OIC contract. As we saw in Part One, an offer for DATC-SC technically requires the taxpayer to offer less than their reasonable collection potential, and to justify this on hardship or public policy grounds. Since calculating RCP involves judgment calls on the value of assets, and can involve judgment calls as to appropriate household income and living expense figures, there may be cases in a gray area between “regular” DATC and DATC-SC. The offset provisions could weigh towards making a DATC-SC offer, depending on the taxpayer’s circumstances.  

Keith gave this very good advice to a commenter on his OBR post: 

One of the “preprinted” provisions of the standard offer in compromise is that the IRS will keep the refund, if any, for the year in which the offer was approved. Because the refund comes months, or sometimes even a year, later the retention of this refund comes as an unpleasant surprise to many who have received relief through an offer. The existence of this provision requires discussion and planning with the client at the time of acceptance to ensure that withholding in the year of offer acceptance carefully matches the anticipated liability. If the client can claim the EITC or other refundable credits, it is usually not possible to adjust withholding in order to prevent a refund yet the money provided by the EITC refund could be critical to the financial success of the individual. Although I have never done it, I am told that it is possible to negotiate concerning this provision when entering into the offer. So, if you anticipate a big refund in the year of offer acceptance and if the refund will be critical to the financial success of the individuals obtaining the offer try at that point to negotiate out of the offer contract the provision allowing the IRS to offset the refund for the year of the offer. If you cannot do that or if it was not done, you can request offset bypass at the time you file the return for the year of offer acceptance but you are asking for something different than offset bypass under the IRS’ ability to waive offset under 6502 you are asking to reform the contract. I have never done this and do not know the chances of success. I expect the IRS would treat it similar to a regular bypass request but am unsure. Consult the IRM.  

I followed that advice and consulted the IRM. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me that it will be possible to reform the DATC contract to allow a refund to reach the taxpayer. Perhaps I missed a relevant provision; if so please let me know in the comments. It should not hurt to call the offer examiner, or call TAS, and inquire.

A taxpayer cannot alter the preprinted DATC conditions up front. IRM 5.8.1.13.5 (05-05-2017) Standard Conditions provides that

If the taxpayer submitted the Form 656 altering any of the provisions of Form 656, Section 7, the offer should be immediately deemed not processable based on an altered Form 656.

In some cases it is possible to make a collateral agreement to an offer. However, the IRM section on collateral agreements appears to foreclose the possibility of using a collateral agreement to get around the refund provisions:

Form 656 contains a term which waives refunds and overpayments for all tax years through the year the offer in compromise is accepted. This waiver is a standard term, which cannot be altered. 

IRM 5.8.6.4 (10-04-2017) Waiver of Refunds 

I also checked the IRM sections on offset bypass refunds, IRM 21.4.6.5.11 (05-07-2018) Hardship Manual Refunds and 21.4.6.5.11.1 (11-08-2017) Offset Bypass Refund (OBR). These do not mention OICs. If you have experience with obtaining a refund through the OBR or another process while a DATC offer was pending or accepted, please share your experience with us in the comments. It is an important issue for affected taxpayers who may be faced with choosing between an OBR to avoid eviction and maintaining their DATC compromise.

 

Offers in Compromise and Tax Refunds – Part One

Taxpayers often fail to grasp the relationship between offers in compromise and tax refunds. Based on recent email list queries, tax season is a good time for a refresher.

Before we get to tax refunds, a brief overview of OICs will set the stage. Guest blogger Marilyn Ames explained in a previous post that “section 7122 and its predecessors give the IRS the authority to compromise any civil or criminal case arising under the internal revenue laws.” (Read her post for a discussion of the permanent nature of a compromise.) There are three grounds for a compromise with the IRS: Doubt as to Liability (DATL), Doubt as to Collectibility (DATC), and Effective Tax Administration (ETA). 26 C.F.R. 301.7122-1. Revenue Procedure 2003-71 describes the three types of offers as well as the process for submitting and resolving offers.

read more...

Doubt as to Liability means what it says. An OIC-DATL is an alternative to an audit reconsideration for taxpayers who can demonstrate that the assessment is likely erroneous either wholly or partially. Under Rev. Proc. 2003-71, the taxpayer’s offer must “reasonably reflect[] the amount the Service would expect to collect through litigation,” if the underlying liability were litigated.

Effective Tax Administration is less obvious. It originates from a Congressional directive in the legislative history of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The implementing regulation at § 301.7122-1(b)(3) provides in part:

(i) A compromise may be entered into to promote effective tax administration when the Secretary determines that, although collection in full could be achieved, collection of the full liability would cause the taxpayer economic hardship within the meaning of § 301.6343-1.

(ii) If there are no [other] grounds for compromise …, the IRS may compromise to promote effective tax administration where compelling public policy or equity considerations identified by the taxpayer provide a sufficient basis for compromising the liability. …

The regulation goes on to give helpful examples of appropriate ETA offers. There are three hardship examples:

Example 1.

The taxpayer has assets sufficient to satisfy the tax liability. The taxpayer provides full time care and assistance to her dependent child, who has a serious long-term illness. It is expected that the taxpayer will need to use the equity in his assets to provide for adequate basic living expenses and medical care for his child. The taxpayer’s overall compliance history does not weigh against compromise.

Example 2.

The taxpayer is retired and his only income is from a pension. The taxpayer’s only asset is a retirement account, and the funds in the account are sufficient to satisfy the liability. Liquidation of the retirement account would leave the taxpayer without an adequate means to provide for basic living expenses. The taxpayer’s overall compliance history does not weigh against compromise.

Example 3.

The taxpayer is disabled and lives on a fixed income that will not, after allowance of basic living expenses, permit full payment of his liability under an installment agreement. The taxpayer also owns a modest house that has been specially equipped to accommodate his disability. The taxpayer’s equity in the house is sufficient to permit payment of the liability he owes. However, because of his disability and limited earning potential, the taxpayer is unable to obtain a mortgage or otherwise borrow against this equity. In addition, because the taxpayer’s home has been specially equipped to accommodate his disability, forced sale of the taxpayer’s residence would create severe adverse consequences for the taxpayer. The taxpayer’s overall compliance history does not weigh against compromise.

However, most offers are submitted and accepted on Doubt as To Collectability grounds. That is also fairly obvious, although the devil is in the details of the minimum acceptable offer. Rev. Proc. 2003-71 explains,

An offer to compromise based on doubt as to collectibility generally will be considered acceptable if it is unlikely that the tax can be collected in full and the offer reasonably reflects the amount the Service could collect through other means, including administrative and judicial collection remedies. …This amount is the reasonable collection potential of a case. In determining the reasonable collection potential of a case, the Service will take into account the taxpayer’s reasonable basic living expenses. In some cases, the Service may accept an offer of less than the total reasonable collection potential of a case if there are special circumstances.

That last sentence is important – doubt as to liability with special circumstances (DATC-SC) can be considered the fourth type of offer, although it does not appear in the regulation. The distinction matters when it comes to tax refund issues, as we will see below. I.R.M. 8.23.3.1 explains that “an offer based upon doubt as to collectibility with ‘special circumstances’ will be evaluated using the same criteria as an ETA offer.” Those considering a “special circumstances” offer should review the examples in the regulation at § 301.7122-1(c)(3).

To summarize, the four OIC flavors are:

  1. Doubt as to liability – I should not owe this; I am offering or what I’d likely owe if the liability were litigated (or at least $1).
  2. Doubt as to collectibility – I can’t pay this; I am offering to pay my “reasonable collection potential” (or at least $1).
  3. Doubt as to collectibility with special circumstances – I can’t pay this, and I am offering less than my “reasonable collection potential” for hardship or public policy reasons.
  4. Effective Tax Administration – my “reasonable collection potential” is more than I owe, but I am offering less for hardship or public policy reasons.

With that background, we will move on to refund issues in the next post.

Gambling Addiction Does Not Justify Effective Tax Administration Offer

Gillette v Commissioner is a collection due process case arising from the tax consequences of prematurely withdrawing funds from an IRA and underpaying taxes while a taxpayer was suffering from compulsive gambling that she claimed was attributable to an addiction to prescription medication. The taxpayer sought an effective tax administration offer in compromise. While unsuccessful, the case warrants attention as there is very little law around this type of offer.

read more...

The opinion situates the sad tale that led to the sizable underpayment of taxes on her 2012 tax return. Ms. Gillette is a veteran and former firefighter who managed and owned a stable of rental properties. After retiring from firefighting, she developed a serious gambling addiction that she attributed to the side effects of pramipexole, a prescription medication.

Occasionally she would go days without sleep and at times slept in her car if she wasn’t given a complimentary night’s stay at a casino. Other times she would fall asleep at blackjack tables and slot machines only to be awakened by dealers and casino attendants. Nearly all of the money she collected from her rental properties went to casinos. When she ran out of money, she borrowed from friends and didn’t pay them back, took money and credit cards from her husband’s wallet, and eventually withdrew money from her retirement account in 2012.

In 2013, following the intervention of her son who recognized that the side effects of the medication she was taking were likely contributing to her gambling, she sought medical care to wean off the drug. Within a couple of years she was no longer taking the drug and was able to stop gambling. One lingering effect though was the 2012 alternative minimum tax (AMT) of about $17,000 and early IRA withdrawal penalty of about $10,500, both of which contributed to a tax balance due of almost $76,000 on her and her husband’s 2012 tax return.

Following a notice of intent to levy, the taxpayers requested a CDP hearing, challenging the underlying AMT liability and eventually offering $38,968 to compromise the liability based on effective tax administration (ETA). The ETA offer was sought because they were not a candidate for an offer based on doubt as to collectability, as the equity in assets (including the rental properties) exceeded the tax due (in fact Appeals determined that the reasonable collection potential in light of the assets was over $800,000).

The main part of the opinion dealt with Appeals’ rejection of the ETA offer and the Tax Court’s refusal to find any abuse of discretion in Appeals’ rejection.

The case originally went up to Tax Court a couple of years ago, but the Tax Court on the IRS’s motion remanded the case back to Appeals for a supplemental hearing because the original determination had an insufficient discussion of the reasons why Appeals agreed with the offer specialist’s decision to reject the ETA offer. By requesting a remand, the IRS avoided reversal for failure to consider the taxpayer’s equitable arguments. Guest blogger Professor Scott Schumacher previously discussed this requirement on PT.

After going back to Appeals, the settlement officer considered the taxpayer’s argument and again rejected the offer, in part on a finding that the side effect of the medications, including compulsive gambling, were known since 2006 and that the taxpayer made a choice to continue taking the medication anyway. In rejecting the offer on remand, Appeals did not refer the offer to the IRS’s ETA Non-economic Hardship Group, the group the IRM states should review ETA offers in “appropriate” cases.

Before exploring this further, it is worth emphasizing the law that applies to offers based on effective tax administration. The regulations provide the standard:

If there are no grounds for compromise under paragraphs (b)(1) [doubt as to liability], (2) [doubt as to collectability], or (3)(i) [economic hardship] of this section, the IRS may compromise to promote effective tax administration where compelling public policy or equity considerations identified by the taxpayer provide a sufficient basis for compromising the liability. Compromise will be justified only where, due to exceptional circumstances, collection of the full liability would undermine public confidence that the tax laws are being administered in a fair and equitable manner. A taxpayer proposing compromise under this paragraph (b)(3)(ii) will be expected to demonstrate circumstances that justify compromise even though a similarly situated taxpayer may have paid his liability in full.

Reg. Sec. 301.7122-1(b)(3).

Thus, the regulations provide that the IRS may accept a compromise where there are “compelling public policy or equity considerations.”  Unlike offers based on doubt as to collectability, which essentially default to a more mechanical comparison of the offer amount relative to the taxpayer’s collection potential, this standard is relatively vague. The regs do provide some examples of cases that should be considered under a public policy or equity ETA offer:

(1) a taxpayer with a serious illness requiring hospitalization for a number of years who, at the time, was unable to manage his or her financial affairs, including filing tax returns and (2) a taxpayer who learns after an audit that incorrect advice was given by the Commissioner and is now facing additional taxes and penalties because of that advice.

The IRM also provides guidance for IRS, providing additional factors and examples:

  • where the taxpayer’s liability was the result of the Commissioner’s processing error,
  • following the Commissioner’s erroneous advice or instructions,
  • the Commissioner’s unreasonable delay, or
  • the criminal or fraudulent act of a third party

In addition the IRM states that accepting a public policy or equity offer-in-compromise may be appropriate where rejecting it would cause a significant negative impact on the taxpayer’s community or “the taxpayer was incapacitated and thus unable to comply with the tax laws.”

The main argument that the taxpayers made was that because of the drug use Ms. Gillette was mentally impaired and incompetent, essentially claiming that this was akin to an incapacitation that would justify acceptance of an offer below the collection potential.

The Tax Court disagreed, primarily by distinguishing her situation from the examples and factors cited in the regs and the IRM:

Ms. Gillette and Mr. Szczepanski argue that their public policy or equity offer-in-compromise should be accepted because Ms. Gillette’s mental illness was caused by her prescription medication. While Ms. Gillette’s circumstances are unfortunate, Ms. Gillette and Mr. Szczepanski did not provide grounds for treating them differently from a similarly situated taxpayer who paid his or her liability in full. Their situation also differs from the examples given in the regulations: Ms. Gillette did not require hospitalization for a number of years, she was able to file her tax returns, she collected rents from her rental properties, and she did not receive incorrect advice from the Commissioner.

In addition, the opinion, while acknowledging the impact of the gambling addiction, distinguished the incapacity from others that would render an inability to comply with the tax laws:

Finally Ms. Gillette and Mr. Szczepanski do not meet any of the compelling factors outlined in the IRM. Ms. Gillette was not so incapacitated that she was unable to comply with the tax laws, rejection of their public policy or equity offer- in-compromise would not have had a significant negative impact on their community, and their 2012 tax liability was not caused by an error or delay of the Commissioner or the fraudulent or criminal conduct of a third party.

Conclusion

This is a close case. No doubt the taxpayers come away feeling that the system did not adequately address their legitimate concerns. From a process standpoint, I feel their pain; the initial Appeals determination did little in explaining why the offer was originally rejected; on remand Appeals did not refer the case to the unit specifically that hears ETA offers (a point the opinion notes was not an abuse of discretion as the decision to do so is essentially one completely in Appeals’ wheelhouse); and at trial the Tax Court did not allow the testimony of the taxpayer’s doctor or VA social worker, among other witnesses.

I am not equipped to evaluate the level of the taxpayer’s incapacity or the degree to which the medication contributed to or caused the gambling that led to the liability and underpayment of taxes. It would seem to me, however, that the Tax Court might have benefited from the testimony of the doctor. While some circuits follow the record rule and limit review of CDP cases to the evidence in the administrative record, the Seventh Circuit, where the case is appealable, has declined to decide that issue. In addition, given the lack of guidance in this area, the IRM factors and examples have heightened importance, a curious result again from a process standpoint given the absence of any public input in their promulgation.

To be sure, as the opinion notes, and as the IRS emphasized, there is no explicit unfairness hook that would require the IRS to accept an ETA offer. In addition, the taxpayer has significant assets. Given the lack of case law in this area, it is likely that this case will be one that the IRS will lean on when taxpayers seek to resolve a liability even after a taxpayer makes a credible case that substance abuse has contributed to the taxpayer’s liability.

For readers interested in more on ETA offers, including suggestions on how the IRS can improve standards for evaluating the offers, check out Rutgers Law School Professor Sandy Freund’s 2014 Virginia Tax Review article Effective Tax Administration Offers-Why So Ineffective.

 

 

 

Making an Offer in Compromise Does not Stop Seizure and Sale of Home

In United States v. Brabant-Scribner, No. 17-2825 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2018) the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court allowing the sale of taxpayer’s home and affirmatively determining that an offer in compromise request filed by the taxpayer has no impact on the ability of the court to grant the request by the IRS to sell the home or on the IRS’ ability to sell the home once the court granted its approval. In reaching this conclusion the Eighth Circuit analyzes the exemptions to levy in IRC 6334 and the relief those provisions do and do not provide.

read more...

Taxpayer owes the IRS over $500,000. The opinion does not discuss the actions by the taxpayer to pay or resolve her liability prior to the action by the IRS to sell her house. I imagine that the IRS considered her a “won’t pay” taxpayer. Before seeking to sell her home, the IRS had seized and sold her boat and levied on her bank accounts.

The 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act added IRC 6334(e)(1)(A) to require that prior to seizing a taxpayer’s principal residence the IRS must obtain the approval of a federal district court judge or magistrate in writing. Before the passage of this provision, the IRS could seize a taxpayer’s home with the same amount of prior approval needed to seize any other asset owned by the taxpayer. No approval was necessary to seize any asset of the taxpayer. Prior to 1998 collection due process did not exist. Prior to 1998 the 10 deadly sins did not exist one of which calls for the dismissal of an IRS employee who makes an inappropriate seizure. So, the landscape regarding seizures, and especially personal residence seizures, changed dramatically after 1998; however, the amount of litigation regarding seizure of personal residences is low and the Brabant-Scribner case offers a window on one aspect of this process.

As the IRS initiated the process of seizing her personal residence by obtaining the appropriate court approval, the taxpayer filed an offer in compromise. She filed an effective tax administration offer of $1.00, but the amount and sincerity of her offer do not really matter to the legal outcome of this case. The timing and the amount of the offer may have influenced the thinking of the judges and made them more inclined to dismiss her argument but her possibly bad faith effort to stop the approval and execution of the sale should not have affected the outcome here.

To convince the court to allow the sale of a personal residence, the IRS must show compliance with all legal and procedural requirements, show the debt remains unpaid and show that “no reasonable alternative” for collection of the debt exists. Taxpayer argued that her offer was a reasonable alternative; however, the court spends three paragraphs explaining that an offer does not matter in this situation. The relevant language in the applicable regulation is “reasonable alternative for collection of the taxpayer’s debt.” The court explains that the word “for” holds the key to the outcome.

“For” refers to an alternative to the sale of the personal residence such as an installment agreement or the offer of funds from another source to satisfy the debt. An offer in compromise is not an alternative for collection but an alternative “to” collection.

Having determined that the words of the regulation point toward a resolution other than an offer as providing the necessary alternative, the court looks at the remainder of the regulation for further support of its conclusion. It points to the provision in Treasury Regulation 301.6334-1(d)(2) which provides that the taxpayer has a right to object after the IRS makes its initial showing and “will be granted a hearing to rebut the Government’s prima facie case if the taxpayer … rais[es] a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating … other assets from which the liability can be satisfied.” This regulation, like the one providing an alternative “for” collection, looks not to relief from payment of the liability but a source for making payment. It does not provide the offer in compromise as a basis for relief. Based on this the court concludes that “nothing requires the district court to ensure that the IRS has fully considered a taxpayer’s compromise offer before approving a levy on a taxpayer’s home.”

Since the IRS properly made its case for seizing and selling the home and the taxpayer did not rebut that case, the Eighth Circuit affirms the decision of the district court to approve the sale. The decision provides clear guidance for district courts faced with the request by the IRS to seize and sell a personal residence. Personal residence seizures by the IRS remain rare at this point. Taxpayers faced with such a seizure, almost always taxpayers the IRS characterizes as “won’t pay” taxpayers, will find it difficult to stop the seizure and sale based on this decision. I do not think this decision will motivate the IRS to increase the number of personal residence seizures but it will make it a little easier to accomplish when it decides to go this route.

 

When Does an Offer in Compromise Extend the Statute of Limitations on Collection?

United States v. Kenny, No. 1:16-cv-02149 (N.D. Ohio June 6, 2018) involves a spectacularly non-compliant taxpayer against whom the IRS seeks both the reduction of assessments to judgment and an injunction. The court grants both. Mr. Kenny’s defense relied upon the statute of limitation on collection and the failure of his three OICs to extend it. The issue arises regularly because of the handling of OICs by the offer groups in Brookhaven and Memphis.

read more...

Mr. Kenny failed to pay taxes voluntarily for about 25 years. He receives income as an independent contractor or a business owner and not as a wage earner. The court described in some detail his failure to voluntarily comply with his tax obligations and his expenditures which included almost $5,000 in monthly rent, almost $2,000 each month in meals and gas, extensive travel, payment of his son’s student loans and his daughter’s tuition. As with almost any case of this type, the described behavior would appear to have the facts needed in order to pursue prosecution under IRC 7201 for evasion of payment; however, for reasons not explained in the opinion, the government seeks other remedies against Mr. Kenny.

In addition to obtaining a judgment against him for the outstanding balance of the taxes, the IRS also sought an injunction to “to comply with his on-going tax obligations.” In addition to the almost $1.5 million in income taxes he also owes about $10,000 in trust fund recovery penalty. I have seen injunction cases to keep taxpayers from pyramiding trust fund taxes, but his case appears to be an injunction directed at complying with the income tax laws.

The court starts out stating that it generally disfavors injunctions “that do no more than require on-going compliance with the law.” The court goes on, however, to state that the unique facts here support the use of injunction as a tool to promote compliance. It cites to five factors developed by the 6th Circuit for determining whether to issue an injunction:

  • The gravity of the offence
  • Extent of participation
  • Scienter
  • Recurrent nature of offense
  • Likelihood that his business activities will involve him in some offense again

The court spends a long paragraph explaining how Mr. Kenny fits into all of the categories set out by its circuit. The paragraph ends with the notation that the IRS withdrew the request for the appointment of a receiver to handle the business affairs of Mr. Kenny. The appointment of a receiver is a remedy even more extraordinary than an injunction.

Statute of Limitations

Mr. Kenny’s defense to the effort to obtain a judgment against him focuses on the statute of limitations and the impact on the statute on the three offer in compromise (OIC) requests that he filed with the IRS. Essentially, he argues that the IRS rejected the OICs as non-processable returning them without consideration. Further, he argues that because each of the offers were returned as non-processable his submission of the OICs would not extend the statute of limitations on collection and that the IRS needs the extra time it argues results from his submission of the OICs in order for the suit against him reducing the liability to judgment to be considered timely. The applicable IRM provision (IRM 5.8.7.2) provides “An offer can be returned as either a “not processable return” or a “processable return”. It is important to note the distinction because when there is a not processable return the collection statute is not suspended…”  The court does not provide the detail needed to reveal exactly what happened when Mr. Kenny submitted his OIC requests; however, it appears that the IRS rejected the OICs at some time after the processability point thereby triggering the statute of limitations extension needed by the IRS.

The issue of when the IRS rejects an OIC has significance not always noted when the OIC gets returned to the taxpayer. Just as a taxpayer should not submit an OIC without thinking about the statute of limitations implications, a taxpayer should carefully note the basis for the IRS returning an OIC without acceptance. Many things can cause the IRS to return an OIC as non-processable and a detailed description of the circumstances that cause the IRS to determine an offer is non-processable as well as the process for making the determination can be found in IRM 5.8.2. The Centralized OIC units make the determination as stated in IRM 5.8.7.2.1 which provides:

Not Processable Returns

  1. An offer is determined to be not processable if any of the “Not Processable” criteria listed in IRM 5.8.2.3.1, Determining Processability, is present. This decision is the sole responsibility of the Centralized OIC (COIC) sites located in the Brookhaven and Memphis Campus.

About a dozen years ago several taxpayers litigated the processability issue with respect to the bankruptcy criteria. These taxpayers argued that making bankruptcy a processability criteria disadvantaged them in an inappropriate manner. After a couple of victories at the bankruptcy level (See In re Holmes, 298 B.R. 477 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003); In re Chapman, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1091 (Bankr. S.D. W. Va. 1999)), the tide turned on this issue and the IRS prevailed (See In re Shope, 347 B.R. 270 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006); In re Uzialko, 339 B.R. 579 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006). I mention the cases for those who might have interest in attacking the processability criteria to show that such an attack would prove difficult because of the discretion IRC 7122 gives to the IRS in making the OIC determination.

A sure sign that the IRS is returning an OIC as non-processable is that the IRS does not give a taxpayer appeal rights when it rejects an OIC. Those who regularly submit offers know that getting a call from the OIC unit relatively quickly after submitting an OIC where the person at the offer unit says “if I do not receive X within 10 days I am going to return your offer as non-processable” happens fairly regularly.

It appears from IRS activity on Mr. Kenny’s OIC submissions several months after the initial submission that the IRS did consider the OICs on their merits before rejecting them; however, the type of rejection may not always be clear. In a recent post complaining about the telephone number provided by the offer unit, I spoke about a processability rejection (an incorrect one) because the assessment occurred as a result of a restitution order and when it does the IRS has no ability to administratively compromise the liability. Unfortunately, the Kenny case offers little guidance on when the return of an OIC results from a non-processable submission verses an unacceptable one on the merits of the offer because Mr. Kenny did not provide much evidence. Despite the absence of clear guidance, the Kenny case serves as a reminder that submitting an offer suspends the statute of limitations on collection and submitting multiple offers can suspend it for quite some time if the submitted offers make it past the processability stage. For taxpayers seeking to defend collection suits on the basis of the statute of limitations keeping careful track of these submissions and the basis for denial of the OIC requests becomes important in deciding if a procedural defense to the suit is available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent Tax Court Case Highlights CDP Reach and Challenges With Collection Potential (and a little Graev too)

I read with interest Gallagher v Commissioner, a memorandum opinion from earlier this month.  The case does not break new ground, but it highlights some interesting collection issues and also touches on the far-reaching Graev issue.

read more...

First the facts, somewhat simplified.  The taxpayer was the sole shareholder of a corporation whose line of business was home building and residential construction.

The business ran into hard times and was delinquent on six quarters of employment taxes from the years 2010 and 2011. IRS assessed about $800,000 in trust fund recovery penalties under Section 6672 on the sole shareholder after it determined he was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay IRS. IRS issued two notices of intent to levy including rights to a CDP hearing. The taxpayer timely requested a hearing, and the request stated that he sought a collection alternative.

After the taxpayer submitted the request for a CDP hearing the matter was assigned to a settlement officer (SO). There was some back and forth between the SO and the taxpayer, and the taxpayer submitted an offer in compromise based on doubt as to collectability for $56,000 to be paid over 24 months. After he submitted the offer, IRS sent a proposed assessment for additional TFRP for some quarters in the years 2012 and 2014.

The SO referred the offer to an offer specialist. Here is where things get sort of interesting (or at least why I think the case merits a post). The specialist initially determined that the taxpayer’s reasonable collection potential (RCP) was over $847,000. That meant that the specialist proposed to reject the offer, as in most cases an offer based on doubt as to collectability must at least equal a taxpayer’s RCP, a figure which generally reflects a taxpayer’s equity in assets and share of future household income.

Before rejecting the offer, the specialist allowed the taxpayer to respond to its computation of RCP. The taxpayer submitted additional financial information and disputed the specialist’s computation of the taxpayer’s equity in assets that he either owned or co-owned.  That information prompted the offer specialist to revise downward the RCP computation to about $231,000 after the specialist took into account the spouse’s interest in the assets that the taxpayer co-owned and also considered the impact of the spouse on his appropriate share of household income.

Following the specialist’s revised computations, the taxpayer submitted another offer, this time for about $105,000. Because it was still below the RCP (at least as the specialist saw it), she rejected the follow up offer, which led the IRS to issue a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levies and then to the taxpayer timely petitioning the Tax Court claiming that IRS abused it discretion in rejecting his offer and sustaining the proposed levies.

So what is so interesting about this? It is not unusual for taxpayers to run up assessments and to then disagree with offer reviewers on what is an appropriate offer and to differ on RCP. RCP calculations are on the surface pretty straightforward but in many cases, especially with nonliable spouses, illiquid assets and shared household expenses (as here) that calculation can be complex and lead to some differences in views.

In addition, the opinion’s framing of the limited role that Tax Court plays in CDP cases that are premised primarily on challenges to a collection alternative warrants some discussion. The opinion notes that the Tax Court’s function in these cases is not to “independently assess the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s proposed offer”; instead, it looks to see if the “decision to reject his offer was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.” That approach does not completely insulate the IRS review of the offer (or other alternative) from court scrutiny, and in these cases it generally means that the court will consider whether the IRS properly applied the IRM to the facts at hand. While that is limited and does not give the court the power to compel acceptance of a collection alternative, it does allow the court to ensure that the IRS’s rejection stems from a proper application of the IRM provisions in light of the facts that are in the record and can result in a remand if the court finds the IRS amiss in its approach (though I note as to whether the taxpayer can supplement the record at trial is an issue that has generated litigation and differing views between the Tax Court and some other circuits).

That led the court to directly address one of the main contentions that the taxpayer made, namely that the specialist grossly overstated his RCP due to what the taxpayer claimed was an error in assigning value to his share of an LLC that owned rental properties.  This triggers consideration of whether it is appropriate to assign a value for RCP purposes to an asset that may in fact also be used to produce income when the future income from that asset is also part of the RCP. The IRM addresses this potential double dipping issue but the Gallagher opinion sidesteps application of those provisions because the rental properties did not in fact produce income, and the offer specialist rejection of the offer, and thus the notice of determination sustaining the proposed levies, was not dependent on any income calculations stemming from the rental properties.

The other collection issue worth noting is a jurisdictional issue. During the time the taxpayer was negotiating with the offer specialist, IRS proposed to assess additional TFRP for quarters from different years that were not part of the notice of intent to levy and subsequent CDP request:

Those liabilities [the TFRP assessments from quarters that were not part of the CDP request] were not properly before the Appeals Office because the IRS had not yet sent petitioner a collection notice advising him of his hearing rights for those periods.  In any event, the IRS had not issued petitioner, at the time he filed his petition, a notice of determination for 2012 or 2014. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider them. [citations omitted]

Yet the taxpayer in amending his offer included those non CDP years in the offer. The Gallagher opinion in footnote 5 discusses the ability of the court to implicitly consider those non CDP years in the proceeding:

We do have jurisdiction to review an SO’s rejection of an OIC that encompasses liabilities for both CDP years and non-CDP years. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-4. Indeed, that is precisely the situation here: the SO considered petitioner’s TFRP liabilities for 2012 and 2014, as well as his TFRP liabilities (exceeding $800,000) for the 2010 and 2011 CDP years, in evalu- ating his global OIC of $104,478. We clearly have jurisdiction to consider (and in the text we do consider) whether the SO abused his discretion in rejecting that offer. What we lack jurisdiction to do is to consider any challenge to petitioner’s underlying tax liabilities for the non-CDP years.

This is a subtle point and one that practitioners should note if in fact liabilities arise in periods subsequent to the original collection action that generated a collection notice and a consideration of a collection alternative in a CDP case. Practitioners should sweep in those other periods to the collection alternative within the CDP process; while those periods are not technically part of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction they implicitly creep in, especially in the context of an OIC which could have, if accepted, cleaned the slate.

The final issue worth noting is the opinion’s discussion of Graev and the Section 6751(b) issue. While acknowledging that it is not clear that the TFRP is a penalty for purposes of the Section 6751(b) supervisory approval rule, the opinion notes that in any event the procedures in this case satisfied that requirement, discussing and referring to the Tax Court’s Blackburn opinion that Caleb Smith discussed in his designated orders post earlier this month:

We found no need to decide that question because the record included a Form 4183 reflecting supervisory approval of the TFRPs in question. We determined that the Form 4183 was suffic- ient to enable the SO to verify that the requirements of section 6751(b)(1) had been met with respect to the TFRPs, assuming the IRS had to meet those requirements in the first place.

Here, respondent submitted a declaration that attached a Form 4183 showing that the TFRPs assessed against petitioner had been approved in writing by …. the [revenue officer’s] immediate supervisor…. In Blackburn, we held that an actual signature is not required; the form need only show that the TFRPs were approved by the RO’s supervisor. Accordingly, we find there to be a sufficient record of prior approval of the TFRPs in question.

Updates on Collection Issues

The IRS has recently updated several matters that impact taxpayers in collection. This post pulls together some of the newly available information.  The areas discussed in this post are the financial standards, the updated offer in compromise booklet, the impact of the new law on amounts exempt from levy and the impact of the new law on the time to file wrongful levy claims.

read more...

Financial Standards

On March 26, 2018 the IRS issued new financial standards to be used in collection cases.  The new standards provide guidance to individuals seeking to prepare a collection information statement in order to convince the IRS to grant an offer in compromise, an installment agreement, to make a currently not collectible determination or to otherwise decide the appropriate course of action in a collection case.  The financial standards have their roots in information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Congress also makes them applicable in bankruptcy cases for certain purposes.

Offer in Compromise

On March 25, 2018, the IRS issued a new Offer in Compromise Booklet. The updated booklet contains the following changes:

Form 656, Section 6, Filing Requirements – “I have filed all required tax returns and have included a complete copy of any tax return filed within 60 days prior to this offer submission.”

This is also addressed in the opening Q&A section under “Other Important Facts”:

“Note: If you have filed your tax returns but you have not received a bill for at least one tax debt included on your offer, your offer and application fee may be returned and any initial payment sent with your offer will be applied to your tax debt. Include a complete copy of any tax return filed within 60 days prior to this offer submission.”

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, Q&A Section, Bankruptcy, Open Audit or Innocent Spouse Claim – “If you currently have any open audit or outstanding innocent spouse claim, wait for those issues to be resolved before you submit an offer.”

PAYING FOR YOUR OFFER – There is better highlighting of the Low-Income Certification option, with emphasis that low income certification means no money need be sent with the offer.

Because the IRS will not work an offer if a taxpayer has not complied with tax laws by filing all necessary returns, many taxpayers file returns immediately prior to the filing of an offer in compromise. The IRS does not always process past due returns with haste because it puts more focus on processing the currently due returns.  The new requirement that a taxpayer attach returns filed within 60 days of the submission of the offer allows the IRS offer group to avoid rejecting cases for lack of filing compliance and to get a view of the liabilities the taxpayer owes in advance of the actual assessment.

The warning about waiting for the resolution of outstanding audits or claims should be considered in the context that an offer in compromise acts as a closing agreement resolving all matters concerning the years covered by the offer. A taxpayer cannot go back and seek a refund after obtaining an offer and the IRS cannot go back and seek an additional assessment.  It is important to resolve all issues for the years covered by the offer but many taxpayers do not appreciate the scope of the offer with respect to the years it covers.

Low income taxpayers continue to receive a benefit when applying for an offer because they do not have to pay a fee for the offer or remit a percentage of the offer. Almost all practitioners know this but many individuals filing offers pro se may not appreciate this benefit and the new booklet tries to make it clearer.

Each of the changes seem appropriate and helpful.

Exemption from Levy

The exemption from levy is tied to the personal exemption. The personal exemption went up last year and the IRS has published guidance on how that change impacts the amount of the exemption from levy in a wage levy situation.  This creates a windfall for individuals subject to a wage levy that Congress probably did not think about when it passed the law.  Of course, windfall may be the wrong term when talking about a provision that can bring a taxpayer to their knees.  Here is the IRS description of the way the wage levy provisions will now work:

Public Law Number 115‐97, TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT OF 2017, signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, temporarily increases the basic standard deduction applicable to the 2018 taxable year [IRC § 63(c)(2); Rev. Proc. 2016‐ 55] across all filing categories:

  • From $6,350 to $12,000 for single individuals and married individuals filing separate returns;
  • From $9,350 to $18,000 for heads of households; and
  • From $12,700 to $24,000 for married individuals filing a joint return and surviving spouses.

The Act also suspends personal exemption deductions. Both changes, the increase in the standard deduction and the suspension of the personal exemption, are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026. These two changes impact how a recipient of a levy will figure the amount of income exempt from levy. Prior to the change in the law, the amount that was exempt from levy was calculated by taking into consideration both the standard deduction and the total exemptions of the payee. With the elimination of personal and dependency exemptions, a new method for determining the amount of income exempt from levy was needed.

As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress amended §6334 to provide that from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2025 employers and other recipients of levies would exclude from levy $4,150 per dependent per year in addition to the amount excluded based upon the standard deduction for the filing status of the person subject to levy. The amount exempt from levy each pay period is calculated by dividing the total amount exempt from levy for the year by the number of pay periods. Publication 1494, Table for Figuring Amount Exempt from Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other Income has been updated. Changes are also being made to Forms 668-W(c), 668-W(c)(DO), 668-W (ICS) and Form 668-W, Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other Income, along with the instructions.  Due to the increase in the standard deduction amount, in most cases, the taxpayer will have more take-home pay that is exempt from levy.

Employers or others receiving levies will need to figure the amount of income exempt from levy. To do so the recipient  must determine what the payee’s filing status will be (The amount exempt from levy is based upon the standard deduction for that filing status); the frequency of payments, Daily (260), Weekly (52), Bi-Weekly (26), Bi-Monthly (24), Monthly (12); and lastly, the number of dependents that the payee will claim. In this example, the employer knows that the employee will claim the married filing joint standard deduction and has two dependents.

STEP 1: Determine the filing status of the payee.

STEP 2: Find the amount exempt from levy based upon how often taxpayer is paid:

Married Filing Jointly:

STEP 3: The taxpayer is entitled to exclude $4,150 per year per dependent. This chart shows the amount that can be excluded each pay period based upon pay frequency. The amount from far the right-hand column for the correct pay frequency will need to be multiplied by the number of dependents to arrive at the total amount exempt from levy that is attributable to the payee’s dependents.

Amount Exempt from Levy per Dependent:

Step 4:

Amount Exempt from levy from Bi-Weekly Pay:

Add the amount exempt per pay period based upon the payee’s filing status, plus the amount exempt per pay period per dependent to arrive at the total amount of take-home pay that is exempt from levy. A taxpayer that is married, files jointly, is paid $1,500 bi-weekly, and claims two dependents will receive $1,242.32 and will have $257.68 ($1,500-$1242.32) levied.

Wrongful Levy Claims

IRC § 6343(b) previously required taxpayers to make a wrongful levy claim within nine months of the taking of the property. For some people, this time frame was too short because they did not even learn about the taking during that time.  In response, Congress increased the amount of time taxpayers have to seek the return of property when they believe the IRS has wrongfully taken their property while trying to collect from a taxpayer.

Public Law 115-97, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extends the period for making an administrative claim to two years and if the taxpayer makes an administrative claim during that period the time to bring suit is extended for 12 months from the date of filing of the claim or for six months from the disallowance of the claim, whichever is shorter. The change applies to levies made after December 22, 2017, and to levies made prior to that date if the nine month period under the prior law had not yet expired.  The IRS issued IR-2018-126 to discuss the change and has revised Publication 4528 to reflect the change.

 

Accelerating the 2008 First-Time Homebuyer Credit in order to Compromise the Liability

We welcome guest blogger William Schmidt of the Kansas Legal Aid Society. William is a regular guest on the blog with his monthly posts on designated orders. He encountered a situation involving a client struggling to satisfy her requirements resulting from the first time home-buyer credit and wrote this guest post for others who might face this situation. In the end his effort to obtain an offer in compromise to assist his client did not prove necessary; however, the process he followed in order to obtain the relief is a process that could work for other clients in this situation. Keith

The first-time homebuyer credit for 2008 is still causing issues for taxpayers. Keith Fogg recently wrote a blog post that looked at the credit in the context of bankruptcy, examining whether the credit is a tax or a loan and the court correctly characterized it as a dischargeable loan. This post will examine a different tactic in dealing with the 2008 credit, looking at Offer in Compromise rather than bankruptcy, and I will relate how I tried to use that method to assist a client.

read more...

The First-Time Homebuyer Credit in 2008

The first-time homebuyer credit under Internal Revenue Code section 36 went through three phases, but applied to home purchases after April 8, 2008 and before May 1, 2010. The first phase, applicable to homes purchased in 2008, “takes the form of a $7,500 interest-free loan” (that is the maximum amount) as stated on the IRS website here. The credit is repaid in equal portions over a 15-year “recapture period” as shown here. The second phase of the credit, applicable to homes purchased in 2009 or 2010, allowed for new home owners to receive a maximum credit of $8,000 that did not have to be repaid if they stayed in the home for 3 years. The third phase, applicable beginning November 7, 2009 for homes purchased in 2009 and 2010, added in long-time homeowners for a maximum credit of $6,500.

Personal note: During the rollout of the credit I was working in the corporate office of H&R Block in their research department, providing guidance to tax preparers. I remember the confusion as the IRS went through the various phases of the credit and its qualifications for homes, homebuyers, and payments. You can see from the linked pages how the credit grew in complexity over those couple years.

One option available to taxpayers who qualified to change from the 2008 credit to the 2009 credit was to amend the tax return. For those who stayed with the 2008 credit, there was the annual recapture repayment amount included with the tax return. The main exception was when the home stopped being the main home. That could “accelerate the recapture” (meaning repayment of the remainder of the credit) unless there was an exception to the repayment of the full credit. Those exceptions included transfer in a divorce settlement, destruction of the home, foreclosure, sale, or death. Foreclosure or sale of the home meant repayment of the credit only up to the amount of the gain through foreclosure/sale.

Even though the loan is interest-free and only in the range of hundreds of dollars each year, there are low income taxpayers on fixed incomes who cannot afford to make that payment to the IRS. Feel free to examine those links above or the scenarios the IRS provided to find information on what a taxpayer is supposed to do if they cannot afford to pay the interest-free loan when the annual tax return is due. It may take you some time because the IRS does not address this kind of client situation on their website.

My Client’s Story

When confronted with a client who could not afford her annual payment under the 2008 first-time homebuyer credit, I had to research what to do to help her. She originally received $3,600 and had paid $1,440, leaving $2,160 to be repaid at $240 annually. Looking at the first-time homebuyer credit pages on the IRS website was no help. I started by getting my client into the Currently Not Collectible status. I did not think it would be fruitful to keep repeating that process every year for 9 years total.

I eventually got in contact with Jennifer Liguori, the Director of the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic of Legal Aid of Arkansas – Springdale. She informed me that she has accelerated the recapture of the credit and then submitted an Offer in Compromise for $10. She had those offers accepted twice.

The Offer in Compromise

I started by amending my client’s 2016 tax return to include the entire $2,160 credit amount, accelerating the recapture. I accomplished this by filling out IRS Form 5405, Part II. The Form 5405 Instructions state in a section about Part II titled “Repaying more than the minimum amount” that “You can choose to repay more than the minimum amount with any tax return.” Filling out this section will provide for the remainder of an individual’s 2008 first-time homebuyer credit to come due.

I also submitted an Offer in Compromise of $1 for my client under Doubt as to Collectibility. While the amended return processing and the submission of the Offer overlapped, I looked at the timing and filed the Offer because it knew it would take time for the IRS to process the Offer. The 2016 amended tax return was processed and my client received a bill for the full amount before there was a response on the Offer.

Approximately seven months after the submission, an Offer in Compromise examiner sent me a letter saying “We cannot accept your client’s offer in compromise at this time based upon the information provided” and that I needed to contact her within 10 days or the offer will be processed as is. I left several phone messages and faxed a letter to make contact within the 10 days but there was no response. It turns out the officer had training and was out of the office yet the phone message did not reflect that.

Once we were able to converse, the examiner informed me that she had to amend the Form 656 for submission under Exceptional Circumstances (Effective Tax Administration). I don’t think this necessarily had anything to do with the first-time homebuyer credit. I think the examiner thought this change was necessary in order to receive manager approval for the $1 offer.

My client had also signed in the wrong place on the original Form 656 – as preparer, not taxpayer – so the examiner needed an original signature from my client 10 days after faxing the amended Form 656 to me.

I have only been in contact with this client by long distance. The client’s home in question is in small town Kansas, two and a half hours away from my office. My only contact with her was by phone or correspondence by mail. Our last phone conversation was in December 2017. I proceeded to leave messages with her and mailed her a letter, but there was no response.

I finally decided to contact the Kansas Legal Services office that covers that county. Since it was located a half hour away from the client, I thought they might be able to assist with locating the client in some capacity. I spoke with the secretary there. She did not seem to have much to provide me at first but called back later with information. Because it was small-town Kansas, she was able to find out that my client was in an unresponsive, terminal coma at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and provided me with some contact numbers. I called those numbers and learned that my client actually passed away.

I told the IRS officer that my client was deceased, so the offer is now terminated. The only way an offer would still work is if the estate submitted an offer. In hindsight, the credit would have terminated with the 2018 tax return because of the client’s death because the home stopped being her main home. She would only have owed the $480 for 2016 and 2017 without accelerating the recapture.

I wanted to shine a spotlight on the 2008 first-time homebuyer credit for tax professionals, especially for those who deal with the low income taxpayer community. This is a gray area because low income people need assistance yet the IRS information does not spell out what to do when an individual cannot afford to make the annual repayment for the credit. I submitted a Systemic Advocacy (SAMS) request but I would hope any IRS employees who read this post would consider spelling out the relief available for individuals that meet either the low income or Currently Not Collectible criteria.