That is an incredibly misleading title. You obviously can pay someone else’s taxes. And, its fairly common to do so. Executives often have their taxes on certain compensation paid by their employer. I am sure it is also common for a relative to pay taxes for someone if they cannot pay it themselves. Depending on the circumstances, this may create additional tax issues to work through. For instance, if an employer pays tax for an employee, it will give rise to additional taxable income, on which you must pay tax…and if the employer pays that tax, it will give rise to taxable income, on which you must pay tax…and so on. Here is an old Slate article discussing just this in the context of a Survivor winner Richard Hatch. I vaguely recall he was sort of a jackass, and got dinged for tax evasion. If a family member pays your taxes, it is likely a gift, giving rise to potential gift tax issues.
So, why the B.S. misleading post title? Tax procedure. The government released Legal Advice issued by Field Attorneys (LAFA) 20171801F earlier this month, which considered two questions:
-
May a person making a deposit under I.R.C. § 6603 for a potential transferee liability direct the Service to apply all or a portion of its deposit against the liability of another person liable for the same underlying liability?
-
If a person making a deposit is permitted to apply all or a portion of the deposit to the liability of another person liable, under these facts, may an attorney-in-fact for a person making a deposit under I.R.C. § 6603 direct the Service to transfer the deposit to pay another person’s tax liability?
Based on the title you can probably guess the IRS position on this. First, though, it might be worth a quick note on what a LAFA is, since this is probably the first time we have devoted a full post to one and perhaps the first time we have discussed them in general. This is advice written by field counsel for local field employees. As it was not issued by the National Office, it is not Chief Counsel Advice (“CCA”). We touch on CCAs somewhat frequently. As defined by the Code, for disclosure purposes, CCAs are:
written advice or instruction, under whatever name or designation, prepared by any national office component of the Office of Chief Counsel which (i) is issued to field or service center employees of the Service or regional or district employees of the Office of Chief Counsel; and (ii) conveys… any legal interpretation of a revenue provision; any Internal Revenue Service or Office of Chief Counsel position or policy concerning a revenue provision; or any legal interpretation of State law, foreign law, or other Federal law relating to the assessment or collection of any liability under a revenue provision.
As such, CCAs often indicate the official IRS position on a matter. Under the above definition, most field counsel advice is not required to be released, but sometimes the field counsel will seek review by the National Office. The review probably (definitely?) still does not make the field advice a CCA, but it is generally released to the public anyway.
In the LAFA, the Service determined that no, the depositor could not direct the deposit to be used to pay the liability of another person liable for the tax underlying debt. Although that effectively answers both questions, since the second is contingent on the first, the LAFA also stated the transfer of a deposit could not be done by a POA if it were possible to transfer deposits.
So, what is going on here? The LAFA is short on facts. Those two pages are completely redacted. It appears that there was transferee liability under Section 6901 from a transferor to a transferee (transferee 1), and then to another transferee (transferee 2). I believe this was a subsequent transfer of the same assets, and transferee 2 was attempting to transfer its deposit to transferee 1. Section 6901 is a procedural provision that allows collection from a transferee based on liability under another federal or state law, so the liability could be for any number of reasons, and I am not sure what it was in this case. The subsequent transferee, transferee 2, made a deposit for the potential tax outstanding under Section 6603, which allows for deposits to be made on potential outstanding tax.
In making the deposit, transferee 2 stopped interest from running on the potential tax debt, and potentially generated some interest payable to transferee 2 if the amount was returned (it also keeps things out of the refund procedures and statute of limitations). Transferee 2 apparently was not the person who was going to end up paying the outstanding tax, and sought to transfer the deposit to the transferee 1, who presumably was going to pay the tax. And, presumably had not made a deposit (or had not deposited sufficient funds). Since transferee 2 could pay transferee 1’s tax debt, it seems conceivable that transferee 2 should be able to transfer its deposit to transferee 1.
The LAFA’s position, however, was that:
While a person making a deposit may direct the Service to use the deposit as payment of other of his liabilities, Rev. Proc. 2005-18 does not authorize a person to direct the Service to apply a deposit to pay another person’s liability.
Section 6603, which allows for deposits, states a “taxpayer may make a cash deposit…which may be used by the Secretary to pay any tax imposed…which has not been assessed at the time of the deposit. Such a deposit shall be made in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.” This language doesn’t necessarily preclude the transfer of the deposit to another taxpayer.
In the LAFA, the Service reviewed Rev. Proc. 2005-18 for the Service’s self-prescribed procedural rules under Section 6603. The Rev. Proc. does have language that treats Section 6603 as allowing deposits for the taxpayer’s tax debts, and not that of others, or potentially shared debts. It also states that the deposit does not constitute a payment until it is applied against an “assessed tax of the taxpayer.” But, the Rev. Proc. does also allow the taxpayer to allocate deposit amounts against other assessments, and does not specify the assessments must be that of the taxpayer in other language.
The LAFA concludes though that while transferee liability is derivative of the transferor’s liability, multiple transferees may be liable for different debts, which it believed was evidence that transferees should not be able to transfer deposits. Further, the Service’s own current guidance does not allow for such a transfer, which it deemed was sufficient reason to preclude the deposit transfer. The guidance essentially says transferee 2 needs to request the deposit back, and then use the funds to pay the debt of transferee 1. This does not, however, stop the underpayment interest of transferee 1 from accruing (although transferee 2 might be entitled to overpayment interest, if certain requirements were met – the overpayment and underpayment rates, however, are not necessarily the same. For those who wish to learn more about deposits, payments, and interest rates, Chapter 6.06 and Chapter 11.05 of SaltzBook were recently updated and they cover these topics in great detail).
As to the POA issue, the guidance indicates that, even if a deposit could be transferred, the Form 2848 does not specifically allow for that action, and therefore would not be authorized.
So, what does this mean? You clearly can pay someone else’s taxes, but the Service position is that a deposit cannot be shifted between taxpayers. The reasoning is based on the Service’s own guidance, and not the statute. For multiple parties potentially responsible for the same tax, to stop interest from running each will need to make a deposit of his, her, or its own maximum liability amount.