IRS Tax Problems Relief

Mike Habib is an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent who concentrates on helping individuals and businesses solve their IRS tax problems. Mike has over 16 years experience in taxation and financial advisory to individuals, small businesses and fortune 500 companies. IRS problems do not go away unless you take some action! Get IRS Tax Relief today by calling me at 1-877-78-TAXES You can reach me from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, 7 days a week. Also online at http://www.MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Friday, February 29, 2008

Payroll tax levy Employment tax levies Payroll Tax Problem

IRS provides guidance on new rules for employment tax levies

Mike Habib, EA

The IRS has issued interim guidance to its directors and collection area offices that explains when it is permissible to issue a levy to collect employment taxes without first giving the taxpayer a pre-levy collection due process (CDP) notice.

The IRS is authorized to take various collection actions in order to ensure the payment and collection of employment taxes, including issuing federal tax levies. Before a tax levy can be issued, however, the IRS must generally provide the taxpayer with notice and an opportunity for an administrative CDP hearing, and for judicial review.

The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (the Act) modified the collection due process procedures for employment tax liabilities. The Act amended IRC §6330(f), effective for levies served after Sept. 21, 2007, to permit levies to collect employment taxes without first giving the taxpayer a pre-levy CDP notice, if the levy is a “disqualified employment tax levy” (DETL). IRC §6330(h) defines a DETL as a levy to collect the employment tax liability of a taxpayer (or predecessor) who requested a CDP hearing for unpaid employment taxes in the two-year period prior to the beginning of the taxable period for which the levy is served.

The guidance includes the following examples on the new rules:
Example 1. The taxpayer owes taxes on Form 941 for the 4th quarter 2005 (quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005). The taxpayer requested a timely CDP levy hearing. The taxpayer accrues additional employment tax liability on Form 941 for the second quarter 2006 (quarter ended June 30, 2006). The liability period for additional tax began on April 1, 2006. The additional liability for the second quarter 2006 qualifies for a DETL levy because the taxpayer requested a prior levy hearing for a quarter that ended (Dec. 31, 2005) within the two-year lookback period (April 1, 2004 through April 1, 2006).

Example 2. The taxpayer owes taxes on Form 941 for the 1st quarter 2006 (quarter ended March 31, 2006). The taxpayer requested a timely CDP levy hearing. The taxpayer was assessed additional employment tax liability on Form 941 for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005. The liability period for additional tax began on Oct. 1, 2005. The additional liability for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005 does not qualify for a DETL levy because the taxpayer requested a prior levy hearing for a quarter that ended (March 31, 2006) outside the two-year lookback period (Oct. 1, 2003 through Oct. 1, 2005).

If a DETL is served, the taxpayer must be given an opportunity for a CDP hearing within a reasonable period of time after the levy and may seek judicial review of the IRS ruling in tax court.

The new IRS guidance is effective March 3, 2008.

If you have a payroll tax problem and need professional representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com


As an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent (EA) specializing in IRS Tax Problem Resolution, I can represent individuals and businesses in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Distressed asset trust DAT tax problem

Distressed asset trust transactions identified as listed transactions

Mike Habib, EA

In a Notice, the IRS has identified a distressed asset trust (DAT) transaction as a listed transaction under Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2), Code Sec. 6111 and Code Sec. 6112. In such a transaction, a tax-indifferent party contributes one or more distressed assets with a high basis and low fair market value to a trust or series of trusts and sub-trusts, and a U.S. taxpayer acquires an interest in the trust for the purpose of shifting a built-in loss from the tax-indifferent party to the U.S. taxpayer that has not incurred the economic loss.

Background. Under Code Sec. 6011 and its regs, taxpayers must disclose their participation in reportable, tax-shelter-type transactions by attaching an information statement to their income tax returns. Under Code Sec. 6111, material advisors must disclose reportable transactions (e.g., identify and describe them and the claimed tax benefits) and under Code Sec. 6112, material advisors must prepare and maintain lists for reportable transactions (e.g., identifying each person with respect to whom the advisor acted as a material advisor for the transactions).

A listed transaction is a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by IRS as a tax avoidance transaction for Code Sec. 6011 purposes. (Code Sec. 6707A(c))

Fact pattern. IRS has learned that a variation of the distressed asset transaction using a trust is being promoted in an attempt to avoid recent law changes that prevent taxpayers from shifting a built-in loss from a tax indifferent party to a U.S. taxpayer through the use of a partnership. In the DAT transaction, a tax indifferent party creates a trust (Main-Trust) with trustee X. The tax indifferent party contributes distressed assets directly or indirectly (through a partnership or otherwise) to Main-Trust, and is described as the grantor and beneficiary of Main-Trust. A U.S. taxpayer (Taxpayer) transfers cash or a note (approximately equaling the fair market value of the distressed asset) to Main-Trust in exchange for certificates evidencing units of beneficial interest in Main-Trust. As a result, under the terms of the Main-Trust agreement, Taxpayer becomes a beneficiary of Main-Trust.

The parties contend that Main-Trust is a trust for tax purposes, taxable as a trust and not as a business entity. As a result, the parties contend that under Code Sec. 1015(b), Main-Trust's basis in the distressed assets is the same as the grantor's basis in the distressed assets (in this case, the tax indifferent party's basis).

As allowed under the Main-Trust agreement, the trustee creates a separate sub-trust (Sub-Trust), transfers certificates evidencing units of beneficial interest in Sub-Trust (Sub-Trust Certificates) to Taxpayer, and allocates the distressed assets to Sub-Trust for the sole benefit of the beneficiary of the Sub-Trust. The Main-Trust agreement entitles the holder of Sub-Trust Certificates to various rights including the right to direct the trustee to vest the holder's ratable share of the corpus or the income of Sub-Trust in the holder.

The Taxpayer contends that these rights causes the Taxpayer to be considered the owner of Sub-Trust under Code Sec. 678, and that Sub-Trust is a grantor trust. As a result, the Taxpayer takes into account those items of income, deductions, and credits against tax, which are attributable to Sub-Trust, to the extent that the items would be taken into account in computing taxable income or credits against the tax of an individual. The Taxpayer further contends that Sub-Trust's basis in the distressed assets is the same as the grantor's basis in the distressed assets (in this case Main-Trust's basis). Within a short period of time, the distressed assets held by the Sub-Trust are written off as wholly worthless under Code Sec. 166, or alternatively, they are sold, and Taxpayer claims a deduction under Code Sec. 165.

DATs are targeted. Notice 2008-34 alerts taxpayers and their representatives that the DAT transaction is a tax avoidance transaction and identifies it, and substantially similar transactions, as listed transactions for purposes of Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2), Code Sec. 6111 and Code Sec. 6112 .

IRS says that the transaction in Notice 2008-34 attempts to shift built-in losses from a tax indifferent party to a U.S. taxpayer who has not incurred an economic loss so that the U.S. taxpayer may claim a deduction of the built-in losses from the distressed assets. The built-in loss purportedly transferred to Main-Trust and Sub-Trust and improperly shifted to the Taxpayer isn't an allowable loss for the Taxpayer. IRS may attack the DAT on a number of grounds, including asserting that:

o the Taxpayer's transfer of cash or a note to Main-Trust in exchange for certificates of beneficial interest is a transfer of the distressed assets under Code Sec. 1001;
o Main-Trust doesn't meet the trust requirements of Reg. § 301.7701-4;
o Main-Trust is not a taxable trust;
o one or more of the entities is properly classified for Federal tax purposes as a partnership;
o the claimed loss deduction under Code Sec. 165 wasn't incurred in a transaction undertaken for profit;
o the judicial doctrines, including substance over form, lack of economic substance, and step transaction apply; and
o the distressed debt was worthless under Code Sec. 166 at the time of contribution to Main-Trust and Sub-Trust.

Notice 2008-34 also provides that persons required to:

o disclose these transactions under Reg. § 1.6011-4 but fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under Code Sec. 6707A , which applies to returns and statements due after Oct. 22, 2004;
o disclose these transactions under Reg. § 1.6011-4, but fail to do so may be subject to an extended period of limitations under Code Sec. 6501(c)(10);
o disclose or register these transactions under Code Sec. 6111, but fail to do so may be subject to the penalty under Code Sec. 6707(a);
o maintain lists of investors under Code Sec. 6112, but fail to do so (or fail to provide such lists when requested by IRS) may be subject to the penalty under Code Sec. 6708(a).

IRS says it may also impose penalties on persons involved in these transactions or substantially similar transactions, including the accuracy-related penalty under Code Sec. 6662 or Code Sec. 6662A.

In addition, tax-exempt entities (under Code Sec. 4965(c)) or an entity manager (under Code Sec. 4965(d)) may be subject to excise tax, disclosure, filing or payment obligations under Code Sec. 4965, Code Sec. 6033(a)(2), Code Sec. 6011, and Code Sec. 6071. Some taxable entities may be subject to disclosure obligations under Code Sec. 6011(g) , that apply to prohibited tax shelter transactions (under Code Sec. 4965(e)), including listed transactions.

IRS recognizes that some taxpayers may have filed tax returns taking the position that they were entitled to the purported tax benefits described in Notice 2008-34. It advises these taxpayers to ensure that their transactions are disclosed properly and to take appropriate corrective action.

For tax resolution CLICK HERE

For tax audit representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

How to reconstruct tax records after a disaster

Reconstructing Your Records

Mike Habib, EA

Reconstructing records after a disaster may be essential for tax purposes, getting federal assistance or insurance reimbursement. Records that you need to prove your loss may have been damaged or destroyed in a casualty. While it may not be easy, reconstructing your records may be essential for:

* Tax purposes – You may need to reconstruct your records to prove you have a casualty loss and the amount of the loss. To compute your casualty loss, you need to determine: 1) the decrease in value of the property as a result of the casualty and 2) the adjusted basis of the property (usually the cost of the property and improvements). You may deduct the smaller of these two amounts, minus insurance or other reimbursement. See Publication 547 for further information on figuring your casualty loss deduction.

If you repair damage caused by the casualty, or spend money for cleaning up, keep the repair bills and any other records of what was done and how much it cost. You cannot deduct these costs, but you can use them as a measure of the decrease in fair market value caused by the casualty if the repairs are actually made, are not excessive, are necessary to bring the property back to its condition before the casualty, take care of the damage only, and do not cause the property to be worth more than before the casualty.

* Insurance reimbursement.

* Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Small Business Administration aid – The more accurately you estimate your loss, the more loan and grant money there may be available to you.

The following tips may help to reconstruct your records to prove loss of personal-use or business property:

Personal Residence/Real Property

* Be sure to take photographs as quickly as possible after the casualty to establish the extent of the damage.

* Contact the title company, escrow company or bank that handled the purchase to obtain copies of escrow papers. Your real estate broker may also be able to help.

* Use the current property tax statement for land vs. building ratios, if available; if not available, get copies from the county assessor’s office.

* Check with appraisal companies to locate a library of old multiple listing books. These can be used for “comps” to establish a basis or fair market value.
“Comps” are comparable sales within the same neighborhood.

* Check with your mortgage company for copies of any appraisals or other information they may have about cost or fair market value.

* Tax records – Immediately after the casualty, file Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return, to request copies of the previous four years of income tax returns. To obtain copies of the previous four years of transcripts you may file a Form 4506-T, Request for Transcripts of a Tax Return. Write the appropriate disaster designation, such as “HURRICANE KATRINA,” in red letters across the top of the forms to expedite processing and to waive the normal user fee.


o Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return

o Form 4506-T, Request for Transcript of Tax Return

* Insurance Policy – Most policies list the value of the building to establish a base figure for replacement value insurance.

o If you are unsure how to reach your insurance company, check with your state insurance department. http://www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm

* Improvements – Call the contractor(s) to see if records are available. If possible get statements from the contractors verifying their work and cost.


o Get written accounts from friends and relatives who saw your house before and after any improvements. See if any of them have photos taken at get-togethers.

o If a home improvement loan was obtained, obtain paperwork from the institution issuing the loan. The amount of the loan may help establish the cost of the improvements.

* Inherited Property – Check court records for probate values. If a trust or estate existed, contact the attorney who handled the estate or trust.

* No other records are available – Check at the county assessor’s office for old records about the property. Look for assessed valued and ask for the percentage of assessment to value at the time of purchase. This is a rough guess, but better than no records at all.

* Vehicles: Kelley’s Blue Book, NADA and Edmunds are available on-line and at most libraries. They are good sources for the current fair market value of most vehicles on the road.

* Call the dealer and ask for a copy of the contract. If not available, give the dealer all the facts and details and ask for a comparable price figure.

* Use newspaper ads for the period in which the vehicle was purchased to determine cost basis. Use ads for the period when it was destroyed for fair market value. Be sure to keep copies of the ads.

* If you’re still making payments, check with your lien holder.

Personal Property

The number and types of personal property may make it difficult to reconstruct records. One of the best methods is to draw pictures of each room. Draw a floor plan showing where each piece of furniture was placed. Then show pictures of the room looking toward any shelves or tables. These do not have to be professionally drawn, just functional. Take time to draw shelves with memorabilia on them. Do the same with kitchens and bedrooms. Reconstruct what was there, especially furniture that would have held items — drawers, dressers, shelves. Be sure to include garages, attics and basements.

* Get old catalogs. These catalogs are a great way to establish cost basis and fair market value.

* Check the prices on similar items in your local thrift stores to establish fair market value. Walk through the stores and look at comparable items, especially items such as kitchen gadgets. Look for odds and ends you may have had but forgotten because of infrequent use.

* Use your local “advertiser” as a source for fair market value. Keep copies of the issues handy and copy pages used for specific items to put with your tax records file on the disaster.

* Check local newspaper want ads for similar items. Again keep a copy of any you use for comparison with the tax file.

* If you bought items using a credit card, contact your credit card company.

* Check with your local library for back issues of newspapers. Most libraries keep old issues on microfilm. The sale sections of these back issues may help establish original costs on items such as appliances.

* Go to a used bookstore with a tape measure and the diagram of the destroyed property. Measure several rows of used books and count the number of books per shelf. Add up the prices of those books and determine an average cost per shelf. Then count the number of shelves you had in your home and multiply by the average cost per shelf. This will help determine the value of your books before the loss.

Business Records

* Inventories – Get copies of invoices from suppliers. Whenever possible, the invoices should date back at least one calendar year.


* Income – Get copies of bank statements. The deposits should closely reflect what the sales were for any given time period.

o Obtain copies of last year’s federal, state and local tax returns including sales tax reports, payroll tax returns and business licenses (from city or county). These will reflect gross sales for a given time period.

* Furniture and fixtures – Sketch an outline of the inside and outside of the business location. Then start to fill in the details of the sketches. (Inside the building — what equipment was where; if a store, where were the products/inventory located. Outside the building — shrubs, parking, signs, awnings, etc.)

o If you purchased an existing business, go back to the broker for a copy of the purchase agreement. This should detail what was acquired.

o If the building was constructed for you, contact the contractor for building plans or the county/city planning commissions for copies of any plans.

For professional tax representation CLICK HERE

For professional audit representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , , , , ,

Is an IRS Offer In Compromise right for you? Know your options!

Direct from the IRS

Mike Habib, EA

Is an Offer in Compromise Right for You?

Should the IRS determine that a taxpayer is unable to pay the liability in a lump sum or through an installment agreement and has exhausted the search for other payment arrangements the last option would be to file an Offer in Compromise (OIC).

An OIC allows taxpayers to settle their tax liabilities for less than the full amount. Taxpayers should use the checklist in the Form 656, Offer in Compromise, package to determine if they are eligible for an offer in compromise. The objective of the OIC program is to accept a compromise when it is in the best interests of both the taxpayer and the government and promotes voluntary compliance with all future payment and filing requirements. See IRS Policy Statement P-5-100 for the complete OIC policy statement.

Major Changes to the OIC Program

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), created major changes to the IRS OIC program as it relates to lump sum offers, periodic payment offers, and a determination as to when an offer is accepted. These changes affect all offers received by the IRS on or after July 16, 2006.

TIPRA, section 509, amends Internal Revenue Code section 7122 by adding a new subsection (c) “Rules for Submission of Offers in Compromise" which establishes the following:

* A taxpayer filing a lump sum offer must pay 20 percent of the offer amount with the application (IRC 7122(c)(1)(A)). A lump sum offer means any offer of payments made in five or fewer installments.
* A taxpayer filing a periodic payment offer must pay the first proposed installment payment with the application and pay additional installments while the IRS is evaluating the offer (IRC section 7122(c)(1)(B)). A periodic payment offer means any offer of payments made in six or more installments.

TIPRA Payments are Non-refundable

The IRS considers the 20 percent payment for a lump sum offer, and the installment payment on a periodic payment offer, as "payments on tax" and are not refundable regardless of whether the offer is declared not processable or is later returned, withdrawn, rejected or terminated by the IRS.

Taxpayers May Designate TIPRA Payments

Taxpayers may designate the application of the required TIPRA payments. The designation must be made in writing when the offer is submitted and must clearly specify how the partial payments are to be applied to a particular tax period(s) and to specific liabilities (e.g. income taxes, employment taxes, trust fund portions of employment, excise tax, etc.) Taxpayers may not designate how the $150 application fee is applied. The application fee reduces the assessed tax or other amounts due.

TIPRA and Application Fee Payment Exceptions

A taxpayer who qualifies for a low-income exception waiver or is filing a doubt as to liability offer is not required to pay the application fee, the 20 percent payment on a lump sum offer, or the initial payments required on a short term or deferred periodic payment offer. To determine low-income eligibility, refer to the section titled Application Fee Required for OIC.

Is Your Offer In Compromise "Processable"?

As a result of TIPRA, beginning July 17, 2006 in order to be considered for an OIC, a taxpayer must have met all of the following requirements:

* The taxpayer is not a debtor in an open bankruptcy proceeding.
* The $150 application fee, or a signed Form 656-A, "Income Certification for Offer in Compromise Application Fee and Payment" must be submitted.
* The 20 percent payment with the lump sum offer, or a signed Form 656-A, "Income Certification for Offer in Compromise Application Fee and Payment" must be submitted.
* The first installment payment on a periodic payment offer, or a signed Form 656-A, "Income Certification for Offer in Compromise Application Fee and Payment" must be submitted.

An offer that is received with a payment that is less than 20 percent payment on a lump sum offer will be deemed processable but the taxpayer will be asked to pay the remaining balance in order to avoid having the offer returned. Failure to submit the remaining balance will cause the IRS to return the offer and retain the $150 application fee.

Taxpayers filing a periodic payment offer (e.g. short term periodic, or deferred periodic offer) are required to submit the full amount of their first installment payment in order to meet the processability criteria. If the full amount of the first installment payment is not provided, the IRS will deem the offer not processable and will return the $150 application fee to the taxpayer.

If during the OIC investigation the initial offer amount is determined to be insufficient and not reflective of the taxpayer's ability to pay, the taxpayer will in most instances, be contacted and asked to increase the offer and submit the corresponding 20 percent payment if the offer was filed as a lump sum cash offer, or the periodic payment if the offer is a short term or deferred payment offer. The IRS may reject the offer if a taxpayer fails to increase the offer and provide the additional payment(s). The IRS will credit the taxpayer's account(s) with any payment(s) submitted with the original offer.

The IRS will deem an OIC "accepted" that is not withdrawn, returned, or rejected within 24 months after IRS receipt. If a liability included in the offer amounts is disputed in any judicial proceeding that time period is omitted from calculating the 24-month timeframe.

For additional information regarding TIPRA and its impact on the OIC program, refer to the following:

* TIPRA - Frequently Asked Questions
* TIPRA - Notice 2006-68
* TIPRA - News Release IR-2006-106
* TIPRA - Fact Sheet FS-2006-22

Application Fee Required for OIC - All taxpayers who submit a Form 656, "Offer in Compromise" must pay a $150 application fee except in two instances:

1. The OIC is submitted based solely on "doubt as to liability;" or>
2. The taxpayer's total monthly income falls at or below 250% of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) poverty income levels.

The Form 656 Offer in Compromise (Revision 2/2007) package contains a worksheet titled “IRS OIC Monthly Low Income Guidelines Worksheet” designed to assist taxpayers in determining whether they qualify for the income exception. The worksheet also clarifies Item 2 to reflect Total Household Monthly Income, and now requires Self Employed individuals to adjust their total monthly income in Item 2. If income exception is met, a taxpayer is not required to pay the $150 application fee, the 20 percent payment on a lump sum offer, or the periodic payments required under TIPRA. Once eligibility for the income exception is determined, a taxpayer must complete Form 656-A (PDF) "Offer Certification for Offer in Compromise Application Fee and Payment." The worksheet, along with Form 656-A must be attached to the Form 656 application and mailed to the IRS for consideration.

The $150 application fee and the TIPRA payments must be paid using a check or money order made payable to the United States Treasury. Cash payments are not accepted. A taxpayer should submit two payments: one for the application fee and the other for the TIPRA payment.

Individuals Must File All Federal Tax Returns and Pay Required Estimated Tax Payments

The IRS expects a taxpayer requesting an OIC to file all delinquent tax returns and pay any required estimated tax payment. IRS will notify taxpayers and provide 30 days to file delinquent returns or make the required estimated tax payments. Failure to comply will cause the IRS to return the offer back to the taxpayer. The $150 application fee along with all TIPRA payments previously paid will be retained by the IRS and applied to the taxpayer’s liability.

Businesses Must File All Federal Tax Returns and Timely Pay all Required Federal Tax Deposits

The IRS is cautious to avoid providing financial advantages to operating businesses through the forgiveness of tax debt. This may create the appearance that the delinquent business has been able to profit from its failure to pay, giving it an advantage over other, fully compliant businesses.

Businesses that have employees are expected to have paid all required federal tax deposits for the current quarter in order for their offer to be evaluated. If the IRS determines that the required deposits have not been paid, the taxpayer will be provided with a reasonable amount of time to pay the deposits before the IRS proceeds with the investigation. In addition, the business will be expected to remain current on all filing and deposit requirements while the offer is being investigated.

Failure to either pay the deposits as requested, remain current with filing or pay all deposits that become due while the offer is under investigation will cause the IRS to return the offer back to the taxpayer. The $150 application fee along with all TIPRA payments previously paid will be retained by the IRS and applied to the taxpayer’s liability.

Statute of Limitations for Assessment and Collection is Suspended - The statute of limitations for assessment and collection of a tax debt is suspended while an OIC is "pending," or being reviewed.

The OIC is pending starting with the date an authorized IRS employee determines the Form 656 Offer in Compromise is ready for processing. The OIC remains pending until the IRS accepts, rejects, returns or acknowledges withdrawal of the offer in writing. If a taxpayer requests an Appeals hearing for a rejected OIC, the IRS will continue to treat the OIC as pending. Once the Appeals office issues a determination in writing to accept or reject the OIC then the pending status is removed.

Taxpayers Must File and Pay Taxes - In order to avoid defaulting an OIC once accepted by the IRS, taxpayers must remain in compliance in the filing and payment of all required taxes for a period of five years or until the offered amount is paid in full, whichever is longer. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in the default of the OIC and the reinstatement of the tax liability.

Federal Tax Liens are Not Released - If there is a Notice of Federal Tax Lien on record prior to filing Form 656, the lien is not released until the OIC terms are satisfied, or until the liability is paid, whichever comes first. A Notice of Federal Tax Lien may be filed during the course of an OIC investigation regardless of the type of offer being considered.

OIC Will Effect Refunds, Installment Agreements, and Levies - Refer to Contractual Terms in an Offer in Compromise Web page for the terms that are involved with an offer in compromise.

For professional tax representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , , , ,

What is an Offer In Compromise OIC - Why you need professional representation

As per the IRS Offer in Compromise

Mike Habib, EA

If taxpayers are unable to pay a tax debt in full and an installment agreement is not an option, they may be able to take advantage of an offer in compromise (OIC). Generally, an OIC should be viewed as a last resort after taxpayers have explored all other available payment options. The IRS resolves less than one percent of all balance due accounts through the OIC program.

What is an Offer in Compromise?

An offer in compromise is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that resolves the taxpayer's tax debt. The IRS has the authority to settle, or "compromise," federal tax liabilities by accepting less than full payment under certain circumstances. A tax debt can be legally compromised for one of the following reasons:

* Doubt as to liability - Doubt exists that the assessed tax is correct.
* Doubt as to collectibility - Doubt exists that the taxpayer could ever pay the full amount of tax owed.
* Effective Tax Administration - There is no doubt the tax is correct and could be collected but an exceptional circumstance exists that allows the IRS to consider a taxpayer's OIC. To be eligible for a compromise on this basis, the taxpayer must demonstrate that collection of the tax would create an economic hardship or would be unfair and inequitable.

As the result of the issuance of the revised Form 656, Offer in Compromise (2/2007 revision), a taxpayer is now required to file a Form 656 – L, Offer in Compromise (Doubt as to Liability) when it is believed that the tax liability is incorrect, while Form 656, Offer in Compromise should be filed only when there is doubt as to collectibility that the tax liability could ever be paid in full, or under the basis of Effective Tax Administration (ETA). A taxpayer is no longer able to file offers concurrently claiming both that the tax liability is incorrect along with an inability to pay it.

Form 656, Offer in Compromise (2/2007 revision) also incorporates changes in the processing guidelines as the IRS will no longer investigate an offer for a tax year or tax period that has not been assessed. The IRS will return the offer back to the taxpayer if it is submitted solely for an unassessed tax year or tax period.

Taxpayers should beware of promoters' claims that tax debts can be settled for "pennies on the dollar" through the offer in compromise program. Check the OIC requirements to see if an offer in compromise is right for you.

You should read our BEWARE REPORT

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com


As an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent (EA) specializing in IRS Tax Problem Resolution, I can represent individuals and businesses in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola

Labels: , , ,

1099 Tax Reporting Requirements Corporations, LLCs, DBAs

Most common questions by corporations and other business entities on 1099 reporting requirements. Below is a direct IRS response to frequently asked question on 1099 issues.

Mike Habib, EA

IRS provides further guidance on Form 1099 reporting

Questions on Corporations. Generally, payments to corporations are not reported on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income. Here are some of the questions that the IRS addressed on this subject during the telephone forum.

Question: Is an S-Corporation treated as a “corporation” when determining whether or not a 1099 should be issued?
IRS answer: Yes. The entity is a C-Corp that makes an election to be treated as an S-Corp. When completing Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, the S-Corp checks the box for a corporation.

Question: Does a 1099 get issued to a limited liability company (LLC) reporting to the IRS as a partnership or to a single-member LLC that is incorporated with the state?

IRS answer: It is the federal tax status that matters. Therefore, if the LLC is a partnership, then 1099s should be issued as required.

Question: If a company has a “doing business as” (dba) name and they list themselves as a corporation, is it correct they do not need a 1099?

IRS answer: It depends on the type of payment. Corporations are exempt recipients but a 1099-MISC may be required under certain circumstances. See the Form 1099-MISC instructions for further information.

Question: If a sole proprietor has a dba name, and the payments are made out to the dba company, do we use the company EIN number or the name of the sole proprietor on line 1. I thought if we used their Social Security number on Form 1099-MISC, then their first name should be listed on line 1 of the name section. If we used their EIN number, then their dba name would be listed first and then their individual name listed next.

IRS answer: The sole proprietor's name goes on the first line, the dba goes on the second line; this is true whether the EIN or SSN is used.

Questions on Form W-9.
Question: If you receive a letterhead that indicates that vendor is incorporated are you still required to obtain a signed and completed Form W-9 that certifies to that affect?

IRS answer: Get the vendor to complete and sign the Form W-9. Just because the letterhead indicates a corporation, it may be a “doing business as” name and they may not be legally incorporated.

Question: How often do we need to solicit for updated W-9 information from a vendor that we do business with on an ongoing basis?

IRS answer: The solicitation is good until you have reason to know some of the information may have changed.
Form 1099-MISC Box Numbers.
Question: Is there a box on Form 1099-MISC for reporting wages paid to employees serving in the Armed Services?
IRS answer: Report in box 3. These payments are not subject to FICA or FUTA taxes.
Question: Can you please summarize the differences between Box 7, Nonemployee compensation, and Box 14, Gross proceeds paid to an attorney?

IRS answer: Box 7 is to report fees for services, while box 14 is used to report gross proceeds paid to attorneys generally for settlement payments involved in lawsuit.

Question: Which box should “guaranteed payments” be reported in to a individual (32.22%) owner/shareholder of an S-corporation (non-employee)?

IRS answer: Box 3.
Mileage and Per Diem Reimbursements.
Question: Do we have to issue a 1099 for mileage and per diem reimbursements for employees and/or nonemployees?
IRS answer: Depends if there is an accountable plan. See IRS Publication 463 for more information.
Electronic Filing.
Question: Will Form 4419, Application for Filing Information Returns Electronically, ever be available for on-line completion?

IRS answer: No, because a signature is necessary.
Question: Can I apply for use of FIRE (Filing Information Returns Electronically) to file all the 1099-MISC forms for each company? If so, do I just complete one Form 4419?

IRS answer: You need only submit one Form 4419. Once your TCC (Transmitter Control Code) is assigned you can file for any number of clients.

Question: Is it possible to electronically file a 1099 form without a recipient SSN or TIN? Or will this filing be rejected by the system? Will the system accept an ID number that is perhaps all zeroes or something of that nature to indicate that an ID number is unknown?

IRS answer: You can file 1099s without a TIN, however, if your file has a high percentage of this type of record your file may be rejected. You should make every attempt to obtain a payee's TIN but when all else fails you should still file it. Leave the field blank. Do not put in all 1s or some similar combination.

For tax resolution services CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , ,

IRS targets offshore bank accounts Tax Haven Abuse

IRS and treaty partners target Liechtenstein accounts

Mike Habib, EA

An IRS news release reports that IRS is initiating enforcement action involving more than 100 U.S. taxpayers to ensure proper income reporting and tax payment in connection with accounts in Liechtenstein.

Observation: IRS is not alone in raising concerns about such accounts. In a release dated Feb. 21, 2008, Senate Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, stressed the need to end offshore secrecy and tax abuse. His release noted that “Liechtenstein's LGT Bank, which is owned by the Royal family, has apparently harbored numerous secret accounts which hid the taxable assets of thousands of citizens from around the world.” Levin says he intends to investigate this matter further, and urge the Senate to enact the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which he introduced last year. He notes that “[t]his legislation contains innovative provisions to combat offshore secrecy and end the use of tax havens such as Liechtenstein by U.S. citizens who are dodging their tax obligations, and ripping off America and honest American taxpayers in the process.”

Combined effort. IRS stresses that the national tax administrations of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the U.S., all member countries of the OECD's Forum on Tax Administration (FTA), are working together following revelations that Liechtenstein accounts are being used for tax avoidance and evasion. IRS Acting Commissioner Linda Stiff stated that IRS will use all of its authority to fairly and effectively enforce U.S. tax laws and that “there is no safe hiding place for the proceeds of tax avoidance and evasion.” She went on to warn that “[a]nyone with hidden income and gains would be well-advised to make a prompt and complete disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service.”

Mike Habib, EA
MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Partnership tax vs. Individual tax return Problem Resolution

Supreme Court won't review case holding that partner must pay tax on escrowed disputed funds

Mike Habib, EA

The Supreme Court has declined to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that an individual who was a partner in a partnership had to pay tax on his distributive share of the partnership's income, notwithstanding that the partnership's receipts had been placed in escrow pending the outcome of a suit by the individual against the other partner.

Facts. In '93, Timothy J. Burke formed a partnership with Jeffrey Cohen named “Cohen & Burke,” agreeing to split the proceeds of the enterprise evenly after allocating a 10% origination fee to the partner who generated new business. In '98, a dispute arose between the two partners when Cohen allegedly refused to comply with a superseding partnership agreement that linked the distribution of the partnership's proceeds more tightly to each partner's individual efforts and stole money received by the partnership. As a result of the dispute, Burke filed suit against Cohen in state court on Oct. 4, '99, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, deceit, and conversion, and requesting an accounting. Cohen and Burke agreed to keep the partnership receipts in an escrow account pending the outcome of the litigation.

Meanwhile, Cohen filed the partnership tax return for '98 reporting $242,000 in ordinary income, with $121,000 as each partner's distributive share. Burke reported zero as his distributive share of partnership income and filed a notice of inconsistent determination stating that Cohen's partnership tax filing was factually and legally inaccurate.

IRS issued Burke a notice of deficiency alleging that he had improperly failed to report his distributive share of partnership income on his individual return. Burke timely petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiency, claiming that his distribution of partnership income from '98 should not have been taxed that year because the money was being held in escrow and he therefore did not have access to it.

IRS filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, as a matter of law, a partner's distribution of partnership income was taxable in the year the partnership received the income, regardless of whether the partner actually received the distribution. Burke countered that there were material facts in dispute precluding summary judgment in favor of IRS and moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether he had to report his distributive share of the '98 partnership income. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to IRS, holding that Burke had to include his distributive share of partnership income for the '98 tax year even though he had not yet received that distribution.

Taxpayer argument before the Appeals Court. Burke cited numerous cases (not dealing with partnerships) holding that individuals must only include income to which they have a claim of right. Citing the language of Code Sec. 703 that “[t]he taxable income of a partnership shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual,” Burke argued that the partnership did not earn taxable income in '98 because “the restriction of funds...defers the recognition of income at the partnership level, as it does for individuals, until the restriction is removed.”

The First Circuit rejected this argument. It said that Code Sec. 703 didn't help Burke because a self-imposed restriction on the availability of income cannot legally defer recognition of that income. The Court stressed that the partnership received the money free and clear in '98. It was Burke and Cohen, who chose to place the funds in escrow—not the partnership's clients or other persons owing the partnership money.

The Appeals Court also pointed to the well settled rule that partners' distributions are taxed in the year the partnership receives its earnings, regardless of whether the partners actually receive their share of partnership earnings.

The Court also rejected an argument that there were facts in dispute which should have operated to prevent IRS from getting summary judgment. Specifically, Burke claimed that the Tax Court incorrectly assumed Burke's taxable income for '98 was about $151,000, but that this number was incorrect because it included money that Cohen had stolen from the partnership. The Appeals Court rejected this claim because the record showed that the Tax Court properly found that IRS used Burke's own calculation of the partnership's gross receipts for '98, subtracting from that number his calculations of the allegedly stolen funds, in arriving at his taxable income for '98. Accordingly, it affirmed the Tax Court.

It's not clear why Burke disputed IRS in the first instance when the law and authorities clearly seemed to be against him. Perhaps it was because he lacked the funds to pay the tax. In any event, a footnote to the decision indicates that he did ultimately prevail in the underlying dispute with Cohen.

Mike Habib, EA
MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , ,

Monday, February 18, 2008

Tax Controversy Services

As you probably know by now, I specialize in representing individuals and businesses before the IRS and any taxing authority.

Mike Habib, EA

IRS strengthened enforcement policies, along with their new and complex tax regulations, makes it essential to properly plan for and manage IRS examinations or collections efforts in a proactive manner. Applying new dispute resolution procedures and best practices is critical to managing IRS examinations or collections, resolving disputes at the earliest point, and containing administrative and tax costs. The Tax Controversy services we offer are:

* Audit Representation
* Payroll Tax Problems
* Payroll Tax Audits
* Sales Tax Problems
* Tax Fraud
* Tax Controversy
* Appeals Division Hearings
* Innocent Spouse Representation
* Trust Fund Recovery Penalty Relief & Resolution
* Offer in Compromise
* Installment Payment Plans
* Estate Tax Audits, Problems and Appeals
* Expert Witness Services

Don't compromise on your representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA

As an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent (EA) specializing in IRS Tax Problem Resolution, I can represent individuals and businesses in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 15, 2008

Wage Garnishment? Bank Levy? Save your paycheck and bank account

Want to stop a wage levy or a bank levy? Read on....

Mike Habib, EA

If you have not noticed, the IRS is getting more aggressive in their collection, and audit activities. Enforcement actions is at its highest level for years now!

Here is the scoop directly from the IRS

Fiscal Year 2007 Enforcement and Services Results

The IRS continues to make strong progress in a number of key enforcement areas. The IRS is showing consistent improvements in areas critical to maintaining a fair, efficient tax system while bringing billions of additional dollars into the Treasury. At the same time, the agency continues to improve service to taxpayers.

The IRS enforcement efforts increased again in fiscal year 2007. For instance, during 2007 the IRS audited 84 percent more returns of individuals with incomes of $1 million or more than during 2006. Overall, enforcement revenue reached $59.2 billion, up from $48.7 billion in 2006 and nearly $34.1 billion in 2002.

Highlights of the enforcement and services numbers for fiscal year 2007, which ended on September 30, include:

Individuals

Audit rates increased in 2007, both for overall individual rates and for higher-income taxpayers.

* Audits of individuals with incomes of $1 million or more increased from 17,015 during fiscal year 2006 to 31,382 during fiscal year 2007, an increase of 84 percent. One out of 11 individuals with incomes of $1 million or more faced an audit in 2007.
* Overall, the total individual returns audited increased by 7 percent to 1,384,563 in 2007 from 1,293,681 in 2006. That’s the highest number since 1998.
* Audits of individuals with incomes over $200,000 reached 113,105 returns, up 29.2 percent from the prior year total of 87,885.
* The IRS increased audits of individual returns with income of $100,000 or more, auditing 293,188 of these returns in 2007, up 13.7 percent from last year’s total of 257,851.

* The IRS filed 3.8 million levies and almost 700,000 liens during 2007, an increase from the previous year and a substantial increase from five years earlier.

Businesses

In the business arena, the IRS continued efforts to review more returns of flow-through entities – partnerships and S Corporations. Our business numbers reflect that we have placed more emphasis in the growing area of these flow-through returns. While large corporate audits are down slightly, we have increased our focus on mid-market corporations – those with assets between $10 million and $50 million dollars. The IRS enforcement budget in 2007 was similar to the budget in 2006, and in times of flat budgets, the agency cannot increase activity across the board but must address the areas where there is growth and potential risk.

* Audits of S Corporations increased to 17,681 during 2007, up 26 percent from the prior year’s total of 13,984.
* Audits of partnerships increased to 12,195 during 2007, up almost 25 percent from the prior year’s total of 9,777.
* Audits of mid-market corporations increased to 4,473, up 6 percent from last year’s total of 4,218.
* Audits of businesses in general rose to 59,516, an increase of almost 14 percent from the prior year’s total of 52,223.
* Although the audits of large corporations dipped slightly in 2007 to 9,644 audits, the number of audits is up 14 percent from the fiscal year 2002 level.

Taxpayer Services

* More taxpayers chose to file electronically in 2007 than during the prior year, with 57 percent of individual tax filers choosing to e-file in 2007, up from 54 percent in 2006.
* More people visited the IRS internet site, IRS.gov. The IRS site was accessed more than 217 million times in 2007, up more than 10.5 percent from the same period in 2006.
* The IRS helped more taxpayers find out about their refunds through the agency’s internet-based system ‘Where’s my Refund?’ The system was accessed 32.1 million times during 2007, up 30 percent from last year’s usage of 24.7 million.
* As in the prior year, the IRS accuracy was 91 percent on tax law questions answered through its toll-free telephone service.
* The agency held a 94 percent customer satisfaction rating for its toll-free telephone service.

For professional audit representation CLICK HERE

For a negotiated tax settlement CLICK HERE

As an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent (EA) specializing in IRS Tax Problem Resolution, I can represent individuals and businesses in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

IRS Tax Audit due to Tax Return Preparer Fraud

Tax Return Preparer Fraud

Since I recently represented an innocent couple who were victims of Tax Return Preparer Fraud, and successfully helped them in their audit, I thought you might be interested in the info below.

Per the IRS:

FS-2008-10, January 2008

Return preparer fraud generally involves the preparation and filing of false income tax returns by preparers who claim inflated personal or business expenses, false deductions, unallowable credits or excessive exemptions on returns prepared for their clients. Preparers may manipulate income figures to fraudulently obtain tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

In some situations, the client, or taxpayer, may not have knowledge of the false expenses, deductions, exemptions and/or credits shown on his or her tax return.

However, when the IRS detects the false return, the taxpayer — not the return preparer — must pay the additional taxes and interest and may be subject to penalties.
The IRS Return Preparer Program focuses on enhancing compliance in the return-preparer community by investigating and referring criminal activity by return preparers to the Department of Justice for prosecution and/or asserting appropriate civil penalties against unscrupulous return preparers.

While most preparers provide excellent service to their clients, the IRS urges taxpayers to be very careful when choosing a tax preparer. Taxpayers should be as careful as they would be in choosing a doctor or a lawyer. It is important to know that even if someone else prepares a tax return, it is the taxpayer who is ultimately responsible for all the information on the tax return.

Helpful Hints When Choosing a Return Preparer

*
Be cautious of tax preparers who claim they can obtain larger refunds than other preparers.
*
Avoid preparers who base their fee on a percentage of the amount of the refund.
*
Use a reputable tax professional who signs your tax return and provides you with a copy for your records.
*
Consider whether the individual or firm will be around to answer questions about the preparation of your tax return months, or even years, after the return has been filed.
*
Review your return before you sign it and ask questions on entries you don't understand.
*
No matter who prepares your tax return, you, the taxpayer, are ultimately responsible for all of the information on your tax return. Therefore, never sign a blank tax form.
*
Find out the person’s credentials. Only attorneys, certified public accountants (CPAs) and enrolled agents can represent taxpayers before the IRS in all matters including audits, collection and appeals. Other return preparers may only represent taxpayers for audits of returns they actually prepared.
*
Find out if the preparer is affiliated with a professional organization that provides its members with continuing education and resources and holds them to a code of ethics.
*
Ask questions. Do you know anyone who has used the tax professional? Were they satisfied with the service they received?

Reputable preparers will ask to see your receipts and will ask you multiple questions to determine your qualifications for expenses, deductions and other items. By doing so, they are trying to help you avoid penalties, interest or additional taxes that could result from an IRS examination.

Further, tax evasion is a risky crime, a felony, punishable by five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

Criminal Investigation Statistical Information on Return Preparer Fraud
FY2007 FY2006 FY2005
Investigations Initiated 218 197 248
Prosecution Recommendations 196 153 140
Indictments/Informations 131 135 119
Sentenced 123 109 118
Incarceration Rate* 81.3% 89.0% 85.6%
Average Months to Serve 19 18 18

*Incarceration may include prison time, home confinement, electronic monitoring or a combination.

Criminal and Civil Legal Actions

Some return preparers have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to, felony charges.

Additionally, the courts have issued more than 255 permanent injunctions against abusive tax scheme promoters and abusive return preparers since 2003. The following case summaries are excerpts from public record documents on file in the court records in the judicial district in which the legal actions were filed.

Miami Return Preparer Sentenced for Telephone Excise Tax Fraud

On Aug. 20, 2007, in Miami, Fla., Equilla McRae, aka Equilla Edwards, aka Equilla Givens, was sentenced to 21 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to perform 250 hours of community service in each of those years of supervised release. In addition, McRae was ordered to pay $179,369 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In June 2007, McRae pleaded guilty to one count of making and presenting fraudulent federal income tax refund claims to the IRS. According to the indictment, McRae prepared, filed and assisted others in preparing and filing approximately 25 fraudulent income tax returns that resulted in fraudulent tax refund claims, including fraudulent telephone excise tax refund (TETR) credits, of approximately $142,265. The TETR is a one-time credit available on 2006 income tax returns designed to refund previously-collected federal excise taxes on long-distance telephone service paid from March 2003 through June 2006.

Former New York Tax Preparer Sentenced for Tax Fraud and Ordered to Pay $1.2 Million

On June 6, 2007, in White Plains, N.Y., Glen Robins was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.2 million in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service for tax fraud conspiracy. Robins, a tax preparer, pleaded guilty in February 2007, admitting that he conspired to falsify expenses on his clients’ partnership returns. The fictitious expenses created losses for the partnerships and those losses fraudulently reduced his clients’ tax liability. He also admitted that he conspired to take fraudulent deductions for contributions to self-employment retirement plans. In addition, Robins admitted to submitting false tax returns for himself and his own partnerships.

Former Income Tax Preparer Sentenced to 36 Months in Prison

On May 29, 2007, in Shreveport, La., Paulius D. Pitts was sentenced to 36 months in prison, one year of supervised release and ordered to pay $72,193 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. Pitts was indicted in August 2006 and charged with 21 counts of making false and fraudulent statements to the IRS. According to court documents, in 2003, while working as a tax return preparer in Shreveport, Pitts prepared numerous false 2003 federal income tax. The false federal income tax returns prepared by Pitts sought refunds totaling $106,309. In January 2007, Pitts pleaded guilty to one count of making false and fraudulent statements.

Former CPA Sentenced to 51 Months in Prison

On May 23, 2007, in Portland, Ore., Harry Nels Kyllo, former certified public accountant (CPA), was sentenced to 51 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. In January 2007, Kyllo pleaded guilty to one count each of mail fraud, tax evasion and impersonation of an IRS employee. Kyllo was a CPA until his license was revoked by the Oregon State Board of Accountancy on September 30, 2003. At the plea hearing, Kyllo admitted that from about 2000 to 2003, he devised a scheme to defraud some of his tax preparation clients, the IRS, and the Oregon Department of Revenue. The IRS and the Oregon Department of Revenue suffered lost tax revenue because of the thefts. Individual victim losses ranged from several thousand dollars up to $390,000.

Texas Tax Preparer Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison

On Feb. 16, 2007, in Austin, Texas, Jonathan Marshall Sr. was sentenced to 18 years in prison and ordered to pay $5,724 for the cost of prosecution for preparing fraudulent tax returns for clients. In addition to the prison term, he was ordered not to prepare or assist in preparing tax returns while in federal prison. Marshall was convicted of 40 tax fraud charges in November 2006. The jury found that from 2000-2005, Marshall placed false dependents and false business income or losses on his clients’ tax returns in order to qualify them for larger tax refunds. The majority of his illegal tax scheme involved falsely qualifying his clients for the Earned Income Credit.

Cincinnati Tax Preparer Sentenced for Preparing Fraudulent Tax Returns

On Dec. 1, 2006, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Walter Daulton was sentenced to 46 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release and ordered to pay a $1,500 fine for willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of federal income tax returns which were false and fraudulent. According to testimony presented at trial, Daulton, a self-described truck tax expert, gave seminars at truck stops and trucking companies and prepared fraudulent income tax returns for truck drivers. On many of his clients' tax returns, he reported numerous fictitious expenses that his clients had neither paid nor incurred. The fictitious expenses included commissions, fees, gifts to charity, tarping and untarping fees, and other business expenses.

Return Prepared Sentenced to 48 Months in Prison for Conspiracy to Defraud the US

On Oct. 19, 2006, in Tucson, Ariz., Luis C. Deguzman Jr. was sentenced to 48 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $416,965 in restitution to the IRS. On June 14, 2006, Deguzman was found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to defraud the United States by filing false claims for income tax refunds. Evidence at trial showed that Deguzman told clients he could obtain large income tax refunds to be placed in a trust for the future benefit of their family and a charity of their choice. He claimed to have connections with the IRS which permitted him to gain special approval to use a loophole in the tax code in order to fund a charitable remainder trust for clients. Deguzman prepared the alleged trust documents and the client’s tax return. Without the client’s knowledge, he inflated the charitable contributions and sometimes added other false deductions. He would sometimes have the entire tax refund sent to accounts he controlled rather than the client’s. In the promotion of the fraudulent charitable trust scheme, Deguzman attempted to defraud the IRS of $455,985. Several of Deguzman’s clients reported him to the IRS.

Federal Court Orders Halt to Nationwide “Tax Termination” Scheme

On Aug. 9, 2007, a federal court permanently barred Robert L. Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., and his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding from wages. The court said Schulz “relied on fringe opinions of known tax protestors whose theories have repeatedly been rejected by courts across the country.” The court further noted that several of those tax protestors were convicted of tax crimes.

South Carolina Court Bars “Patriot” Group From Promoting Tax Schemes

On July 3, 2007, a federal judge permanently barred Robert Barnwell Clarkson and his so-called “Patriot Network” from promoting tax-fraud schemes. The court detailed Clarkson’s efforts to interfere with tax collection, including his instructions to transfer property to nominees and to sue IRS agents who attempt to collect taxes.

Federal Court Bars Georgia Man from Promoting “Absurd” Tax Scheme

On Aug. 31, 2007, a federal court permanently barred Derrick Sanders of Atlanta from promoting a tax fraud scheme involving false claims. According to the complaint, Sanders’ customers were advised they were not liable for income tax because they belonged to a purported Native American group, the so-called Yamassee Native American Tribe. The court noted that after it preliminarily enjoined Sanders in 2006 he “refused to back down from his absurd contention that the Yamassee are ... exempt from federal income taxes.”

Where Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?

If you suspect tax fraud or know of an abusive return preparer, report this activity using IRS Form 3949-A, Information Referral. You can download Form 3949-A from the Web site at IRS.gov or call 1-800-829-3676 to order by mail. Send the completed form, or a letter detailing the alleged fraudulent activity, to Internal Revenue Service, Fresno, CA 93888. Please include specific information about who you are reporting, the activity you are reporting and how you became aware of it, when the alleged violation took place, the amount of money involved and any other information that might be helpful to an investigation. Although you are not required to identify yourself, it is helpful to do so. Your identity can be kept confidential. You may also be entitled to a reward.

For professional tax preparation CLICK HERE

Labels: , , , , ,

Economic Stimulus Rebate Check to be sent by the IRS

In an effort to stimulate the economy, the recently-enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 requires the U.S. Treasury to send rebate checks to eligible individuals.

Who qualifies for rebates, how they are calculated, and what, if anything extra, needs to be done to get one.

You've probably heard that the government is going to be sending rebate checks to most Americans in an effort to stimulate the economy. This letter explains, among other items, who gets rebates, how they are calculated, how higher income can reduce or eliminate a rebate, and what, if anything extra, you'll need to do to get one.

Who gets rebates? Only individuals get rebates. Business entities don't get them. Nor do estates and trusts. But there are other new tax breaks for businesses. Not all individuals, however, get rebates. You don't get one if you are or can be claimed as someone else's dependent. Also, nonresident aliens and illegal immigrants don't get rebates.

Does that mean all other individuals get rebates? No, to get a rebate, in general, for 2007, you must either (1) owe tax as computed in a special way or (2) have at least $3,000 of qualifying income—earned income generally, social security benefits, and veterans' disability payments (including payments to survivors of disabled veterans).

How much do you get? A single person with no qualifying children gets a maximum rebate of $600 or a minimum rebate of $300. A married couple filing jointly with no qualifying children gets a maximum rebate of $1,200 or a minimum rebate of $600. To get the maximum, your 2007 tax (figured in a special way) must be $600 or more for a single person and $1,200 or more for a married couple filing jointly. To get the minimum, you must have at least $3,000 of qualifying income (explained above) or owe tax (figured in a special way) of at least $1. Your rebate amount will fall in between the minimum and maximum if your tax is more than $300 but less than the maximum rebate for your filing status. In that case, your rebate will be equal to your tax. For example, you are single and your tax is $500. You will get a rebate of $500.

Increased amount for those with one or more qualifying children. Anyone who qualifies for a rebate in any amount gets an additional $300 for each qualifying child. To qualify, a child must be under the age of 17, live with you for more than half of the year, and be your son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or descendant of any such individual. In addition, the child must not have provided more than half of his or her own support. Thus, for example, a married couple filing jointly with two qualifying children could be eligible for a maximum rebate of $1,800.

How does higher income affect a potential rebate? The amount of the rebate (both the basic and the child's amount) is reduced by 5% of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI) above $75,000 ($150,000 for joint returns). For example, a married couple filing jointly with no children has AGI of $160,000, and net tax liability of over $1,200. Their rebate is $700: [$1,200 basic rebate − $500 phaseout (i.e., 5% × ($160,000 − $150,000)].

What do I have to do to get the rebate check? Nothing. The IRS will automatically figure your rebate based on your 2007 tax return that is due April 15, 2008. It will start sending rebate checks out in May for those who file before then.

What if you don't have to file? Here's where it gets tricky. Many people who normally don't have to file a return will have to do so in order to get a rebate check. For example, an individual whose only income is $3,000 of earnings normally would not be required to file a return. Likewise, an individual whose entire income consists of $8,000 of social security benefits normally would not have to file a return. These individuals should file either Form 1040 or Form 1040A to show the IRS that they meet the $3,000 qualifying income threshold. They will not owe any income tax as a result of filing. They should enter on Line 20a of Form 1040 or line 14a of Form 1040A the following benefits in any combination:

o Social security benefits reported on the 2007 Form 1099-SSA, which should have been received in January 2008.
o Railroad retirement benefits reported on the 2007 Form 1099-RRB, which should have been received in January 2008.
o The sum of veterans' disability compensation, pension or survivors' benefits received from the Department of Veterans' Affairs in 2007.

Do rebates affect 2008 taxes? The rebate that the IRS will send you after you file your 2007 return usually won't affect your 2008 taxes on the return that you file in 2009. However, it can. When you do your 2008 taxes, you will figure what the rebate would have been based on your 2008 taxes. It could be higher or lower than the check that you received from the IRS in 2007. If it is higher, you will get a credit against your 2008 taxes for the difference. It if is lower, you won't have to pay the difference back.

I hope this information is helpful. If you would like more details about this, please contact your licensed tax professional, or if you wish to retain our firm, please contact us at www.myIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Capital gain tax on disputed sale in shareholder's forced buyout

Tax problem with capital gain taxes, S Corp capital gain tax problem

Ninth Circuit holds that gain was recognized on disputed sale in shareholder's forced buyout

Glenn Hightower v. Comm., (CA9 2/12/2008)

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the Tax Court's decision, has held that an individual who had been a 50% co-owner of an S corporation and who effectively was ousted by the other owner had to recognize gain on the forced sale of his stock in the year he received payment for it. This was so even though he continued to dispute the forced buyout in state courts after the payment was made.

Facts. Glen Hightower and Daniel O'Dowd each owned 50% of the stock of an S corporation known as Green Hills Software, Inc. Their shareholders' agreement provided that any dispute between them would be resolved through binding arbitration and either of them could compel a buyout of the other's stock at a formula price.

Relations between the two co-owners eventually deteriorated to the point that in '98 O'Dowd triggered the buy/sell provision of the shareholders' agreement by offering either to sell his shares to Hightower for $47 million or to buy Hightower's shares for that amount. Although Hightower didn't want to sell his stock, he couldn't obtain financing to buy O'Dowd's stock for $47 million. Accordingly, O'Dowd compelled a buyout of Hightower's stock.

Hightower demanded arbitration regarding O'Dowd's buyout, but the arbitrator ruled in O'Dowd's favor. Hightower received a check from O'Dowd in 2000 for $41,585,388, which Hightower deposited into an interest bearing account. Hightower, who used the cash method, didn't report this payment or any interest on it on his return. When Hightower later sought to have the arbitration award set aside in state court, he lost. He appealed all the way to the state's top court, which in 2003 declined to hear his case.

Tax Court's decision. The Tax Court, rejecting a wide variety of taxpayer's arguments, held that Hightower recognized gain on the forced sale of his stock in 2000, the year he received payment for it. The Tax Court found that Hightower wasn't holding O'Dowd's payment in trust in a segregated account nor had he involuntarily received the funds and unconditionally renounced his right to them by creating a separate account. Hightower, who voluntarily cashed the check for the payment, intended to return the funds only if he succeeded in rescinding O'Dowd's buyout. The Tax Court rejected his argument that the sale was incomplete because he tendered his shares without endorsing the certificates, noting that the arbitrator and state courts found that Hightower's stock was purchased in 2000. The Tax Court concluded that even if payment to Hightower violated state law, a later determination to that effect wouldn't absolve him from his tax liability in the year of the receipt. Further, the gain did not escape tax, as Hightower argued, under the claim of right doctrine—under which a payment is includable in income in the year in which a taxpayer receives it under a claim of right (even if that claim is disputed by another party) and without restriction as to its disposition.

Ninth Circuit finds forced sale resulted in gain. The Ninth Circuit held that the stock payment Hightower received for his share of Green Hills was taxable income in 2000 because it was received without restriction as to its disposition and because he had no fixed legal obligation to restore the funds to any other party. This conclusion wasn't altered by the possibility that the stock transaction could have later been unwound by a state court. Hightower's unilateral intent not to claim and exercise dominion over the funds didn't affect his tax liability. Similarly, for federal tax purposes, it was irrelevant that the transaction may have left Green Hills with a negative net worth in violation of state law. Further, because the stock payment was taxable income to Hightower in 2000, the interest which accrued on the principal was also taxable income in the year the interest was received.

The Court also held that Hightower had to report the pass-through distributive share of Green Hills's income allocated to him in 2000. Even though Hightower's role in Green Hills management may have been restricted, he still retained beneficial ownership of his shares through the sale date. The arbitration award didn't have the effect of divesting him of beneficial ownership of his Green Hills shares in '98, as Hightower claimed. Rather, it merely gave O'Dowd the financial benefit of the bargain retroactively once the sale took place in 2000.

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

IRS gets tougher on VPFC variable prepaid forward contracts with share lending arrangements

IRS gets tougher on variable prepaid forward contracts with share lending arrangements Variable Prepaid Forward Contracts Incorporating Share Lending Arrangements

An IRS coordinated issue paper for all industries concludes that variable prepaid forward contract (VPFC) transactions that incorporate a share lending or similar agreement permitting the counterparty to borrow or dispose of the pledged shares results in a current taxable sale of the underlying stock.

Observation: VPFCs are sophisticated tools used by wealthy individuals with large stock gains who want to cash out some of their shares but defer the tax until a later year.

Observation: In Rev Rul 2003-7, 2003-5 IRB, IRS OK'd deferral for a “plain vanilla” VPFC. When taxpayers and their advisers tried to push the envelope with hedging and borrowing add-ons, IRS countered with PLR 200604033. Then, in EMISC 2007-004, IRS gave its personnel the legal ammunition to stop a variation with a share lending agreement it considered over-the-line. Now IRS has continued its crackdown on VPFCs coupled with share lending agreements, instructing agents to consider whether such transactions are subject to hefty accuracy related penalties.

Facts. The taxpayer owns appreciated stock in a publicly traded corporation. To monetize its position the taxpayer enters into a VPFC through a stock purchase agreement (SPA) with an investment bank (the counterparty). In exchange for an up-front cash payment, which generally represents 75% to 85% of the current fair market value of the stock, the taxpayer agrees to deliver a variable number of shares at maturity (typically three to five years). The VPFC usually has a cash settlement option in lieu of delivering the underlying shares at maturity. The purported economic benefits of the VPFC structure are:

(1) downside protection represented by the amount of the unrestricted payment to the taxpayer,
(2) limited upside growth participation as reflected by the maximum share value price,
(3) the potential for diversification by reinvesting the up-front cash advance, and
(4) tax deferral of the gain to the maturity date of the VPFC.

Under the terms of the SPA, the taxpayer must deposit the maximum number of shares that may be delivered under the VPFC into a pledge account and grant the counterparty a security interest in the pledged securities. The parties to the pledge agreement are the taxpayer (as pledgor) and the counterparty (as pledgee). In most instances, the SPA will contain a provision that allows the counterparty to hedge its position under the VPFC by giving it the right to sell, pledge, rehypothecate, invest, use, commingle or otherwise dispose of, or otherwise use in its business the pledged securities. During the life of the SPA, the counterparty has the right to transfer and to vote the pledged shares but may be required to pay certain distributions received on the pledged shares to the taxpayer.

Variations. IRS has also identified similar transactions with the following variations (VPFC transactions):

(1) The taxpayer enters into a VPFC through a SPA and executes a separate pledge agreement. After these agreements are finalized, the original pledge agreement is amended. The Amended & Restated Pledge Agreement includes a rehypothecation clause, which allows the secured party, upon consent of taxpayer, to sell, lend, pledge, invest, commingle or otherwise dispose of the pledged shares.

(2) The taxpayer enters into a SPA that includes a pledge/security interest provision and at a later date (usually within 90 days following the VPFC) executes a separate share lending agreement.

(3) The taxpayer enters into a VPFC through an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement and an ISDA Credit Support Annex, which allows the counterparty the right to rehypothecate, sell, dispose of or use the pledged shares.

(4) The taxpayer enters into a VPFC through a SPA, executes a Letter and Confirmation (L&C) Agreement and then later a Rehypothecation Agreement pursuant to the terms of the L&C Agreement.

(5) The stock is placed, as security, with the counterparty or its subsidiary, but with a standard margin/broker agreement which confers upon the counterparty the rights to register the stock in its own name and to rehypothecate, sell, dispose, or use the pledged shares.

(6) The taxpayer contemporaneously deposits a sufficient amount of the same stock in another account and this stock is borrowed to close the counterparty's short sale.

IRS notes that, regardless of the particular version, all of these VPFC variations share the following common characteristic: the counterparty, via a share lending agreement or through some other contractual arrangement, obtains the unfettered use of the pledged shares. IRS says that because the determination of whether a sale occurred for federal income tax purposes is based upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, it is possible that a transaction will result in a sale even though it does not have all the facts set forth in the new coordinated issue paper.

Transactions result in sale. The coordinated issue paper reaches the following conclusions with respect to these transactions:

(1) There is a current sale for federal tax purposes of the underlying stock when a taxpayer enters into a VPFC transaction that includes a share lending arrangement with the counterparty.
+ These VPFC transactions result in a current sale under common law principles, i.e. transfer of ownership because the taxpayer does not retain, and the counterparty acquires, substantial indicia of ownership (including most of the risk of loss and opportunity for gain).
+ Rev Rul 2003-7 is not controlling as the VPFC transactions identified above are distinguishable from the facts described in that ruling. Most significantly, the counterparty in VPFC transactions acquires possession and unfettered use of the pledged shares.
+ The open transaction doctrine is inapplicable since the pledged shares are publicly traded and their value is easily ascertainable.
+ Nonrecognition treatment under Code Sec. 1058 is not appropriate since the VPFC transaction and share lending arrangement effectively eliminates the risk of loss with respect to the pledged shares. Under Code Sec. 1058 , no gain or loss is recognized when an owner transfers securities for the contractual obligation of the borrower to return identical securities. The securities must be lent under an agreement that: provides for the return to the lender of identical securities; requires that payments be made to the lender in amounts equal to the interest, dividends, and other distributions that the owner of the securities is entitled to receive because of ownership during the period that the loan is outstanding; doesn't reduce the lender's risk of loss or opportunity for gain as to the transferred securities; and meets any other requirements specified by regs.

(2) Depending on the facts of each VPFC transaction and the year in question, IRS agents are instructed to consider asserting (a) the accuracy-related penalty on underpayments attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax under Code Sec. 6662 , and (b) the accuracy-related penalty on reportable transaction understatements under Code Sec. 6662A .

For tax resolution CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , ,

IRS SFR Substitute For Return Unfiled Tax Returns Back Taxes Owed

Final substitute return regs adopt temporary and proposed regs with one minor change
T.D. 9380, 2/12/2008; Reg. § 301.6020-1

Mike Habib, EA

In 2005, IRS issued temporary (also issued as proposed regs) that broadened the scope of when IRS-prepared substitute returns (SFR) are valid. Specifically, the temporary regs provide that a document or set of documents (including a Form 13496, Code Sec. 6020(b) Certification) signed by an authorized IRS officer or employee is a “return” under Code Sec. 6020(b) if it identifies the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information to compute his tax liability, and purports to be a return. IRS has now adopted the temporary and proposed regs as final regs with one minor change.

Background. Under Code Sec. 6020(b), if a taxpayer fails to file a return when required, IRS may prepare a return based on its own knowledge and on information it obtains through testimony or other means. The failure-to-pay penalty under Code Sec. 6651(a)(2) applies to the amount of tax shown on the return, including, under Code Sec. 6651(g)(2), any amount shown on a substitute return prepared by IRS. Absent the existence of a return under Code Sec. 6020(b), the Code Sec. 6651(a)(2) penalty doesn't apply to a nonfiler.

In Cabirac, (2003) 120 TC 163, affd on other issue (2004, CA3) 94 AFTR 2d 2004-5490 (unpublished) and Spurlock, (2003) TC Memo 2003-124, the Tax Court found that IRS hadn't prepared and signed a valid return under Code Sec. 6020(b). In Cabirac, IRS sent the taxpayer a notice of proposed adjustments with a revenue agent's report, which showed enough information to calculate tax liability. In Spurlock, IRS had a conglomeration of IRS documents, many of them unsigned, apparently from its administrative files.

What is a return. The final regs, like the temporary regs, provide that a document (or set of documents) signed by an authorized IRS officer or employee is a return under Code Sec. 6020(b) if it identifies the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification number (TIN), contains sufficient information from which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and the document (or set of documents) purports to be a return. (Reg. § 301.6020-1(b)(2))

In addition, a valid Code Sec. 6020(b) return includes a Form 13496 or any other form that an authorized IRS officer or employee signs and uses to identify a document (or set of documents) containing the above information as a Code Sec. 6020(b) return, and the documents identified. (Reg. § 301.6020-1(b)(2))

Further, because IRS may prepare and signs Code Sec. 6020(b) returns both by hand and through automated means, the final and temporary regs provide that a return can be signed by the name or title of an IRS officer or employee being handwritten, stamped, typed, printed or otherwise mechanically affixed to the return, so long as that name or title was placed on the document to signify that the IRS officer or employee adopted the document as a return for the taxpayer. The document and signature may be in written or electronic form. (Reg. § 301.6020-1(b)(2))

Change from temporary regs. The temporary regs provided that any return made in accordance with the regs and signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes. In 2005, new language was added to the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) that specifically provided that a Code Sec. 6020(b) return is not a return for dischargeability purposes. Therefore, the portion of the temporary regs that stated that the return was sufficient for all legal purposes is no longer correct. IRS changed the final regs to state that a Code Sec. 6020(b) return is sufficient for all legal purposes “except insofar as any Federal statute expressly provides otherwise.” (Reg. § 301.6020-1(b)(3))

Effective date. The final regs are effective Feb. 13, 2008. (Reg. § 301.6020-1(d))
RIA Research References: For substitute returns prepared by IRS, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ S-1004; United States Tax Reporter ¶ 60,204; TaxDesk ¶ 570,103.

For Unfiled Back Taxes help CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA
MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 8, 2008

Tax Court found that it could hear challenge to frivolous return penalty before rejecting summary judgment in favor of IRS

IRS tax problem, IRS penalty, IRS Tax court ruling in favor of taxpayer

Tax Court found that it could hear challenge to frivolous return penalty before rejecting summary judgment in favor of IRS

Callahan (2008), 130 TC No. 3

After determining that the taxpayers could challenge a frivolous return penalty before it, the Tax Court went on to hold that IRS wasn't entitled to summary judgment on its imposition of the penalty. Although the taxpayers' forms were confusing and unorthodox, the Tax Court found that it wasn't clear that their arguments were substantially similar to positions previously held to be frivolous or displayed a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal income tax laws.

Facts. Dudley Joseph Callahan and Myrna Dupuy Callahan submitted Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, to IRS for 2003. Based on the Callahans' 2003 Form 1040 and Form 843, IRS assessed a frivolous return penalty under then-applicable Code Sec. 6702 (before it was amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006). The Callahans requested a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 after receiving a final notice of intent to levy. The Callahans challenged the assessment of the penalties during their hearing, and an Appeals officer issued a notice of determination denying relief from the penalties.

Background. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, (TRHCA, P.L. 109-432), amended Code Sec. 6702 to increase the amount of the penalty for frivolous tax returns from $500 to $5,000 and to impose a penalty of $5,000 on any person who submits a “specified frivolous submission.” Code Sec. 6702 was further amended to require IRS to prescribe a list of positions identified as frivolous. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 IRB 883 contains the prescribed list of frivolous positions that will trigger the increased penalty amount.

Tax Court's conclusions. The Tax Court concluded that under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, it had jurisdiction to review IRS's notice of determination when the underlying tax liability consists of frivolous return penalties.

The Court also determined that the Callahans could challenge their underlying tax liability—i.e., the frivolous return penalties—before the Tax Court. The Court noted that the Callahans did not receive a notice of deficiency with respect to the frivolous return penalties because the statutory deficiency procedures under Code Sec. 6211 through Code Sec. 6216 do not apply to frivolous return penalties under Code Sec. 6702 . The Court concluded that as the Callahans didn't otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the imposition of the frivolous return penalties, they may contest the penalties both at their Code Sec. 6330 hearing and before the Tax Court.

The Court further held that IRS failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment. Although the Callahans' Form 1040 and Form 843 were confusing and unorthodox, their arguments were not substantially similar to positions previously held to be frivolous or those that display a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal income tax laws. Their Form 1040 requested a refund of levied amounts related to a previous tax year on their 2003 Form 1040, without reason why such garnishments were illegal. The Form 1040 also contained handwritten notations explaining entries, asking questions about certain items, and requesting additional credits. It included a list of nontaxable amounts received, allegations related to a civil suit against IRS, and updated depreciation schedules related to deductions that were claimed in prior years. Similarly, their Form 843 requested a refund of “every penny you collected from us plus interest,” with little explanation of the amounts collected, or why that collection was improper.

While noting that such was not binding in this case (because the taxpayers' returns were submitted before Mar. 16, 2007), the Court found that the Callahans' positions weren't substantially similar to the list compiled by IRS of 40 frivolous positions in Notice 2007-30 . It appeared that the Callahans disputed IRS's collection activities related to 2003 as well as prior years, and that they made allegations related to those disputes on their 2003 Form 1040. But the Court concluded, until the record was developed, it couldn't say as a matter of law that the Callahans had taken a frivolous position or that they desired to delay or impede the administration of federal income tax laws.

Observation: Thus, while noting that it wasn't governed by the current Code Sec. 6702 , the Tax Court indicated that even were it applicable, it would have reached a similar conclusion.

Mike Habib, EA
MyIRSTaxRelief.com

Labels: , , , , ,