Playing a little catch up here, and covering some items from the beginning of the year. I got a little held up working on a new chapter for SaltzBook, and a supplement update for the same. Both are now behind us, and below is a summary of a few key tax procedure items that we didn’t otherwise cover in January. Another edition of SumOp will follow shortly with some other items from February and March.
read more...- In CCA 201603031, Counsel suggests various procedures for the future IRS policy and calculations for the penalty for intentional failure to file electronically. The advice acknowledges there is no current guidance…I wrote this will staring at my paper 1040 sitting right next to my computer. Seems silly to do it in pencil, and then fill it into the computer so I can file electronically.
- This item is actually from March. Agostino and Associates published its March newsletter. As our readers know, I am a huge fan of this monthly publication. Great content on reducing discharge of indebtedness income and taxation. Also an interesting looking item on representing real estate investors, which I haven’t had a chance to read yet, but I suspect is very good.
- The IRS has issued a memo regarding its decision to apply the church audit restrictions found under Section 7611 (relating to exemption and UBI issues) to employment tax issues with churches also.
- Panama Papers are all the rage, but I know most of you are much more interested in Iggy Azalea’s cheating problems (tax and beau). Her Laker fiancé was recorded by his teammate bragging about stepping out and she had a sizable tax lien slapped against her for failure to pay. She has threatened to separate said significant other from reproductive parts of his body, but it appears she has approached the tax debt with a slightly more level head, agreeing to an installment agreement.
- I’m a rebel, clearly without a cause. I often wear mismatched socks, rarely take vitamins, and always exceed the speed limit by about 6 MPH. But, professionally, much of my life is about helping people follow the rules. In Gemperle v. Comm’r, the taxpayers followed the difficult part of the conservation easement rules, and obtained a valid appraisal of the value, but failed to follow the simple rule of including it with his return. Section 170(h)(4)(B)(iii) is fairly clear in stating the qualified appraisal of the qualified property interest must be included with the return for the year in question. And, the taxpayers failed to bring the appraiser to the hearing as a witness, allowing the IRS to argue that the taxpayer could not put the appraisal into evidence because there was no ability to cross examine. In the end, the deduction was disallowed, and the gross valuation misstatement penalty was imposed under Section 6662(h) of 40%. The Section 6662(a) penalty also applied, but cannot be stacked on top of the 40% penalty pursuant to Reg. 1.6662-2(c). The Court found that there was no reasonable cause because the taxpayer failed to include the appraisal on the return, so, although relying on an expert, the failure to include the same showed to the Court a lack of good faith. Yikes! Know the rules and follow them. It is understandable that someone could get tripped up in this area, as other areas, such as gift tax returns, have different rules, where a summary is sufficient (but perhaps not recommended).
- The Shockleys are fighting hard against the transferee liability from their corporation. Last year we discussed their case relating to the two prong state and federal tests required for transferee liability under Section 6901. In January, the Shockleys had another loss, this time with the Tax Court concluding they were still liable even though the notice of transferee liability was incorrectly titled and had other flaws. Overall, the Court found that it met and exceed the notice requirements and the taxpayer was not harmed.
- The Tax Court, in Endeavor Partners Fund, LLC v. Commissioner, rejected a partnership’s motion for injunction to prevent the IRS from taking administrative action against its tax partner. The partnership argued that allowing the IRS to investigate the tax matters partner for items related to the Tax Court case (where he was not a party) would “interfere with [the Tax] Court’s jurisdiction” because the Service could be making decisions on matters the Court was considering. The Court was not troubled by this claim, and held it lacked jurisdiction over the matters raised against the tax matters partner, and, further, the partnership’s request did not fall within an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
- Wow, a financial disability case where the taxpayer didn’t lose (yet). Check out this 2013 post by Keith (one of our first), dealing with the IRS’s win streak with financial disability claims. Under Section 6511(h), a taxpayer can possibly toll the statute of limitations on refunds with a showing of financial disability. From the case, “the law defines “financially disabled” as when an “individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment … which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months,” and provides that “[a]n individual shall not be considered to have such an impairment unless proof of the existence thereof is furnished in such form and manner as the Secretary may require.”” I’ve had some success with these cases in the past, but I also had my ducks in a row, and compelling facts. So, not something the IRS would want to argue before a judge. The Service gets to pick and choose what goes up, which is why it wins. In LeJeune v. United States, the District Court for the District of Minnesota did not grant the government’s motion for summary judgement, and directed further briefing and hearing on whether the taxpayer’s met their administrative requirements.
- Another initial taxpayer victory, which could result in an eventual loss, but this time dealing with TFRP under Section 6672. In Hudak v. United States, the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the IRS’s motion for summary Judgement, finding that a jury could determine that a CFO (here Mr. Mules) was not a responsible person with the ability to pay. The CFO admitted he knew the company wasn’t complying with its employment tax obligations, and knew other creditors were being paid. He alleged, however, that he lacked the ability (as CFO) to make the required payments…seems like an uphill battle. He could win though, as the contention is that the owner/CEO/President (Mr. Hudak) made those decisions, had that authority, and misled the CFO to believe the payments were made. Neither side will likely be able to put much past the Court in this matter, as Judge Marvin Garbis is presiding (he who authored various books on tax, including Cases and Materials on Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud and Federal Tax Litigation).
- Updated procedures for making PLR request can be found in Rev. Proc. 2016-1.
About Stephen Olsen
‘Section 170(h)(4)(B)(iii) is fairly clear’
“such contribution shall not be considered to be exclusively for conservation purposes unless—[…] and
(iii) in the case of any contribution made in a taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the taxpayer includes with the taxpayer’s return for the taxable year of the contribution—
(I) a qualified appraisal (within the meaning of subsection (f)(11)(E)) of the qualified property interest,
(II) photographs of the entire exterior of the building, and
(III) a description of all restrictions on the development of the building.”
Yes, but why wouldn’t 1040X qualify as a return?
‘And, the taxpayers failed to bring the appraiser to the hearing as a witness, allowing the IRS to argue that the taxpayer could not put the appraisal into evidence because there was no ability to cross examine.’
The IRS would start with the same ability to cross examine as it would if the taxpayer had remembered to include the appraisal in the first place: contact the appraiser.
Furthermore, the IRS would have a second opportunity to cross examine: subpoena the appraiser. Unlike the burden on taxpayers to pay fees to witnesses (for example if I get an opportunity to subpoena an employee or representative from Ameritrade to testify that their Forms 1099 and 1042-S correctly presented US withholding they had deducted, I have to pay the witness a fee), Tax Court rules permit the IRS to subpoena witnesses without even paying fees. (Obviously the government can’t afford the same kind of expense that victims of embezzlement can afford.)
Good thing the IRS’s arguments are position statements not sworn testimony.