Lawyers, Coins and Dead Presidents: IRS Agent Seizes Valuable Coins and Taxpayer Sues for Conversion

Willis v Boyd, an opinion from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, is not a typical tax collection case. The opinion involves an IRS agent who seized 364,000 one dollar coins that were issued to commemorate US presidents. After seizing the coins, which were in special boxes in original packaging consisting of 1,000 coins, another IRS employee removed the coins from their packaging, put the coins through a coin counter, and deposited  $364,000 to be credited against the taxpayer’s sizeable liability. The taxpayer claimed that the coins had significantly greater value and sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for conversion. After winning on the merits at the district court, the government appealed, claiming that the FTCA did not act to waive sovereign immunity. On appeal, the circuit court agreed with the government. 

read more...

Sovereign immunity allows the government to escape suits unless there is a clear waiver. The FTCA waives sovereign immunity in suits seeking money damages against the federal government “for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant.”

The waiver does not apply to all negligent actions, or wrongful acts or omissions. Under the statute the FTCA waiver does not apply when the government action is “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”   

The Supreme Court, however, has held that not all discretionary actions trigger the exception to the waiver. Wanting to avoid courts second guessing policy choices, the Court has held the decision must be “of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.”  What does that mean?  Even though for example there is discretion associated with driving, the government cannot escape litigation in all instances when an employee exercises some discretion; a government employee negligently operating a vehicle is different from an employee unreasonably exercising discretion in a way closely connected to policy choices related to the employee’s job.

To help determine which discretionary acts trigger an exception to the waiver, , the Supreme Court requires courts to employ a two-part analysis: 

  1. Whether the challenged conduct or omission is ‘truly discretionary'” in that “it involves an element of judgment or choice instead of being controlled by mandatory statutes or regulations.” 
  2. If the answer to the first question is yes, then courts consider whether the employee’s judgment or choice could be “based on considerations of social, economic, and political policy.” 

If the government employee’s discretionary choice or action is based on social, economic or political policy, then the exception applies, and the government will not be deemed to have waived its immunity.

Bringing that back to the coins led the 8th Circuit to explore IRM policy. As the opinion discusses, the IRM does contain guidance on the seizure of property that may be a collectible, but it fails to instruct IRS employees on how to determine whether the coins are in fact collectible. Here is what the IRM says:

“[D]omestic and foreign currency seized for forfeiture, except where it is . . . held as a ‘collectible asset,’ must be expeditiously counted, processed, and deposited . . . within 5 days of seizure.” See Internal Revenue Manual § 9.7.4.6.1(2).

It does not provide guidance or instructions on how to determine whether the coins are considered collectible:

[The IRM] never spells out when additional investigatory duties are triggered, or what an additional investigation might look like; rather, it apparently gives an agent discretion to determine whether seized currencies’ face value is a realistic estimate of its worth or whether an investigation into its value as a collectible asset is needed and what it might entail.

The IRM does provide additional guidance on what to do after an IRS employee determines that coins are collectible. But the absence of guidance on collectability is key, even if the facts suggested that the IRS employee should have done more –and it is easy to make the case that the coins placement in the collectors’ boxes should have led to some additional inquiry:

[W]e do not think, as just explained, that the manual required the agent to do more than he did when he categorized the coins. Even if the decision was carelessly made or was uninformed, the agent’s negligence in making it is irrelevant.

As to the second factor that needs to apply for the discretionary exception to apply the appeals court noted that the district court erred in applying a subjective test to the inquiry. In other words, it did not matter that the IRS employee failed to consider the policy choices; the key is “whether the decision in question is by its nature as an objective matter susceptible to policy analysis.” To that point, the opinion stated that “agents who seize currency must balance the competing interests of expeditious deposit on the one hand and preserving property on the other—a calculation that plainly involves questions of social, economic, and political policies.”

Conclusion

I find it hard to be too disappointed in the outcome. I did not dig into the details of the case history but I suspect the taxpayer had ample opportunity to pay the assessed liability. The failure of the taxpayer to sell the coins on her own dime was in her control. In addition, the seizure and application to the tax liability allows the taxpayer to escape the income tax liability associated with the coins’ inherent gain.  I also suspect that a cooperative taxpayer may have been more engaged with a revenue officer and may have had opportunity to let the RO know about the value and allow for the government to treat the coins as collectibles rather than just cash.

Update: The factual summary and original conclusion to the post, as some of the comments have noted, are off the mark. My failure to read the district court opinion contributed to some misstatements.

As commenter Michelle Wynn notes:

The District Court Decision made clear that Ms. Willis did not have any tax liability, the coins were seized while other law enforcement agencies were executing a search warrant for “papers and documents” related to non-tax crimes (though embezzlement can often lead to tax crimes relations), there appeared to be no justification for the seizure of the coins which were not covered by the warrant (though the District Court seemed to conclude that possible forfeiture was the only reasonable explanation), and the warrant was related to the Plaintiff’s ex-husband who did not reside at the residence. The “value of the coins” was later returned to the Plaintiff, but only for their face-value rather that what she believed to be their much higher collector’s value. However, because the Appeals Court found that sovereign immunity applied based upon the discretionary exception, it did not discuss any of the reasons that the initial seizure may have been inappropriate or any of the other arguments against sovereign immunity discussed in the District Court Decision. 

Right to Jury Trial Does Not Extend to Certain Federal Tax Collection Suits

Dombrowski v US, a recent case out of a federal district court in Michigan, highlights how the right to a jury trial differs in certain collection suits as compared to refund suits.

Dombrowski lives with Ronald Matheson, who owes money to the IRS. In 2013, Dombrowski purchased the house she and Matheson live in with funds transferred to her from Matheson. IRS filed a tax lien that reached the house Dombrowski purchased, claiming that Matheson had an ownership interest in the house. Dombrowski claimed that the funds she used to purchase the house stemmed from a prior debt that Matheson owed to her and her brother. To resolve the issue, she filed an action to quiet title to the property, and the government counterclaimed seeking to enforce the tax lien. Dombrowski’s complaint included a jury demand; the government moved to strike that demand.

read more...

The right to a jury trial is found in the Seventh Amendment to the constitution and is incorporated in Fed Rule of Civil Procedure 38, which provides that a party may demand the right to a jury if it is required under the constitution or otherwise statutorily created.

The quiet title action was brought pursuant to 28 USC 2401(a)(1). The government’s suit to enforce the lien was brought pursuant to 26 USC 7403(a). Neither provides for a statutory right to a jury trial. This is in contrast with 28 USC 2402 which specifically authorizes jury trials in tax refund suits brought in federal district courts.

The opinion concludes that in the absence of statutory language that explicitly gives an individual the right to a jury, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury only as it existed at common law.  The opinion then traces the historical roots of quiet title and lien enforcement actions. Both actions are equitable in nature:

“Like actions for quiet title, courts have consistently held that actions brought by the government to impose federal tax liens are closely related to historical suits in equity used in the enforcement of debt collection; similarly, discharging a lien is an equitable remedy.” 

The opinion goes on to explain that in any event the Seventh Amendment does not apply to actions against the sovereign, even those that have their roots in the common law.

I had not thought about this issue, and while I have some passing familiarity with the history of both causes of action, the opinion nicely explores the intersection of the Seventh Amendment, tax collection litigation and the separate statutory right to a jury trial that is embodied in refund litigation brought in federal district courts.  

This case now proceeds to the merits, with the judge having sole responsibility to determine whether and to what Dombrowski’s house is an asset that the government can reach to satisfy Matheson’s tax debt. The merits include a state law inquiry into whether money she used purchase the property was fraudulently transferred in violation of the Michigan Uniform Voidable Transfers Act. 

One other consideration here is Dombrowski’s decision to bring the quiet title action.  In a situation like this the IRS would file a nominee lien in order to reach the property.  In a prior post we described the nominee lien as the lis pendens of the tax world.  The nominee lien would encumber the property and should cause the IRS to bring the lien foreclosure case itself but would not necessarily trigger a quick filing of a suit on the property.  By bringing the quiet title, Dombrowski triggered the certain response of a lien foreclosure request.  If the IRS has filed a nominee lien, be sure you are ready for the counterclaim when you bring a suit against it.  If you have significant concerns about the transaction, you may want to sit tight and wait for the IRS to make the first move.  The lien does not present much of a problem if you are not planning to sell or encumber the property.  The nominee lien is specific to the property and does not extend to other property that the alleged nominee owns.

Update: To reflect the learned comment of Jack Townsend I have modified the post to make clear that the lack of a right to a jury trial depends on the type of collection suit. I have not chased down the issues Jack ably raises.

Is the IRC § 6428 “2020 Recovery Rebate” Really a Rebate?

In my previous post I challenged the conventional wisdom that the IRS cannot collect on EIPs – the “Economic Impact Payments” taxpayers received under IRC § 6428(f) in calendar year 2020. I argued that the provision in the law reducing your Recovery Rebate Credit (RCC) by the amount of EIP received (“but not below zero”) is irrelevant to the collection options of the EIP. Which by the way is a separate credit from the RCC altogether.

And millions of readers spit out their morning coffee in response to my blasphemy (I imagine).

With this post you may again want to set your coffee to the side. This time, instead of challenging conventional wisdom I challenge the very title of the code section itself: that is, whether IRC § 6428 really created a “2020 rebate” at all -at least as far as the EIP is concerned. I promise this is not merely an academic exercise: whether the EIP is a rebate (and for what year) matters profoundly in determining how the IRS could collect on erroneous payments. Since literally millions of these payments were issued, even a relatively small percentage of erroneous payments would yield a rather large absolute number of effected individuals. Further, newfound Congressional concern for the federal budget deficit and more narrowly targeting any future payments may presage an interest in collecting from those who shouldn’t have received the EIP in the first place. To roughly paraphrase former Senator Everett Dirksen, add a few million here and a few million there, and soon enough you’re talking about real money. 

read more…

The EIP As A Rebate

Without rehashing my prior post too much, the most important aspect of a “rebate” is that it falls into the definition of a “deficiency.” See IRC § 6211(a) and (b)(2). Accordingly, an erroneous rebate could be assessed through the deficiency procedures and collected via administrative lien and levy.

So what is a rebate?

On this point, the statute (and in my opinion, case law) is not particularly straight forward. The statute defines a rebate as “so much of an abatement, credit, refund, or other repayment, as was made on the ground that the tax […] was less than the excess of the amount specified in subsection (a)(1) over the rebates previously made.” Let’s unpack that.

“so much of an abatement, credit, refund, or other repayment…” 

A rebate can be a lot of things: an abatement (that is administrative reduction of tax on the books), a credit, a refund, or just any other “repayment.” So basically any action that says you owe less, you owe nothing, or you get money back. But only in certain circumstances…

“made on the ground that the tax […] was less than the excess of…”

So the credit, refund, etc. has to result from a determination that the tax imposed is less than… something. Specifically:

the amount specified in subsection (a)(1) over the rebates previously made.

In the least helpful way imaginable, subsection (a)(1) is basically referring to the amount of tax shown on your return, plus any other amounts the IRS has already assessed. (And then of course, you have to subtract out any other rebates previously made… But that creates an infinite loop in our quest to define rebate, so we’ll ignore it for now.) Bringing it all together, this means a rebate is a payment etc. made because the tax imposed is actually less than the tax shown on the return plus any other amounts assessed.

In this definition the taxpayer really only has control over one thing: the tax as shown on the return. Every other part hinges on IRS action. At its simplest, it is the IRS determining that the right amount of tax is less than the taxpayer actually thought, thus culminating in a credit, refund, payment, etc.

But is that what’s happening with the EIP? Maybe. I think the step-by-step administration of the EIP can be conceptualized in different ways, but that there is a sync the actual disbursal of the EIP with the treatment of it as a 2019 rebate. Of course, I also think the statutory language (and proper tax administration) necessitates that the EIP be treated as applying to 2019 as a rebate.

EIP: A 2019 or 2020 Animal?

Consider if the EIP were a credit attributable to 2019 -as I’ve argued and as the statutory language seems to say. In that case, the IRS would reduce the amount of tax shown (or previously assessed) by the amount of EIP. This is an amount the which the taxpayer clearly did not claim (they couldn’t), so it is an adjustment by the IRS… Classic rebate.

It would result in a direct payment to the individual because it is refundable (treated as a “payment” under IRC § 6428(f)(1)) and, critically, it is completely free from being offset or reduced “by other assessed Federal taxes” under Sec. 2201(d) of the CARES Act (see Les’s post on the importance of that section here). Those “other assessed Federal taxes” being exactly the ones on the 2019 tax return that would otherwise cut into the check being sent out.

That is at least one way of conceptualizing the EIP that would result in it being subject to deficiency procedures… for 2019. But even if I think that’s how the statute is written, that might not be how the IRS is treating the EIP. The IRS appears to be using 2019 for EIP eligibility determinations but is treating the EIP as a 2020 credit (or payment, or…). My understanding is that IRS account transcripts verify this treatment.

But that doesn’t make it right. The closest thing to a court opinion on point (dealing with the nearly identical statutory language for the 2008 “recovery rebate credits”) strongly backs up the argument that any EIP payment is applicable to 2019.

As covered in Carl Smith’s posts here and here, we can look to the past (the 2008 “recovery rebate” credit, which were also codified at IRC § 6428) to better understand the present. The bill creating the 2008 recovery rebate credit was passed in early 2008, and the checks went out over the course of 2008 -much like the EIP, with 2020 replacing 2008. So we have basically identical circumstances for the credit’s issuance, as well as nearly identical statutory language (where relevant). What has the court said on which year the “advanced” refund applies to?

Here is the money quote from the 2nd Circuit: “the basic credit available under subsections (a) and (b) grants eligible taxpayers a refund applicable to the 2008 tax year, whereas the “advance refunds” available under subsection (g) grants eligible taxpayers a refund applicable to the 2007 tax year.” Sarmiento v. United States, 678 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2012). The 2nd Circuit goes on to disagree with the district court decision treating 2007 only as “measuring” how much credit someone should get, but 2008 as the year the payment actually applies to.

My thoughts exactly. Bringing it to the current iteration, IRC § 6428(f) does indeed measure how much EIP you should get based on 2019. But after measuring how much EIP you get based on 2019, the statute then applies the payment to that same tax year. You know, like a consistent statute would.  

Consider what it would mean if the EIP (IRC § 6428(f)) was applicable to 2020 instead. Under this conceptualization the IRS simply gave people a credit on their 2020 tax return and paid out the value of that credit in advance. 2019 only matters because it gave the IRS some indication of who would be eligible for the credit.

If the EIP is a 2020 credit that is merely measured by referenced to 2019 the deficiency procedures cannot apply to it. Literally no taxpayer “claimed” the EIP on their 2020 tax return, so it cannot possibly be a deficiency on the basis of the taxpayer showing the wrong amount of tax on their return. Further, the EIP wouldn’t meet the statutory definition of a rebate because it wouldn’t be issued based on an IRS determination that the amount of tax shown on the return (or otherwise assessed) was too much. There was no tax 2020 return or tax assessed at the time of the EIP, so there is nothing for the IRS to adjust in the first place. Crazier things have happened, but this would mean that the statute entitled “2020 Recovery rebates for individuals” did not actually pay out rebates in 2020 at all.

Let’s continue to investigate what happens if the EIP is applicable to 2020, and therefore is not a rebate. As far as collection goes, we know that it would not be subject to the deficiency procedures. But after that things get messy.

Is the IRS completely barred from assessment and thus administrative levy and lien? That isn’t clear, because the IRS can assess in certain circumstances without the deficiency procedures. Withholding and estimated tax payments are good examples: if I claim more than I actually paid on my tax return the IRS gets to assess without deficiency procedures. Which is necessary, because both withholding and estimated tax are disregarded in the definition of a deficiency. See IRC § 6211(b)(1). But the IRS is only able to assess without deficiency procedures in that instance because Congress has explicitly said it can under IRC § 6201(a)(3). I don’t see any other provision granting the IRS a method of assessment for recouping erroneous EIPs… though maybe they could use their regulatory authority (see IRC § 6202).

Note that the IRS can still collect from individuals without assessment… it just has extremely limited means of doing so. The IRS can recoup money that shouldn’t have gone out in three ways: politely asking you pay it back, offsetting other tax refunds or bringing a civil suit. In further bad news for the IRS, two of those three options might be effectively out of the question in the case of EIPs. Offset might be barred as a method of collecting erroneously paid EIPs based on the language of Sec. 2201(d), though I think that is an open question. Civil suits would be allowed, but as a matter of practicality would almost certainly not be pursued since they would cost far more than the amount of money being brought in. We are talking about (possibly) millions of relatively small erroneous payments cumulatively making up a large dollar value. A million individual cases is not practical. This means all the IRS could do to collect on erroneous EIPs is to politely ask for it back. I’m not even positive the IRS would go through the effort to do that.

If these three methods of collection look familiar it is because they are what the IRS is forced to resort to when trying to recover money resulting from a clerical or other computing error -for example, sending duplicate refund checks to a single taxpayer. Such payments are referred to as “erroneous nonrebate refunds.” Functionally, if not actually, this is how tax administration would be classifying all erroneous EIPs. But unlike traditional nonrebate refunds this treatment would result even if the mistake was entirely the taxpayer’s fault -say for grossly understating income on their 2019 return. And while that may be how things end up, I don’t think that’s what the statute requires.

Tenth Circuit Raises Possible Defense to IRS Levying Bank Account with Veteran’s Disability Payments

Thanks to celebrity shills such as Alan Thicke even non-tax experts know the reach of IRS’ collection powers. That power extends to allow it to levy on a taxpayer’s property unless that property is subject to a specific exemption in Section 6334(a). Included in that exemption list are things like workers’ compensation and unemployment benefits. Veterans’ disability payments are also on that list.

Last week’s 10th Circuit’s Maehr v Koskinen involved an IRS levy on a bank account that had received the taxpayer’s VA disability deposits. Maehr had challenged the IRS assessment and intention to levy on some of his assets. Maehr appears to be a serial tax protestor, and the order dispenses with the frivolous arguments quickly though not the issue of the levy on the bank account that held his VA payments.

That issue requires a bit more context and analysis. Maehr had an account at Wells Fargo that received his VA disability payments. Under Section 6334(a)(10), IRS is precluded from directly levying on certain armed force connected disability benefits. Maehr argued that Section 6334(a)(10) should protect the assets in the bank account since the funds were comprised of VA disability benefits that are exempt from levy.

read more...

The government raised two arguments against Maehr’s challenge to that levy:

(1) the IRS did not place a direct levy on any exempt VA disability payments; and (2) even if the IRS is improperly levying exempt disability payments, the only remedy available to the taxpayer would be full payment of the assessment of his tax liability followed by a suit for refund in district court.

The arguments are closely related. The second of the arguments relates to the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which, is codified at Section 7421 and provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” In other words, taxpayers unhappy with IRS enforced collection actions are generally unable to get a court to enjoin the IRS from going forward with its collection powers, including levy. We have discussed the AIA on numerous occasions, as courts in the past few years have been poking holes in that restriction. Even before some of the recent exceptions, then Chief Justice Warren in the Williams Packing case crafted a two-pronged common law exception to the AIA: 1) that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail and 2) that equity jurisdiction otherwise exists. Courts have generally looked at that last part of Williams Packing as requiring the taxpayer to prove irreparable injury stemming from the IRS’s proposed collection action.

Taxpayers subject to collection action for excise and employment taxes that were outside the deficiency procedures have often faced the AIA’s reach when IRS sought to collect even while a refund proceeding was in the works. In a 1977 case called Marvel v US the 10th Circuit used the AIA to dispense with a taxpayer trying to challenge the IRS’s levying of business’s assets during a district court refund suit following a partial payment of employment taxes. In Maehr, the 10th Circuit distinguished Marvel on the facts, noting that Maehr also had a cause of action in addition to injunction (I assume a wrongful collection claim as well).

Despite the distinction, the 10th Circuit addressed the broader AIA issue and found that Maehr satisfied the Williams Packing narrow exception allowing the suit to continue:

If the IRS had placed a direct levy on Appellant’s VA disability benefits, we have little doubt that Appellant would have been able to satisfy the Williams Packing test and obtain injunctive relief. We see no possibility of the government prevailing on the merits in such a case, and a disabled veteran will likely be able to show that he will suffer irreparable injury if the government is not enjoined from illegally levying the VA benefits on which he relies for his maintenance and survival. See Comm’r v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614, 627 (1976)…

What about the government’s argument that the IRS was not directly going after the VA disability benefits, since the funds were sitting in a bank account? The Tenth Circuit briefly addressed that:

However, here the government has not directly levied Appellant’s VA benefits, and it suggests that it may do indirectly what it may not do directly—that it may wait until exempt VA disability benefits have been directly deposited into Appellant’s bank account and then promptly obtain them through a levy on all funds in the bank account, despite their previously exempt status. The government cites no authority to support this argument, and the few cases we have found adopting such a rule, see, e.g., Calhoun v. United States, 61 F.3d 918 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision); United States v. Coker, 9 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1301–02 (S.D. Ala. 2014); Hughes v. IRS, 62 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800–01 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), have not considered whether this result is consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Porter Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962), or with 38 U.S.C. § 5301’s prohibition against the levy of veterans’ benefit payments either before or after receipt by a beneficiary.

I was not familiar with either the Porter case or 38 U.S.C. § 5301, and this opinion nudged me to look at both. Porter v Aetna Casualty involves a private creditor and not the IRS but it held that VA disability benefits paid to an incompetent veteran and deposited in a federal savings and loan association were exempted from attachment by 38 U.S.C. § 3101(a) [now codified at 38 USC 5301(a)(1)]. That statute provides that payments administered by the VA “shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States arising under such laws nor shall the exemption therein contained as to taxation extend to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments.” (emphasis added).

So Title 38 has its own protection of VA disability benefits that goes beyond the Internal Revenue Code. As I said, Porter did not involve an IRS levy (instead it involved a private creditor) but it did directly consider the reach of the Title 38 protection when the disability benefits were held after payment. The savings and loan rules at issue in Porter treated the depositor as a shareholder, requiring a 30-day demand before the S&L shareholder could reach the proceeds. Porter considered whether the deposit of the VA disability payments in a savings and loan essentially constituted after-acquired property that was no longer protected by Title 38. Porter discusses the earlier case of Lawrence v. Shaw, 300 U. S. 245 (1937), where the Court held that “bank credits derived from veterans’ benefits were within the exemption, the test being whether, as so deposited, the benefits remained subject to demand and use as the needs of the veteran for support and maintenance required.” On the other hand, the Court had held in a prior case that a veteran’s purchase of bonds with the VA proceeds removed the protection of the statute and those bonds constituted an after-acquired investment.

Porter resolved the issue as to whether the S&L account was more like the bank deposit case or the after-acquired investment:

Since legislation of this type should be liberally construed… to protect funds granted by the Congress for the maintenance and support of the beneficiaries thereof… we feel that deposits such as are involved here should remain inviolate. The Congress, we believe, intended that veterans in the safekeeping of their benefits should be able to utilize those normal modes adopted by the community for that purpose — provided the benefit funds, regardless of the technicalities of title and other formalities, are readily available as needed for support and maintenance, actually retain the qualities of moneys, and have not been converted into permanent investments.

Back to Maehr and the IRS’s Collection Powers

The Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court to consider whether the reach of Porter and whether the “IRS has improperly levied exempt VA disability benefits by placing a levy on all funds in the bank account where Appellant’s disability benefits are deposited.” It left open the question of remedy, expressing “no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this claim or on the unresolved questions regarding the availability of the types of relief Appellant has sought or may seek in an amended Complaint.”

This is an interesting opinion and raises a possible defense to collection on a certain kind of asset, i.e., a bank account that holds veteran’s disability payments. It seems that IRS at the district court should emphasize Section 6334(c), which provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).” Likewise the regulations under Section 6334 provide that “no other property or rights to property are exempt from levy except the property specifically exempted by section 6334(a).”

IRS has a longstanding position that once the funds move from the excepted payor to the taxpayer, the funds lose their exemption. The Porter case and Maehr’s unearthing it suggest a possible barrier to the vast collection powers that IRS generally has when there is a bank account that has solely as the source of its deposits disability payments the IRS would be unable to reach directly. Given the explicit language in Section 6334(c) and IRS’s longstanding view that the exempted property loses its character when the funds reach the taxpayer I would expect a vigorous challenge to extending Porter to include protection from the reach of an IRS levy. In addition, even if that protection were extended, there could be some interesting second order questions. Query for example  the tracing problems if the account has other funds beyond the disability payments or if the IRS were to show that the taxpayer had other funds that he used to meet his necessities beyond the disability payments.

Procedure Grab Bag – Making A Grab for Attorney’s Fees and Civil Damages

Your clients love the idea, and always think the government should pay, but it isn’t that easy.  Below are a summary of a handful of cases highlighting many pitfalls, and a few helpful pointers, in recovering legal fees and civil damages from the government (sorry federal readers) that have come out over the last few months.

read more...

3rd Party Rights

The Ninth Circuit, in US v. Optional Capital, Inc., held that a third party holding a lien on property could not obtain attorney’s fees for an in rem proceeding to determine its rights in real estate that had also been subject to government liens pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 28 USC 2465(b)(1)(A), or Section 7430.  The Court determined the 3rd party was not the prevailing party “in any civil proceeding to forfeit property,” as required by CAFRA.  The government had lost in a related hearing regarding the lien, but the 3rd party had “not pointed to any work it performed that was ‘useful’ or ‘necessary to secure’ victory against the Government,” so it was not the prevailing party.  It would seem, however, this leaves open the possibility of other 3rd parties prevailing, if meaningful work was done in the underlying case.  This case is a good reminder of another potential option under CAFRA in attempting to claim fees in certain collection matters.

As to Section 7430, the Court found, contrary to the 3rd party’s claims, it had not actually removed the government’s liens from the property, and therefore could not be considered the prevailing party, which is required under Section 7430 to obtain fees.

When You Are Rich Is Important

In Bryan S. Alterman Trust v. Comm’r, the Tax Court held that a trust could not qualify to recover litigation costs under Section 7430 because its net worth was over $2MM.  Section 7430 references 28 USC 2412(d)(2)(B), which states an individual must have under $2MM in net worth in order to recover litigation costs.  That is extended to trusts by Section 7430(c)(4)(D).  The taxpayer argued the eligibility requirement should be as of the time the deficiency notice was issued or the date the petition was filed.  That “reading” of the statute was found incorrect, as Section 7430(c)(4)(D)(i)(II) states the provision applies to a trust, “but shall be determined as of the last day of the taxable year involved in the proceeding.”  At that time, the trust had over $2MM in net worth, saving the IRS from potentially having to shell out capital.  And, that’s why I always keep my trust balances below $2MM…and right around zero dollars.

Key Questions: Are you the Taxpayer?  Did you Exhaust the Administrative Remedies?

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the government’s motion for summary judgment in Garlovsky v. United States on fees under Section 7433, but also gave clear indication that the claim is in danger.  In Garlovsky, the government sought collection on trust fund recovery penalties against an individual for his nursing home employer that allegedly failed to pay employment taxes.  Prior to that collection action, the individual died, and notices were sent to his surviving spouse (who apparently was some type of fiduciary and received his assets).  The taxpayer’s wife paid a portion, and then sued for a refund.  As to damages, the Court found that the taxpayer’s wife failed to make an administrative claim for civil damages before suing in the District Court, which is required under Section 7433.

In addition, although the surviving spouse received the collection notices, none were addressed to her and the Service had not attempted to collect from her.  Section 7433 states, “in connection with any collection of…tax…the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provisions of this title…such taxpayer may bring a civil action…”  The Court found that the spouse was not “such taxpayer”, and likely did not have a claim.  Although I have not researched this matter, I would assume the estate of the decedent could bring this claim (unlike Section 7431, pertaining to claims for wrongful disclosure of tax information, which some courts have held dies with the taxpayer – see Garrity v. United States –a case I think I wrote up, but never actually posted).

Qualifying as a Qualified Offer

The 9th Circuit held that married taxpayers were not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under Section 7430 in Simpson v. Comm’r, where the taxpayer did not substantially prevail on its primary argument, even though they did prevail on an alternative argument.  In Simpson, the wife received a substantial recovery in an employment lawsuit.  The Simpsons only included a small portion as income, arguing it was workers comp proceeds (not much evidence of that).  The Tax Court held 90% was income.  This was upheld.  The 9th Circuit held that the taxpayer was clearly not successful on its primary claim.  They did raise an ancillary claim during litigation, which the IRS initially contested, but then conceded.  The Court held the Service was substantially justified in its position, as the matter was raised later in the process and was agreed to within a reasonable time.  Finally, the Court held that the taxpayer’s settlement offer did not qualify as a “qualified offer”, since the taxpayers indicated they could withdraw it at any time.  Qualified offers must remain open until the earliest of the date it is rejected, the date trial begins, or the 90th day after it is made.  Something to keep in mind when making an offer.

Making the Granite State Stronger – No Fees For FOIA

Granite seems pretty sturdy, but Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire are hoping for something even sturdier.  The District Court for the District of New Hampshire in Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire v. IRS has denied Strong New Hampshire’s request for attorney’s fees under 5 USC 552(a)(4)(E)(i) for fees incurred in bringing its FOIA case.  That USC section authorizes fees and litigation costs “reasonably incurred in any case under [FOIA] in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.”  The statute defines “substantially prevailing” as obtaining relief through “(I) a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree; or (II) a voluntary…change in position by the agency…”

Strong New Hampshire requested documents through a FOIA request regarding various New Hampshire politicians.  It took the IRS a long time to get back to Strong New Hampshire, and it withheld about half the applicable documents as exempt under FOIA.  Strong New Hampshire continued to move forward with the suit, and the Service moved for summary judgement arguing it complied.  Aspects remained outstanding, but the Court held that the Service had not improperly withheld the various documents.  The IRS did a second search, moved for summary judgement, and Strong New Hampshire did not contest.

The Court held that the voluntary subsequent search by the Service did not raise to the level of substantially prevailing by Strong New Hampshire.  As required by the statute, there was not a court order in favor of Strong New Hampshire, and the actions taken by the Service unilaterally in doing the second search was not sufficient to merit fees.

Procedure Grab Bag – Collection Financial Standards & 7-Eleven

Over the last two months, the IRS has made two administrative changes that we didn’t previously cover that impact the collection of taxes, predominately from low income taxpayers.  One is fairly negative (National Standards for collection potential), and I have mixed feelings about the other (paying taxes while buying a Big Gulp).

Deflation Nation

The Service has issued updated National Standards for taxpayer expenses when determining collection potential.  These amounts are what the Service views as reasonable expenses for food, housekeeping supplies, clothing, and miscellaneous expenses.  A taxpayer can rely on the National Standards without having to put forth any evidence of the actual expenses paid.  The Service also issues amounts by County for taxpayers for expenses relating to housing and utilities.  If a taxpayer seeks to claim expenses in excess of the National Standards (or local for housing), the taxpayer has to substantiate the same and prove the additional expense is necessary.  This can be onerous, especially for people using predominately cash, those who are ESL, and those with temporary housing.

The most recent National Standards, and at least some of the local housing and utilities amounts, have decreased from 2015.  The new 2016 amounts are:

read more...

Expense One Person Two Persons Three Persons Four Persons
Food $307 $583 $668 $815
Housekeeping supplies $30 $60 $60 $71
Apparel & services $80 $148 $193 $227
Personal care products & services $34 $61 $62 $74
Miscellaneous $119 $231 $266 $322
Total $570 $1,083 $1,249 $1,509

 

More than four persons Additional Persons Amount
For each additional person, add to four-person total allowance: $341

Source: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/national-standards-food-clothing-and-other-items

While in 2014 (and I think 2015), those amounts were:

Expense One Person Two Persons Three Persons Four Persons
Food $315 $588 $660 $794
Housekeeping supplies $30 $66 $69 $74
Apparel & services $88 $162 $209 $244
Personal care products & services $34 $61 $64 $70
Miscellaneous $116 $215 $251 $300
Total $583 $1,092 $1,249 $1,482

 

More than four persons Additional Persons Amount
For each additional person, add to four-person total allowance: $298

 

For larger families, the amount increased slightly, but for smaller families, the amount decreased, when many taxpayers making these types of offers were already feeling the pinch.  Various local amounts for housing and utilities also decreased, some of which by over $100.   When putting both together, collection potential is increased by well over $100, perhaps approaching $200 per month.  Having worked in the clinic at Villanova and assisting various pro bono clients in my private practice, I know most taxpayers using these standards felt the national amounts were difficult to live on and assumed significantly more discretionary income than they had.  That got squeezed a bit more with these adjustments.

7-Eleven Payment Heaven

The IRS has issued a new cash payment option largely aimed at helping unbanked taxpayers pay their taxes.  The notice can be found here.  The payment option allows taxpayers to use cash to pay their taxes at the over 7,000 domestic 7-Elevens (not sure it works in the roughly billion international 7-Elevens—I had no idea it was so popular overseas).   This is being done with a partnership with PayNearMe and ACI Worldwide’s  Officialpayments.com.  With rumors that the IRS will stop allowing walk in cash tax payments (already only allowed in limited locations) and taxpayers receiving penalties for certain cash payments, any additional payment method for those without bank accounts and credit cards is welcome.  I’ll be honest, the idea of 7-Eleven collecting our taxes is entertaining and seems quintessentially American (even if it is owned by a Japanese company).  It also makes me nervous, as outsourcing tax collection in other areas has not panned out well, and the franchise model strikes me as potentially allowing for less corporate oversight (7-Eleven in Australia is also currently battling a huge human rights issue over its wages).  Also, Slurpees are gross.  But, apparently other countries have been using 7-Elevens to pay some taxes and traffic tickets, so maybe this will work out splendidly.

Ignoring the major Slurpee issue, the IRS program requires the taxpayer to go to IRS.gov and to the payments page (so, no bank account, but easy access to the internet is needed).  There you select the cash option, and walk through the steps.  Once the taxpayer’s info is in the page, the taxpayer will receive an email from Officialpayments.com, which confirms their information.  The IRS then has to verify the information, at which point PayNearMe sends the taxpayer another email, with a link to a payment code and instructions (this is sort of seeming like a pain in the @$*).  The individual can then print the payment code, or send it to his or her smart phone.  The taxpayer then can go the closest 7-Eleven, make the payment, and receive a receipt.  Only $1000 per day can be paid, and there is a $3.99 charge per payment.

I applaud the notion, but the implementation, especially for low income and ESL, seems pretty onerous.  I’m not sure all taxpayers who may need to use this service have easy access to the internet, computers, email addresses, printers, and/or smart phones.  Not to mention, there are quite a few steps, this does take a while, and we are charging them to pay their taxes.

The IRS is also encouraging taxpayers to start the process well ahead of tax time, due to the three step process, and the fact that the funds “usually posts to the taxpayer’s account within two business days.”  The notice does not indicate what the payment date is for the penalties and interest, but the notice would seem to indicate it is the posting date and not the date the taxpayer hands the funds over to 7-Eleven.  I don’t think Section 6151 has a Kwik-E-Mart exception for time of paying tax, and I do not think 7-Eleven qualifies as a government depository under Section 6302, so taxpayers do need to be certain to allow for substantial time to pass between the payment date and the tax return due date.

Summary Opinions Catch Up Part II

Second part of the catch up.  These materials are largely from February.  One more installment coming shortly.  We may be renaming SumOp.  Although I loved the name (thanks Prof. Grewal), this keeps getting linked as a summary of all Tax Court summary opinions.  Feel free to suggest names, although it may just fall under the Grab Bag title from now on.  And, if you work at a law firm that is taxed as a C-corporation, check out the Brinks, Gibson discussion below.  Might be a little scary.

read more...

  • Most of you probably heard that the Form 8971 was issued for basis reporting in estates.  Form can be found here and instructions here.  First set will (probably, although it has been extended a couple times already) be due June 30th.  Pretty good summary can be found here.  Lots of complaints so far.
  • The Fourth Circuit had a recent Chapter 7 priority case in Stubbs & Perdue, PA v. Angell (In re Anderson).  In Stubbs (great name), S&P were lawyers who represented Mr. Anderson.  Initially, the case was a Chapter 11 case, and S&P racked up $200k in legal fees.  Priority, but unsecured.  There was also over $1MM in secured tax debt.  The bankruptcy converted to a Chapter 7, and S&P were tossed in with the unsecured debtors, which they took exception with.  The Court looked to the current version of section 724(b)(2) of the bankruptcy code.  That section allows certain unsecured creditors to “step into the shoes” of secured creditors, and recover before other creditors.  Due to perceived abuses, that section had been amended in 2010 to limit the expenses that were given super priority, including Chapter 11 administrative expenses when the case was converted to a Chapter 7 case.  The amended provision was in place when the conversion occurred, and the Fourth Circuit relied on that version of the law, disallowing the legal fees super priority.  The law firm argued the prior version of the statute should apply, as it was the applicable statute when the originally filing occurred, but the Fourth did not agree.  Why does this really matter? It is the federal tax liability supported by the federal tax lien that gets subordinated to pay these priority claims.  So, the fight in this insolvent estate boiled down to whether the lawyers, who may have waited too long to convert the case to Chapter 7, or the IRS get paid (of course, the decision to convert is a client decision which puts the lawyer’s ability to get their fees at the mercy of the rationality of the client’s decision. A bad place to be) (thanks to Keith for giving me a quick primer on this subject).
  • The Tax Court in Brinks, Gilson & Lione, PC v. Commissioner has probably caused quite a bit of concern for quite a few law firms – or should (which reminds me, I have something to discuss with the Gawthrop management committee).  McGuire Woods has a good write up, and some insight into planning around the issue, which is found here.  The facts are that the firm would provide partners with a salary, and then at year end it would take all the profits and provide year-end bonuses to the partners, who would treat the amounts as W-2 wages.  This would wipe out the profits, so the c-corporation law firm would have no tax due (sounds familiar to a lot of you in private practice, doesn’t it?).  This firm had close to 300 non-lawyer employees who generated profits, and the IRS said that treating the bonus amount as w-2 income on to the partners on what those other folks generated was improper.  The corporation should have paid tax, and then dividends should have been issued to the partners, who would also then pay tax.  Yikes!  That is interesting enough, but the Court also found that the firm lacked substantial authority for its positions and there was no reasonable cause under Section 6662(d)(2)(B), so substantial penalties were also due on the corporate income tax due (the regulations do not allow for an “everyone else is doing it” defense).
  • Sometimes you go into court just knowing you are going to look like an @s$ for one reason or another.  I may have felt that way walking in to argue Estate of Stuller for the government before the Seventh Circuit.  Not because I would have been wrong, but, based on the opinion, the taxpayer was having a pretty bad year.  In Stuller, the Court held that the penalties for failure to timely file returns were proper when a restaurant business owner (who was a widow) missed the filing deadline.  In the year in question, the husband died in a tragic fire, which also injured the widow.  In addition, a key employee was embezzling from her businesses and she had difficulty tracking down aspects of the probate proceedings.  The Court found all required info could have been found in her records, and she did not exercise ordinary business care and prudence to fulfill the requirements of the reasonable cause exception (it probably didn’t help that she was taking questionable deductions related to her “horse” business that lost like $1.5MM in the preceding years).
  • We have covered Rand pretty extensively here on the blog, including the reversal of it by section 209 of the PATH Act and the Chief Counsel advice that followed, which can be found here.    In February, additional guidance was released stating there are no longer any situations where the Section 6676 penalty is subject to deficiency procedures, which was the same conclusion our (guest) blogger, Carlton Smith, came to in his post discussing the Kahanyshyn case.  Carl, however, reflected upon this more, and concluded there may, in fact, be a situation where the deficiency procedures might apply to a Section 6676 penalty.  I’m somewhat quoting Carl (via email) here.  All intelligent comments are Carl’s, while any errors are assuredly mine:

If you recall from prior posts, in PMTA 2012-016…the IRS changed its position and held that where it had frozen the refund of a refundable credit, there was no “underpayment” for purposes of section 6664(a) because the freezing of the refund should be considered as “an amount so shown [on the tax return] previously assessed (or collection without assessment)” under section 6664(a)(1)(B). So, there can be no assessment of a section 6662 or 6663 penalty in that circumstance.

However, section 6676′s penalty on excessive refund claims can apply even if the refund is never paid. Accordingly, within the PMTA, the IRS states (I think correctly) that where it freezes a refund of a disallowed refundable tax credit, it can assert a section 6676 penalty instead.

The PATH Act did two significant things to section 6676: It removed the previous exception to applying the penalty with respect to EITC claims. It changed the defense to the penalty from the troublesome proof of “reasonable basis” (an objective test) to the easier “reasonable cause” (a subjective one).

So, we may see section 6676 assessments in the future where refundable credits were improperly claimed, but the refund was frozen.…If a taxpayer improperly claimed, say, an EITC, but the refund was frozen, the IRS would later issue a notice of deficiency to permanently disallow the EITC.  The IRS could also assess a section 6676 penalty (assuming no reasonable cause), since it is the claiming of an improper refund that triggers the section 6676 penalty, not its payment.

It is still an open question whether or not the section 6676 penalty on disallowed frozen refundable credit claims will be asserted by the deficiency procedures or the straight-to-assessment procedures usually involved in the assessable penalties part of the Code.

  • In United States v. Smith, the District Court for the Western District of Washington reviewed a community spouse’s argument that her portion of the community property house could not be used to satisfy her husband’s tax debt from his fraud.  I found this write up of the case from a law firm out west, Miles Stockbridge.  The Court upheld the foreclosure, finding the wife did not show that she was entitled to the exception of collecting against community property under Section 66(c), nor did she show that the debt was not a community property debt by clear and convincing evidence, as required under Washington law.
  • Nothing too novel in US v. Wallis, from the District Court of the Western District of Virginia in February of 2016, but a good review of suspension provisions to collection statute.  In Wallis, the Service  took collection actions after the ten year period found under Section 6502 for penalties under Section 6722.  The Court found collection was not prohibited, as the statute was tolled due to the taxpayer’s bankruptcy and OIC/CDP hearings.  Sorry, couldn’t find a free version.
  • The folks over at The Simple Dollar have asked that we provide you with links to some of their content.  This post is about the best tax software for nonprofessionals to use for doing their own taxes.  This site is geared to the general public, but has some basic finance and tax info.  These are usually in the form of listicles, which are completely click bait, but are hard to hate.

 

 

 

 

Summary Opinions for 9/21/15 to 10/2/15

Running a little behind on the Summary Opinions.  Should hopefully be caught up through most of October by the end of this week.  Some very good FOIA, whistleblower, and private collections content in this post.  Plus fantasy football tax cheats, business on boats, and lots of banks getting sued.  Here are the items from the end of September that we didn’t otherwise write about:

read more...

  • Let’s start with some FOIA litigation. The District Court for the District of Columbia issued two opinions relating to Cause of Action, which holds itself out as an advocate for government accountability.  On August 28th, the Court ruled regarding a FOIA request by Cause for various documents relating to Section 6103(g) requests, which would include all request by the executive office of the Prez for return information, plus all such requests by that office that were not related to Section 6103(g), and all requests for disclosure by an agency of return information pursuant to Sections 6103(i)(1), (2), & (3)(A).   The IRS failed to release any information pursuant to the last two requests, taking the position that records discussing return information would be “return information” themselves, and therefore should be withheld under FOIA exemption 3.  There are various holdings in this case, but the one I found most interesting was the determination that the request by the Executive Branch and the IRS responses may not be “return information” per se, which would require a review by the IRS of the applicable documents.  Although the petition was drafted in broad terms, this Washington Times article indicates the plaintiff was seeking records regarding the Executive Branch looking into them specifically, presumably as some type of retaliation.

In a second opinion issued on September 16th, in Cause of Action v. TIGTA, Judge Jackson granted TIGTA’s motion for summary judgement because after litigation and in camera review, the Court determined none of the found documents were responsive.  This holding was related to the same case as above, but the IRS had shifted a portion of the FOIA request to TIGTA.  Initially, TIGTA issued a Glomar response, indicating it could not confirm or deny the existence (I assume for privacy reasons, not national defense).  The Court found that was inapplicable, and TIGTA was forced to do a review and found 2,500 records, which it still withheld.  Cause of Action tried to force disclosure, but the Court did an in camera review and found the responsive records were not actually applicable.

  • That was complicated.  Now for something completely different.  This HR Block infographic is trying to get you all investigated for tax fraud.  In summary, 75 million of the 319 million people in America play fantasy football, and roughly none are paying taxes on their winnings.  If you click on the infographic, we know you are guilty.  Thankfully, my teams this year are abysmal, so I won’t be committing tax fraud…my wife on the other hand has a juggernaut in our shared league…To all of our IRS readers, please ignore this post.
  • Now a couple whistleblower cases.  In Whistleblower One 10683W v. Comm’r, the Tax Court held that the whistleblower was entitled to review relevant information relating to the denial of the award based on information provided by the whistleblower.  The whistleblower had requested information relating to the investigation of the target, the disclosed sham transaction, and the amounts collected, but the IRS took the position that certain items requested were not in the Whistleblower Office’s file, and were, therefore, beyond the scope of discovery (denied, but we don’t have to explain ourselves).  The Court disagreed and found the information was relevant and subject to review by the whistleblower.  Further, the IRS was not unilaterally allowed to decide what was part of the administrative record.  Another case that perhaps casts a negative light on how the IRS is handling the whistleblower program.
  • On September 21st, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida declined a pro se’s request for reconsideration of a petition for injunctive relief against the IRS to force it to investigate his whistleblower claim in Meidinger v. Comm’r (sorry couldn’t find a free link to this order).  Mr. Meidinger likely knew the court lacked jurisdiction, and this was the purview of the tax court —  Here is a write up by fellow blogger, Lew Taishoff, on Mr. Meidinger’s failed tax court case.  Lew’s point back in 2013 on the case still rings true:  “But the administrative agency here has its own check and balances, provided by the Legislative branch.  There’s TIGTA, whose mission is ‘(T)o provide integrated audit, investigative, and inspection and evaluation services that promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the administration of the internal revenue laws.’ Might could be y’all should take a look at how the Whistleblower Office is doing.”  The tax court really can’t force an investigation, but TIGTA could put some pressure on the WO to do so.  After taking a shot at the IRS, I should note I know nothing of the facts in this case, and Mr. Meidinger may have no right to an award, and TIGTA has flagged various issues in the program.  It just doesn’t feel like significant progress is being made.
  • I found Strugala v. Flagstar Bank  pretty interesting, which dealt with a taxpayer trying to bring a private action under Section 6050H.  Plaintiff Lisa Strugala filed a class action suit against Flagstar Bank for its practice of reporting, and then in future years ceasing to report, capitalized interest on the borrower’s Form 1098s.  Flagstar Bank apparently had a loan that allowed borrowers to pay less than all the interest due each month, resulting in interest being added to the principal amount due.  At year end, the bank would issue a 1098 showing the interest paid and the interest deferred.  In 2011, the bank ceased putting the deferred interest on the form.  Plaintiff claims that the bank’s practice violated Section 6050H, which only requires interest paid to be included.  The over-reporting of interest, she claims, causes tens of thousands of tax returns to be filed incorrectly.  Further, upon the sale of her home, Strugala believed that the bank received accrued interest income that it didn’t report to her.  A portion of the case was dismissed, but the remainder was transferred to the IRS under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The Court found the IRS had not stated how the borrower should report interest in this particular situation, and that it should determine whether or not this was a violation.  In addition, Section 6050H didn’t have a private right under the statute.  I was surprised that this was not a case of first impression.  The Court references another action from a few years ago with identical facts.  However, perhaps I shouldn’t not have been, as this is somewhat similar to the BoA case Les wrote about last year, where taxpayers sued Bank of America alleging fraudulent 1098s had been issued relating to restructuring of mortgage loans.
  • The Tax Court has held in Estate of John DiMarco v. Comm’r, that an estate was not entitled to a charitable deduction where individual beneficiaries were challenging the disposition of assets.  Under the statute, the funds have to be set aside solely for charity, and the chance of it benefiting an individual have to be  “so remote as to be negligible.”  Here, the litigation made it impossible to make that claim.
  • My firm has a fairly large maritime practice, which makes sense given our sizable port in West Chester, PA (there is not actually a port, but we do a ton of maritime work).  That made me excited about this crossover tax procedure and maritime  Chief Counsel Advice dealing with Section 1359(a).  Most of our readers probably do not run across Section 1359 too frequently.  Section 1359 provides non-recognition treatment for the sale of a qualifying vessel, similar to what Section 1031 does for like kind real estate transactions.  This applies for entities that have elected the tonnage tax regime under Section 1352, as opposed to the normal income tax regime.  In general, the replacement vessel can be purchased one year before the disposition or three years afterwards.  But, (b)(2) states, “or subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Secretary, on such later date as the Secretary may designate on application by the taxpayer.  Such application shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.”  Those regulations do not exist.  The CCA determined that even though the regulations do not exist, the IRS must consider a request for an extension of time to purchase a replacement vessel, as the Regs are clearly supposed to deal with extensions by request.
  • From The Hill, another article against the IRS use of private collection agencies.