How Big Will My Recovery Rebate Be??

0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×

We welcome back guest blogger Bob Probasco.  Bob runs the tax clinic at Texas A&M but has many years of experience in accounting and law firms before taking on his current position.  This week we have been talking about offset and Bob raises another issue concerning offset that we have not discussed and that has not been discussed in the press concerning the CARES rebate.  We have made it clear that the CARES rebate passes by the normal offset provisions (except for child support) but Bob points out that maybe that overstates the way it will work.  Read on and let us know your thoughts.  Keith

PT has some recent outstanding posts by Carl Smith (Part I and Part II) and Nina Olson (Part I, Part II, and Part III) on the CARES Act, both generally and specifically concerning the Recovery Rebates (or “economic stimulus payments”).  If you haven’t read them yet, you should – I have a much better sense of the problems and likely results than I had before.  There has also been a lot of chatter recently on the Pro Bono & Tax Clinics community in ABA Connect, another great resource with very knowledgeable contributors from whom I’ve learned a lot.

Today, I want to discuss a question that I haven’t really seen mentioned elsewhere.  (Perhaps it has been, and I just haven’t been reading as widely as I’d like to during this hectic time.)  It concerns the amount of the advance refunds.  The impression many people have is that the advance refunds will only be offset against a taxpayer’s past-due child support obligations; otherwise, the taxpayer will receive the full amount. 

I’m not sure that’s correct.

read more...

Section 2201(d) of the CARES Act states:

Any credit or refund allowed or made to any individual by reason of section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) or by reason of subsection (c) of this section shall not be—

(1) subject to reduction or offset pursuant to section 3716 or 3720A of title 31, United States Code,

(2) subject to reduction or offset pursuant to subsection (d), (e), or (f) of section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or

(3) reduced or offset by other assessed Federal taxes that would otherwise be subject to levy or collection.

That sounds pretty good and has rightly been praised as a huge improvement over the 2008 stimulus payments. 

Carl’s Part II post discusses how the IRS was able to keep those 2008 payments under the terms of offers in compromise (OICs).  The Second Circuit approved.  I’m not entirely sure whether the terms of an OIC would take precedence over § 2201(d) of the CARES Act, but it might.  However, there’s another possible exception to § 2201(d), resulting from the structure of the advance refunds.

New § 6428(f)(1) states that taxpayers who were eligible individuals for their 2019 tax return “shall be treated as having made a payment against the tax for [the 2019 tax year] in an amount equal to” what would have been allowed as a refundable credit for 2019 if § 6428 had applied to 2019.   Section 6428(f)(3)(A) then goes on to say:  “The Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of this title, refund or credit any overpayment attributable to this section as rapidly as possible.”  That’s the actual authority to make the advance refunds and seems patterned after § 6402(a).

Treating the advance refund amount as a payment and then authorizing a refund of any overpayment is the same method used for the 2008 stimulus payments.  (Carl quotes the 2008 version of § 6428 in the comments of his Part I post.)  There are some obvious advantages of this method.  The stimulus payments are classified as tax refunds and therefore: (a) not taxable income and (b) not “resources” for eligibility determinations for benefits and assistance under Federal programs or State programs partially financed by Federal funds.

It also appears to have a possible drawback.  It works well if there is no balance outstanding for the 2019 (or 2018 if no 2019 tax return was filed) tax year.  The advance refund amount, treated as a payment, is the same as the overpayment.  It also works well if there was a frozen refund for 2019, as the frozen refund would not be “attributable to” Section 6428; only the advance refund amount would be refunded.  But what if there were a balance owed by the taxpayer for 2019?

Here’s a simple example.  Sam has filed a tax return for 2019, which the IRS uses to determine the advance refund amount.  Sam wanted to file the return in order to get an advance refund but was unable to pay the entire tax liability shown on the return.  There was a $2,000 balance owed to the government.  The advance refund amount for Sam is $1,200, so the IRS records a $1,200 payment in the 2019 tax year.  And there is no overpayment to be refunded; instead, there is now an $800 underpayment.  Sam receives no money now or when filing the 2020 tax return because the $1,200 has been offset against the 2019 tax liability. 

That seems inconsistent with the spirit of § 2201(d) of the CARES Act, doesn’t it?  This is a time to get money to people who desperately need it, not to recover amounts they owe.  Is this an unintended consequence, that the drafters did not anticipate?  But the same thing can happen on the 2020 return, if there is no advance refund – the refundable credit will not be refunded in full if the return shows a net amount due from the taxpayer before the credit.  So, a similar result with the advance refund may be intentional, or at least a result that the drafters knew about.

Maybe I’m missing something here.  If not, this may be an unpleasant surprise for those taxpayers it affects – hopefully few in number – after hearing the information that has been shared publicly about the rebate and advance refund provision.

Comments

  1. Carl Smith says

    Let me here offer that if anyone finds that his or her stimulus check for the 2019 year was taken as additional consideration for an OIC involving prior-year taxes entered into in 2019, I would be happy to arrange for the preparation of a refund claim and to work on a district court test case challenging the taking. The test case would litigate two issues: (1) whether the OIC additional consideration language overrides CARES Act section 2201(d), and (2) whether the stimulus check relates to 2019 or 2020 — an issue that pretty evenly split the bankruptcy and district courts in the case of the 2008 check.

    Since I am only admitted to the EDNY and SDNY (which are likely bound by the Second Circuit’s opinion in Sarmiento that the check relates to the earlier year — there 2007), and the test case would be best if not in the Second Circuit, I will probably look for a clinic in the area where the district court suit can be filed for lead counsel in the test case. I still have all the briefing from the Sarmiento case.

  2. If that interpretation is correct, this can affect many taxpayers. It would hit every taxpayer that efiled their 2019 return, but scheduled their payment (either direct debit or check) for April 15 and has the option toextend that time to July 15.

    • Bob Probasco says

      John,

      Excellent point. Bob Kamman mentioned the same problem to me.

      If a taxpayer is still relatively comfortable, it may work out the same in the end. He can adjust the scheduled July 15th payment to account for application of the advance refund. But that is “in the end” – it still means he has lost the intended benefit of deferring that 2019 payment from April 15 to July 15.

      And if he is suffering economically from the pandemic, perhaps from losing a job, he is much worse off in the end. Absent this result, he would get cash in hand and then cancel the scheduled payment on July 15th. OK, he still owes the balance for 2019 but at least he has the advance refund cash in hand. But with this result, he owes a smaller balance for 2019 and never gets the cash in hand.

      I think I’d give 3 to 1 odds (for only a very modest best) that no one had thought through – and if they didn’t, may not have taken it into account when programming – the toxic combination of (a) the structure of the advance refund mechanism and (b) rescheduling the payment due date to July 15th. And that would affect a huge number of taxpayers.

      I’m really hoping that someone anticipated it and the actual payment mechanism differs from what the CARES Act seems to say. Right now, economic relief should be paramount.

  3. Bob Probasco says

    The above speculation was from the perspective of the “correct” legal interpretation of the provisions of the CARES Act. I *think* it was, but reasonable minds differ.

    I seriously doubt if this is ever going to be litigated and result in a court decision, though. Who would bring that to court??? So we may never a *definitive* legal interpretation.

    But as a practical matter, we now know *how* the IRS programmed it. Based on a very unscientific random survey of three clients for whom I have Form 2848 authority for 2018 – 2020:

    All three received an advance refund.
    Date of the refund is shown as 4/15/2020 (so, yay for providing direct deposit information with your previous year tax return).
    The “payment” and the refund of the “overpayment” show up in 2020, *not* in 2018 or 2019 as I feared.

    Regardless of the correct legal interpretation, as a practical matter, this is the result I would want to see. It seems, to me, to be the right answer from a policy perspective.

    NB: When doing the reconciliation of the refundable credit/advance refund on the 2020 return, if the taxpayer doesn’t remember getting the advance refund, the tax return preparer will need to look at the 2020 module to determine how much was received.

  4. I am currently trying to recover my economic impact payment. I have filed injured spouse for the past 6yrs & have never had an issue with receiving my tax refund. Both stimulus payments were taken for back child support & its only my husbands responsibility. Any help would be appriciated.

  5. Donna Sparks says

    I filed a recent claim for injured spouse after our taxes was filed because my stimulus check was taken for my husbands past owed child support debt,his was taken also,in which also his yearly taxes too.He makes bi-weekly payments to the child support division too.This is my first time filing an injured spouse form and i really hope my payment is returned,we was left without any help when these stimulus payments was issued and was solely depending on getting mine to help with groceries and such,and when it was taken it was very hard struggling and trying to get by.So if anyone has any information on a situation like this id like to hear if you was able to get your stimulus payment back when you file the injured spouse form..

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Leave a Reply to Megan Buis Cancel reply

*