Employment / Payroll Tax Adjustments

Final regs include new process for reporting employment tax adjustments and refund claims
T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-4, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-5, Reg. § 31.6205-1, Reg. § 31.6302-1, Reg. § 31.6402(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6413(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6403(a)-2

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has issued final regs on employment tax adjustments and refund claims, effective Jan. 1, 2009. The final regs modify the process for making interest-free adjustments for both underpayments and overpayments of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) taxes and Federal income tax withholding (ITW).

Background on interest-free adjustments and refunds. While generally interest must be paid to IRS on any tax underpayment and to a taxpayer on any tax overpayment, an exception applies to employment taxes. Where an incorrect amount of tax under Code Sec. 3101 (employee FICA tax), Code Sec. 3111 (employer FICA tax), Code Sec. 3201 (employee RRTA tax), Code Sec. 3221 (employer RRTA tax), or Code Sec. 3402 (ITW) is reported to IRS for any payment of wages or compensation, Code Sec. 6205(a) and Code Sec. 6413(a) allow employers to make interest-free adjustments for underpayments and overpayments, respectively.

Under the prior Code Sec. 6205(a) regs, if a return is filed and less than the correct amount of employee or employer portions of FICA or RRTA tax is reported and paid, the employer adjusts the underpayment (a) by reporting the additional amount due as an adjustment on a current return, or (b) by reporting such additional amount on a supplemental return. For overpayments of employment taxes, Code Sec. 6413(b) allows a refund claim to be filed when an interest-free adjustment cannot be made. Under the prior Code Sec. 6413 regs, IRS allows taxpayers to choose between filing a claim for refund and making an interest-free adjustment to correct an overpayment of employment taxes.

Late in 2007, IRS issued proposed regs on employment tax adjustments and refund claims (see Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 01/03/2008). The proposed regs have now been adopted with only minor changes.

Revised adjusted return process. The final regs are issued in connection with IRS's development of new forms to report adjustments to employment taxes which will replace the existing process of reporting adjustments on regularly filed employment tax returns. The regs are part of IRS's effort to reduce taxpayer burdens by allowing employers to make employment tax adjustments on a separately filed form as soon as an error is ascertained, rather than as a line adjustment on the regularly filed employment tax return. The new adjusted return will not affect the liability reported on the current return. Under the regs, the forms used to accept an assessment of employment taxes after an examination (Form 2504, Agreement and Collection of Additional Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment (Excise or Employment Tax), and Form 2504-WC, Agreement to Assessment and Collection of Additional Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment in Worker Classification Cases (Employment Tax)) constitute adjusted returns. (Reg. § 31.6205-1)

Interest-free adjustments. The final Code Sec. 6205 regs set out the procedures for making interest-free adjustments for underpayments of employment taxes. If a return is filed and less than the correct amount of employee or employer FICA or RRTA tax is reported, and the employer discovers the error after filing the return, the employer adjusts the resulting underpayment of tax by reporting the additional amount due on an adjusted return for the return period in which the wages or compensation was paid. The adjustment must be made by the due date of the return for the return period in which the error is ascertained, and the amount of the underpayment must be paid by the time the adjustment is made, or interest will begin to accrue from that date. An underpayment adjustment can only be made within the period of limitations for assessment. For underpayments of ITW where the incorrect amount was withheld, subject to limited exceptions, an adjustment can only be made for errors ascertained during the calendar year in which the wages were paid. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(2))

The final regs also provide for interest-free adjustments of underpayments of FICA tax, RRTA tax, and ITW under certain circumstances where the underpayment arises because the employer failed to file an original return or failed to report and pay the correct type of tax. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(3), Reg. § 31.6205-1(c)(3))

The final Code Sec. 6413(a) regs set out the procedures for making interest-free adjustments for overpayments of employment taxes. If an employer ascertains an overpayment error within the applicable period of limitations on credit or refund, it's required to repay or reimburse its employees the amount of overcollected employee FICA or RRTA tax before the expiration of that period. However, the requirement to repay or reimburse doesn't apply to the extent that taxes weren't withheld from the employee or if, after reasonable efforts, the employer cannot locate the employee. In such a case, the employer can make an adjustment for only the employer share of FICA or RRTA tax. An interest-free adjustment for an overpayment cannot be made once a claim for refund has been filed. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-1)

Once an employer repays or reimburses an employee to the extent required, the employer may report both the employee and employer portions of FICA or RRTA tax as an overpayment on an adjusted return. The employer must certify on the adjusted return that it has repaid or reimbursed its employees to the extent required.

Under the final regs, the reporting of the overpayment constitutes an interest-free adjustment if the overpayment is reported on an adjusted return filed before the 90th day prior to expiration of the period of limitations on credit or refund. Similar rules apply for making interest-free adjustments for ITW overpayments, except that an interest-free adjustment can only be made if the employer ascertains the error and repays or reimburses its employees within the same calendar year that the wages were paid and reports the adjustment on an adjusted return. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2)

No repayment or reimbursement for interest-free adjustments of overpayments. Unlike in the proposed reg, in the final regs the employer isn't required to repay or reimburse the employee or to adjust the overpayment by the due date of the return for the return period following the return period in which the error is ascertained. (Reg. § 31.6402-2(a)(1)) After reconsideration, IRS determined there was insufficient reason to impose a timing restriction other than the period of limitations on credit or refund of taxes. (T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008)

Deposits, payments, and credits. An employer making an interest-free adjustment must pay the amount of the adjustment by the time it files an adjusted return. The timely payment satisfies the employer's deposit obligations for the adjustment. (Reg. § 31.6302-1(c)(7)) In determining the amount of accumulated taxes in an agricultural employer's lookback period (which determines the employer's deposit schedule), adjustments to tax liability made under the filing of adjusted returns or refund claims aren't taken into account; new agricultural employers are treated as having employment tax liabilities of zero for any lookback period before the date the employer started or acquired its business. (Reg. § 31.6302-1(g)(4))

If the underpayment amount isn't paid when the adjusted return is filed, interest begins to accrue as of the date the adjusted return is filed. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(2))

The adjusted overpayment amount will be applied as a credit toward payment of the employer's liability for the calendar quarter (or calendar year for annual returns being adjusted) in which the adjusted return is filed, unless IRS notifies the employer that the credit will be applied to a different return period or that the employer isn't entitled to the adjustment under applicable laws or procedures. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2(b)(2))

Refunds for overpayments. As in the prior regs, instead of making an interest-free adjustment for an overpayment, employers can file a claim for refund for the amount of the overpayment. Furthermore, if an employer can't make an interest-free adjustment for an overpayment because the period of limitations for claiming a credit or refund for the overpayment will expire within 90 days or because IRS has otherwise notified the employer that it's not entitled to the adjustment, the employer can recover the overpayment only by filing a claim for refund. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2(d))

An employer can file a claim for refund of an overpayment of FICA or RRTA tax, but must certify that it has repaid or reimbursed the employee's share of FICA or RRTA tax to the employee or has secured the employee's written consent to allowance of the refund or credit. However, the employer isn't required to repay or reimburse the employee or obtain the written consent of the employee to the extent that the overpayment doesn't include taxes withheld from the employee or, after reasonable efforts, the employer cannot locate the employee or the employee, once contacted, will not provide the requested consent. (Reg. § 31.6402(a)-2(a)) The final regs under Code Sec. 6414 set out similar procedures for filing a claim for refund of overpaid ITW, except that an employer can't file a claim for refund of an overpayment of ITW for an amount the employer deducted or withheld from an employee. (Reg. § 31.6414-1(a))

IRS intends to issue guidance to provide examples of how the final regs apply in different factual scenarios. (T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008)

State Employment Tax Changes

Recap of recent state employment tax laws, developments, and changes taking effect in July

Several states and localities are making employment tax changes that take effect in July. In addition, several new employment tax laws and developments have occurred recently. Here are some of the highlights from the following states:

Alabama
Unemployment. Effective for benefit years beginning after July 5, 2008, a claimant must serve a one-week waiting period prior to receiving unemployment benefits. The maximum weekly benefit will also increase from $235 to $255 [L. 2008, H427].

California
Employment Taxes. A state of emergency was declared on June 12th in the following counties: Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern, due to the drought. Affected employers may request up to a 60-day extension of time to file their state payroll reports and deposit state payroll taxes with the Employment Development Department (EDD). All requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For further information, contact the Taxpayer Assistance Center at (888) 745-3886 [EDD Announcement, 6/13/2008].

Wage and Hour. The California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employee who received a premium holiday pay rate for work performed on Labor Day, and who worked 12 hours on Labor Day and 60 hours during the week, was only entitled to overtime based on her regular pay rate. The employer is entitled to credit the time-and-a-half premium pay on holidays against otherwise earned overtime [ Advanced-Tech Security Services, Inc. v. Superior Court, Cal. Ct. App., Second App. Dist., Division Five, Dkt. No. B205186, 6/3/08].

Colorado
Unemployment. The Colorado Department of Labor & Employment (DLE) reminds employers to review adjustments to their account on line 15 of Form UITR-1, Unemployment Insurance Tax Report (Tax Report), before determining their tax payment for the quarter [DLE UI Quarterly News, 2nd Quarter 2008].

Connecticut
Employment Taxes. The state is setting up a joint task force on worker misclassification issues (i.e., employee vs. independent contractor) [L. 2008, H5113].

Unemployment. New registration requirements go into effect for professional employer organizations (PEOs), beginning in 2009 [L. 2008, H5113].

Wage Payment. Effective Oct 1, 2008, wage deductions are permitted for contributions that are attributable to automatic enrollment in IRC §401(k), 403(b), 408, 408A, or 457 retirement plans [L. 2008, S157].

District of Columbia
Time Off. Effective Nov. 13, 2008, all Washington, D.C. employers must provide paid leave for illness and absences associated with domestic violence, sexual abuse, or stalking of employees or their family members [D.C. Register, Vol. 55, No. 21, 005886, 5/23/08; DC Law 17-152, 5/13/08].

Idaho
Wage and Hour. Effective July 1, state employees who do not qualify for the executive exemption under Idaho law, or the administrative or professional exemption under federal law, and state employees not designated as exempt under any other complete exemption in federal law, are eligible for overtime compensation.

Illinois
Wage and Hour. The minimum wage rate will increase from $7.50 per hour to $7.75 per hour on July 1.
Iowa
Wage and Hour. Effective July 1, the following enterprises are exempt from Iowa minimum wage rules, regardless of whether sales are $300,000 or more: (1) enterprises engaged in the business of laundering, cleaning, or repairing clothing or fabrics; (2) enterprises engaged in construction or reconstruction; (3) hospitals and schools; and (4) public agencies.

Indiana
Wage Payment. A federal court has ruled that store managers who were no longer employed by a company were not entitled to unpaid bonuses, since one contingency for receiving the bonuses was continued employment. The bonuses did not qualify as wages under either Indiana wage payment or wage claim statutes because of the contingency [ Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, CA7, Dkt. No. 07-3488, 5/30/2008].

Withholding. Indiana law requires the withholding of adjusted gross income tax and local option income tax from a pension distribution, if the payee requests withholding. The withholding request must be made in writing and should include the payee's Indiana county of residence [Indiana Information Bulletin IT13, 06/01/2008].

Kansas
Withholding. Effective July 1, employers with an annual total withholding tax liability of over $45,000 (before July 1, over $100,000) may be required to remit taxes by electronic funds transfer [Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-5151, as amended by L. 2007, H2434, §13].

Unemployment. Wage reports, contributions returns, and payments due after June 30, 2008, must be filed electronically by employers with 250 or more employees, and third-party administrators with 250 or more client employees.

Kentucky
Wage and Hour. The minimum wage rate will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour on July 1.
Massachusetts
Wage and Hour. Effective July 13th, treble damages will be awarded for all wage and hour violations, even if there was no “willful misconduct” by the employer.

Maryland
Time Off. The Flexible Leave Act amends the state's family leave provisions, effective Oct. 1, 2008. The provision will apply to employers with 15 or more employees working in the state. Employers will not only be able to allow employees to take “leave with pay” for the birth or adoption of a child, but also to care for a spouse, child, or parent. “Leave with pay” includes sick leave, vacation time, and compensatory time. In cases where an employee earns more than one type of leave, the employee may elect the type and amount of paid leave to be used [L. 2008, H40].

Minnesota
Withholding. Effective beginning after Dec. 31, 2008, payments to independent contractors are subject to state backup withholding if they are subject to federal backup withholding. Previous legislation that required third-party bulk filers to withhold from independent contractors was deleted before the provision took effect [L. 2007, H3149].

Mississippi
New Hire Reporting. Beginning in July, certain employers, third-party employers, contractors, and subcontractors will be required to register and use the federal Department of Homeland Security E-Verify program for all new hires. Required compliance is phased in through July 2011, based on the number of employees.

Michigan
Wage and Hour. The minimum wage rate will increase from $7.15 per hour to $7.40 per hour on July 1.
Montana
Unemployment. Effective July 1, the administrative fund tax for governmental experience-rated employers is 0.09% of total wages.

Nevada
Employment Taxes. The Nevada Tax Commission has approved a tax amnesty program that calls for waiving interest and penalty on certain tax liabilities, including the modified business tax (on payroll). The program is scheduled to start on July 1, 2008, and end on Sept. 30, 2008. To be eligible for amnesty, a business or taxpayer must be in full compliance with state law and pay the entire tax due by the end of the amnesty period. The Nevada Department of Taxation is in the preliminary stages of developing specific guidelines and requirements for the program [ Nevada Press Release, 6/2/08].

Unemployment. Effective July 1, all unemployment tax payments of $10,000 or more (including interest and penalties) must be remitted electronically.

Wage and Hour. Effective July 1, the state minimum wage will increase to $5.85 per hour for employees who receive qualified health benefits, and to $6.85 per hour for all other employees.

New Jersey
Withholding. Employees are allowed to exclude certain employer-provided commuter transportation benefits from their taxable gross income, up to a maximum amount that is adjusted annually for inflation. The maximum amount for 2008 is $1,440, up from $1,410 for 2007. Amounts in excess of $1,440 must be included in an employee's gross wages on Form W-2 or other written statement [Div. Tax. Notice of Employee Commuter Transportation Benefit Limits, 06/02/2008].

Oklahoma
Withholding. A federal district court has suspended the enforcement of a statute that required contractors to withhold from workers who could not produce federal documents showing that they were authorized alien labor. The court found the Oklahoma law to be an attempt to regulate behavior, not to impose a new tax. The injunction continues until the merits of the case are finally decided [Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. Henry, DC OK, Dkt. No. CIV-8-109-C, 6/4/2008].

The governor has signed into law a tax amnesty bill. A taxpayer will be entitled to a waiver of penalty, interest, and other collection fees due on eligible taxes (including withholding taxes), if the taxpayer voluntarily files delinquent tax returns and pays the taxes due during the compliance initiative. The program is scheduled to take place from Sept. 15 until Nov. 14, 2008 [L. 2007, S2034 (c.395), §1].

Oregon
Time Off. The state Supreme Court has ruled that while employers are required to provide minimum rest breaks as per Or. Admin. R. § 839-020-0050(1)(b) , violations do not give rise to a wage claim for additional wages [Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Or. Sup. Ct., Dkt. No. SC055175, 5/15/08].

Pennsylvania
Withholding. Effective July 1 through Dec. 31, 2008, Philadelphia tax rates are reduced to 3.98% for residents and 3.5392% for nonresidents. The tax rate that should be used is the rate in effect on the date that the taxable compensation is actually paid to the employee. For example, wage tax on a paycheck dated July 1, 2008, for wages paid for the period from June 16 to June 30, 2008, should be withheld at the rate in effect as of July 1, 2008 [Philadelphia Bill No. 080161, 05/22/2008; Important Notice: Wage Tax Rate Reduction, Philadelphia Dept. of Rev., 06/04/2008].

South Carolina
New Hire Reporting. New legislation requires all employers to verify the employment eligibility of new hires beginning as early as Jan. 1, 2009 [L. 2008, H4400].

Withholding. Effective June 4, 2008, withholding agents must withhold 7% state income tax on compensation paid to an individual that was reported on Form 1099, if the individual: (1) fails to provide a taxpayer identification or Social Security number; (2) fails to provide a correct taxpayer identification or Social Security number; or (3) provides an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number issued for nonresident aliens. There are exceptions to this rule [S.C. Code Ann. §12-8-595, as amended by L. 2008, H4400].

Texas
Unemployment. The state has begun mailing checks to experience-rated employers eligible to receive the surplus tax credit [TWC Tax Department Tip of the Month, June 2008].

Vermont
Withholding. Effective July 1, the state may grant EFT filers up to six additional days for payment (prior to that, four additional days).

Virginia
Withholding. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the requirement in Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-1815 to “truthfully account for and pay over such tax” is violated by one who willfully fails either to “account for” or “pay over” the tax. Therefore, a criminal penalty could be assessed against a person who failed to pay his withholding tax obligation, even though he had truthfully accounted for the obligation [Gibson v. Cmwth. of Virginia, Va. Sup. Ct., Dkt. No. 072023, 6/6/2008 ].

West Virginia
Withholding. A business registration certificate may be revoked for repeated, willful refusal to remit state withholding taxes when due [West Virginia Administrative Decision 08-052 F, 06/08/2008].

Wage and Hour. The minimum wage rate will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour on July 1.
Wisconsin
Withholding. Wisconsin will follow federal rules that require “disregarded entities” to pay their own employment taxes and file their own employment tax reports, beginning with wages paid in 2009. As an “employer,” a disregarded entity must obtain a Wisconsin employer identification number [Wisconsin Dept. Rev. Tax Bulletin 156, 04/01/2008].

The state has issued a tax release that clarifies the circumstances under which “public speaking services” are subject to Wisconsin's nonresident entertainer prepayment law [Wisconsin Dept. Rev. Tax Bulletin 156, 04/01/2008].

Wyoming
Unemployment. Effective July 1, 2007, employers were required to submit “Wyoming Employee Wage Listings” as part of their quarterly reporting responsibilities. Beginning in 2009, the state may increase an employer's tax rate by a 2% penalty rate if the employer has failed to submit the wage listing [Wy. Quarterly Connection, 1st Qtr. 2008].

Tax Problem Resolution Services

Tax Problem Resolution Services

I specialize in resolving tax problems for individuals, small-size companies, mid-size companies, and fortune 1,000 companies. I represent individuals and businesses before the IRS and any taxing authority, therefore the taxpayer does not have to deal with the IRS directly.

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 tax audits, examinations or collections efforts in a proactive manner. Applying new dispute resolution procedures and best practices is critical to managing IRS tax examinations or collections problems, resolving disputes at the earliest point, and containing administrative and tax costs. The tax problem resolution services services we offer are:

* Audit Representation
* Wage Garnishment / Levy Release
* Bank Levy Release
* Payroll Tax Problems
* Payroll Tax Audits
* Back Tax Unfiled Returns
* 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

Contact us today to resolve your tax problems.

Don't compromise on your representation CLICK HERE

Mike Habib, EA

As an IRS licensed Enrolled Agent (EA) providing IRS Tax Problem Resolution Services, 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

IRS Employment / Payroll Tax Focus

IRS focusing efforts on four employment tax initiatives

American Payroll Association 26th Annual Congress May 13-17 (Austin, TX)

John Tuzynski, IRS Chief, Employment Tax Operations, told attendees at APA's 26th Annual Congress that the IRS is focusing its efforts on the following four key employment tax initiatives: (1) worker classification, (2) tip reporting compensation, (3) officer compensation, and (4) fringe benefits.

Worker classification. Approximately 30% of IRS audits focus on the employee vs. independent contractor issue. The IRS may further review a personal income tax return which, over a period of several years, has only included 1099-source income.

Tip reporting. The IRS is looking for voluntary compliance in this area. Tuzynski believes some employers in the food and beverage industry may not be aware of the Attributed Tip Income Program (ATIP). ATIP provides benefits to employers and employees similar to those offered under other tip reporting agreements, including protection from audits. However, ATIP does not require employers to meet with the IRS to determine tip rates or eligibility.

Officer compensation. There are many S corporations with significant distributable income that report very little officer compensation, even though the officer provided key services to the corporation. These corporations may not be paying their fair share of employment taxes.

Fringe benefits. The IRS continues to target improper employee tool and equipment expense reimbursement plans.

New initiative. The IRS does not currently follow up on notices that it sends to employers asking them to begin backup withholding on employees with mismatches between their name and taxpayer identification number. Tuzynski said that the IRS will soon have a new initiative in this area.

Payroll Tax Audit? Now What Are Your Options?

IRS or State Payroll Tax Audit & Employment Tax Audit

The word audit can strike a very real sense of fear into the hearts of even the most courageous of men. When you own a business, there is even more at stake than a few minor penalties or fees; you can lose everything you’ve worked so hard to create. If you are facing a payroll tax audit you need to make every effort to cooperate with your auditor. The best way to prepare for a payroll tax audit, and therefore survive the audit, is to keep excellent records for several years past on hand and have them stored completely and according to year in case you are faced with an audit many years after the fact.

The first thing you need to do in order to keep everything straight when it comes to surviving a payroll tax audit is to keep your accounting practices current. Many businesses do this by either outsourcing their payroll responsibilities to firms that deal exclusively with payroll matters, including payroll taxes, or hiring an in-house bookkeeper to handle their payroll. The benefits of either of these is great because laws regarding payroll taxes and withholdings change regularly and are so complex in general.

You should also insure that you have the proper resources in place when it comes to avoiding a payroll tax audit or at the very least coming away from one without owing any back taxes, fines, or penalties is one of the biggest responsibilities a business owner faces. If you aren’t willing to pay for outsourcing this responsibility to someone that is qualified as an outsider you very well may want to consider hiring a fulltime staff member who has the expertise and qualifications to devote to insuring accurate payroll deductions are made. As a licensed tax professional specializing tax problems resolution, I can represent you in your payroll tax audit to advocate your position and make sure your options and your rights are taken care of.

You should also take the time each year to review your records and check for mistakes. While it won’t help you avoid a payroll tax audit this little effort made each year can save you a great deal of time and many headaches should one arise. In addition you will find out during the course of the ‘internal audit’ whether or not any information is missing, incomplete, or inaccurate and handle it immediately rather than finding out two or three years after the fact.

If you find, during the course of your internal audit or review, that you are going to have problems with your payroll tax audit it would be wise to secure the services of our firm in order to help you deal with the outcome of your payroll audit and assist you when negotiating payment options and reducing penalties. The IRS is a formidable foe and you do not want to face them unprepared or alone if it can be avoided. It could cost considerably more than it has to. There are options available, even if you owe a considerable amount of money.

As a licensed tax professional specializing tax problems resolution, I may be able to negotiate some amazing things on your behalf when it comes to your payroll tax audit and a potentially negative or outright negative outcome. Honest mistakes are made every day when it comes to handling payroll taxes don’t allow your mistakes, when discovered through a payroll tax audit be the end of your business — especially when a well qualified and experienced tax professional like Mike Habib, EA can make all the difference in the world.

Employee vs. Independent Contractor Tax Problems

New bill seeks to reduce worker misclassifications

H.R. 5804, 4/15/08 [Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act of 2008]

Rep. James McDermott (D-Wash) has introduced legislation that would revise employee vs. independent contractor rules and increase information reporting penalties The legislation is called the “Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act of 2008,” and it primarily focuses on Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Under Section 530, employers that meet the following three requirements are protected from potentially large employment tax assessments, even though they incorrectly categorized a worker as an independent contractor: (1) reasonable basis, (2) substantive consistency, and (3) reporting consistency. An employer can meet the “reasonable basis” requirement if judicial precedent, IRS rulings, a past IRS audit, or industry practice supports the classification of a worker as an independent contractor. An employer meets the substantive consistency requirement if it (and any predecessor business) consistently treated the workers in question as independent contractors. The reporting consistency requirement is met if the employer has not classified the workers as employees on any required federal tax returns, including information returns.

New Rules. The new legislation would repeal Section 530 and replace it with a new Code section, IRC §3511, that would make it more difficult for employers to avoid employment tax liability if they misclassified a worker as an independent contractor. IRC §3511 would generally require employers to have a “reasonable basis” for classifying a worker as an independent contractor. The “reasonable basis” standard is met only if:

(1) The employer classified the worker as an independent contractor based on: (i) a written determination (as defined in IRC §6110(b)(1)) that it received addressing the employment status of either the worker in question, or another individual holding a substantially similar position with the employer; or (ii) an employment tax examination of the worker, or another individual holding a substantially similar position with the employer, that did not conclude that the worker should be treated as an employee; and

(2) The employer (or a predecessor) has not treated any other individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee for employment tax purposes for any period beginning after Dec. 31, 1977.

The new legislation would not allow an employer to rely on an examination commenced, or a written determination issued, more than seven years before the beginning of the period in question. For purposes of IRC §3511, the determination as to whether an individual holds a position substantially similar to a position held by another individual would be made in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The IRS would issue its determination of worker status no later than 90 days after the filing of a petition with respect to employment status in any industry where employment is transient, casual, or seasonal (e.g., construction). The new statute would apply to services rendered more than one year after the date that the legislation is enacted. Section 530 would not apply to services rendered more than one year after the date that the legislation is enacted.

Increase in Information Reporting Penalties. Under current law, a taxpayer that doesn't file a correct information return may be subject to the following penalties:

• a $15 per return penalty if corrected within 30 days after the due date, up to a maximum total penalty of $75,000 a year ($25,000 for small businesses);
• a $30 per return penalty if corrected later than 30 days after the due date but before August 1, up to a maximum penalty of $150,000 a year ($50,000 for small businesses);
• a $50 per return penalty if not corrected by August 1 (or if a return is not filed at all), up to a maximum penalty of $250,000 a year ($100,000 for small businesses).

A “small business” is defined as a concern whose average annual gross receipts for the three most recent tax years ending before the calendar year in which the returns are due (or for the entire period of its existence, if less than three years) are $5 million or less.

Increase in penalties. Under the new law, a taxpayer that doesn't file a correct information return would be subject to the following penalties:

• a $50 per return penalty if corrected within 30 days after the due date, up to a maximum total penalty of $500,000 a year ($175,000 for small businesses);
• a $100 per return penalty if corrected later than 30 days after the due date but before August 1, up to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 a year ($500,000 for small businesses);
• a $250 per return penalty if not corrected by August 1 (or if a return is not filed at all), up to a maximum penalty of $3,000,000 a year ($1,000,000 for small businesses).

The new law would also increase the penalties for failure to furnish a correct payee statement, intentional disregard of the rules, and failure to comply with other information reporting requirements (see IRC §6723).

To resolve your payroll tax problem contact us today.

Tax Problems: Type of Tax Problems and how to resolve them

Tax Problem Solver – Why You Need Professional Help

Tax problems come in different forms; IRS tax problems, State tax problems, and Sales tax problems. Tax authorities are constantly increasing their tax enforcement efforts through tax collection and tax audit.

When taxpayers receive the dreaded tax notice that their tax return or their business is going to be audited and examined, the first thing they should do is seek professional tax advice. Same thing when taxpayers receive collection letters threatening levying and garnishing their wages or paychecks, or the tax levy letter for their bank account, taxpayers should seek professional tax advice to resolve their tax problems.

The most common options to resolve your tax problems are:

• Full Payment: paying the amount on the tax notice and avoiding the confrontation with the taxing authority. Most of the time, this option is not the best option for the taxpayer to resolve their tax problem, as often the tax bill is inaccurate.
• Pay The Correct Tax Only: paying the actual amount of taxes if you can afford it is usually a good solution to your tax problem. This will entail working with the taxing authority to abate the penalty assessed. The success of penalty abatement is based on reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
• Installment Agreement: paying the tax amount through an installment agreement is a common way to resolve your tax problem. You should seek professional tax advice, as the taxing authority will usually request a large monthly payment, while professional tax representatives will work on attaining an installment agreement that is reasonable and you can live with without causing a financial and economic hardship on you and your family.
• Offer In Compromise: an offer in compromise, OIC, will usually be accepted by the taxing authority to resolve your tax problem if the amount offered to settle your tax problem is equal or exceed the taxpayer’s Reasonable Collection Potential, RCP. The IRS, or the State, or the Sales Tax Agency determines RCP by using the financial analysis tools like the 433-A for individuals and 433-B for business entities.

No matter which option is correct to resolve your tax problems, usually there are more than one viable option, it is essential that the taxpayer comply with the tax law going forward. That is, all tax returns are filed timely; all estimated income taxes and payroll deposits must be paid timely.

An experienced tax professional who specializes in tax representation would be the best person to have in your corner when the IRS, the State, or the Sales Tax Agency contacts you.

The most surprising fact of all after plumbing the depths of what to do when the IRS contacts you regarding a tax problem is how shallow the well really is. With the lull in activity on the IRS tax audit and collection front, there are relatively few pronounced tax-experts. The $345 billion dollar tax gap remains fascinating to the US Congress and the IRS. It is a high profile item!

The IRS released tax records on their most famous tax problem cases that imprisoned Al Capone, they inadvertently nabbed the Governor of New York allegedly spending tens of thousands of dollars for what they least expected. From Will Smith, to Wesley Snipes to Nicolas Cage IRS audits and collection are on the rise, and is expected to continue for many years to come!

So, do you have a tax problem yourself? Do yourself a favor and contact us today to assist you in resolving your tax problem. We resolve IRS tax collection and or audit problems, we resolve State tax audit and collection problems, and we resolve Sales tax problems.

Offshore payroll tax problems

Houses passes legislation that would make sure certain government contractors pay employment taxes - Foreign shell companies payroll tax problems

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

The House of Representatives has passed legislation [H.R. 5719, Sec. 18, 4/15/08] proposed by Representatives Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) that seeks to end the practice of U.S. government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid paying payroll taxes. Under current law, US companies are required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for their American workers overseas. But some firms have been able to get around that requirement by hiring workers through offshore shell companies or foreign subsidiaries.

The legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act to treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies performing services under contract with the U.S. government as American employers for Social Security and Medicare tax purposes. The legislation would require any foreign company that is at least 50% owned by a U.S. federal contractor to pay payroll taxes for its American employees.

The bill was inspired by recent news that defense contractor KBR Inc. had avoided paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by creating shell companies in the Cayman Islands. A similar provision is being sponsored in the Senate by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Joint Venture Self-employment tax matters

Qualified joint venture's rental real estate income isn't subject to self-employment tax - Chief Counsel Advice 200816030

Mike Habib, EA
myIRSTaxRelief.com

In Chief Counsel Advice (CCA), IRS has concluded that the qualified joint venture election under Code Sec. 761(f) doesn't cause self-employment tax to be imposed on income from a rental real estate business that would otherwise be excluded. Dividends and capital gains are similarly excluded. The qualified joint venture election, which was recently added by the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007 (Small Business Act), allows eligible married co-owners to avoid filing partnership returns and both spouses to receive credit for social security and Medicare coverage purposes.

Background on qualified joint ventures. The Small Business Act provision generally allows a qualified joint venture whose only members are a husband and wife filing a joint return not to be treated as a partnership for Federal tax purposes. (Code Sec. 761(f)) A qualified joint venture is a joint venture involving the conduct of a trade or business, if:

(1) the only members of the joint venture are a husband and wife,
(2) both spouses materially participate in the trade or business, and
(3) both spouses elect to have the provision apply. (Code Sec. 761(f)(2))

The meaning of material participation is the same as under the passive activity loss rules in Code Sec. 469(h) and its regs.

Where the election is made, all items of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit are divided between the spouses according to their respective interests in the venture, and each spouse takes into account his or her respective share of these items as if they were attributable to a trade or business conducted by the spouse as a sole proprietor.

Background on self-employment tax. A tax is generally imposed on an individual's self-employment income (i.e., on his net earnings from self-employment) with certain adjustments. (Code Sec. 1401, Code Sec. 1402(b)) Net earnings from self-employment generally includes an individual's gross income from a trade or business, plus his distributive share of income or loss from a partnership in which he is a member. An exception provides that rental income from real estate is excluded from net earnings from self-employment, unless the rental income is received in the course of a trade or business as a real estate dealer. (Code Sec. 1402(a)(1)) Similarly, dividend income and gain or loss from sale or exchange of a capital asset are excluded from net earnings from self-employment. (Code Sec. 1402(a)(2), Code Sec. 1402(a)(3))

Code Sec. 1402(a)(17), added by the Small Business Act, provides that “notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection,”—i.e., notwithstanding other self-employment rules—each spouse's share of income or loss from a qualified joint venture is taken into account under the Code Sec. 761(f) qualified joint venture rules in determining the spouse's net earnings from self-employment. IRS has indicated that an electing husband and wife must each file with their joint income tax return a separate Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business (Sole Proprietorship) or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit of Loss From Farming, and a separate Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self- Employment Tax, as applicable (see Newsstand e-mail 3/21/08 or Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 03/27/2008). While the general instructions for the 2007 Form 1040 don't address the issue, the instructions for the 2007 Schedule E informs electing spouses that for a rental real estate business each spouse must report his or her share of this income on their respective Schedules C and not on Schedules E.

IRS examiners have questioned whether the spouses' qualified joint venture election for a rental real estate business doesn't convert income derived from business, which would otherwise be excluded, into net earnings from self-employment.

Effect of spousal joint venture election on self-employment tax. The CCA concludes that in the case of a husband and wife who make the qualified joint venture election for a rental real estate business, each spouse has a share of the qualified joint venture income, and each spouse may exclude his or her respective share of the qualified joint venture income from net earnings from self-employment under the Code Sec. 1402(a)(1) exclusion.

Generally, an individual who has income from a rental real estate business won't be subject to self-employment tax on the income because it's excluded from net earnings from self-employment under Code Sec. 1402(a)(1). He'll report the income on a Schedule E (Form 1040) and carry over the amounts to his individual return (e.g., Form 1040), but not include the amounts on Schedule SE (Form 1040) in calculating self-employment tax.

The CCA reasons that the legislative history of Code Sec. 761(f) suggests that any income earned by a qualified joint venture is reported for all federal tax purposes using the same forms as if each spouse were a sole proprietor who earns that income. The phrase “not withstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection,” in Code Sec. 1402(a)(17) taken together with the rest of Code Sec. 1402 and Code Sec. 761(f) 's legislative history directs that none of the preceding subsections in Code Sec. 1402 are to alter that allocation between spouses. To read this phrase as nullifying the application of all the exclusions from net earnings from self-employment would trigger dramatic changes in the application of the self-employment tax to spouses electing qualified joint venture treatment. This was clearly not intended. The purpose of Code Sec. 761(f) wasn't to convert income that would otherwise be excluded from net earnings from self-employment altogether into income that is subject to self-employment tax.

Dividends and capital gain aren't subject to self-employment tax. The CCA similarly concludes that its reasoning applies to dividends and capital gains earned by a qualified joint venture. This income, otherwise excluded from net earnings from self-employment, is also excluded from self-employment tax for a qualified joint venture.

Contact our office today to resolve any joint venture tax matter.

US employers and foreign employees tax problem

IRS rules that withholding exceptions for employees in foreign country don't apply - Chief Counsel Advice 200814010

Mike Habib, EA

myIRSTaxRelief.com

In Chief Counsel Advice (CCA), IRS has held that a U.S. employer had to withhold on wages it paid to employees working in a foreign country. The withholding exception under Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii) (dealing with foreign countries that require wage withholding) didn't apply. This conclusion wasn't altered by the employer's proposed arrangement that attempted to comply with both the U.S. and foreign country's withholding laws. The CCA also held that neither this nor another exception applicable to the Code Sec. 911 foreign earned income and housing cost exclusions applied to the foreign employees who were aliens. The CCA was issued even though the taxpayer withdrew its ruling request after being notified of IRS's intent to rule adversely.

Background. For income tax withholding purposes, “wages” doesn't include remuneration paid for services performed for an employer (other than the U.S. or a U.S. agency) by a U.S. citizen if, at the time of payment, it's reasonable to believe that the remuneration will be excluded from gross income under the Code Sec. 911 foreign earned income and foreign housing exclusions. Such payments are subject to withholding only to the extent that they are expected to exceed these exclusions. (Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(i)) Under another exception, “wages” don't include remuneration paid for services performed for an employer by a U.S. citizen if, at the time of payment, the employer is required by the law of the foreign country or U.S. possession to withhold income tax on the remuneration. (Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii))

In Rev Rul 79-392, 1979-2 CB 360, IRS ruled that a U.S. company wasn't required to withhold federal income tax on remuneration paid to its U.S. employees who serve as consultants to a foreign company and perform all services within the foreign country, where, under an agreement with the company, the foreign country assesses the income tax imposed by its law on the consultants on a direct collection basis.

Facts. X, a U.S. limited liability corporation, employed a number of U.S. citizens and U.S. resident aliens in a foreign country (foreign employees). Under the foreign country's tax procedures, its income tax (salaries tax) was remitted to its tax authority using a program of provisional tax payments submitted by individual employees.

X had been advised by counsel that payroll deductions that were not specifically permitted under the foreign country law were prohibited, except where a government official gave his express approval. X wasn't aware of any occasion where a government official gave such approval. This withholding prohibition didn't apply to amounts paid at the employer's discretion, and so the deduction of U.S. income tax withholding from discretionary bonuses paid to the foreign employees wasn't prohibited.

To comply with both the U.S. and foreign country's laws on withholding, X plans to adopt a proposed approach in which X would enter into an agreement with the foreign country tax authority to obtain an acknowledgment that X was the foreign employee's agent in connection with the purchase of tax reserve certificates (TRCs) on behalf of the foreign employee. The TRCs would be automatically redeemed by the foreign country tax authority on a first-in-first-out basis to settle any outstanding foreign country tax liabilities for each foreign employee. The foreign country tax authority would automatically redeem the TRCs (purchased on behalf of the specific foreign employee) to pay that foreign employee's foreign country tax liability on the tax due date. X believed that it would be replicating a tax withholding system by deducting approximately 16% of the foreign employee's gross compensation to purchase TRCs in the same amount for the foreign employee's foreign country TRC account to satisfy applicable foreign country tax.

Conclusions. The CCA ruled that because the foreign country didn't require income tax withholding on the wages of X's foreign employees, remuneration paid to them didn't qualify for the exception under Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii), regardless of whether X entered into its proposed approach. IRS rejected X's comparison of its approach to that in Rev Rul 79-392. Under the facts in Rev Rul 79-392, the company was required under the law of the foreign country to withhold income tax on the remuneration paid to the consultants. However, in X's case, the foreign country law doesn't require withholding from the remuneration paid to X's employees. Rather, the foreign country prohibits withholding on wages (as wages is defined for this purpose under foreign country law) unless there is an agreement between the employer and employee approved by the foreign country tax authority. Thus, the two situations deal with different facts, and Rev Rul 79-392 doesn't support X's proposed approach.

X's funding of the TRCs through the proposed approach wouldn't require X to withhold foreign country income tax from the wages of the foreign employees for purposes of the Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii) exception. Furthermore, IRS was unaware of any amendment to X's proposed approach that would require X to withhold the foreign country income tax from X's foreign employees' wages under Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii), in light of X's representation that the foreign country law provided that no withholding of foreign country income tax was required from employees' wages.

The CCA also ruled that neither the exception in Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(i) or the one in Code Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)(ii) applied to remuneration for services performed by individuals who were aliens (whether a resident alien or a nonresident alien). Thus, these exceptions couldn't apply to an X employee who is an alien individual.

Get payroll tax problem resolution by CLICKING HERE.

Trust fund penalty responsible person for the Code Sec. 6672(a)

Tax-exempt hospital's chairman of the board was liable for trust fund penalty - have a tax professional on your side

Mike Habib, EA

myIRSTaxRelief.com

Stephen Verret v. U.S. (DC TX 2/14/2008) 101 AFTR 2d ¶2008-572

A district court has found that the chairman of the board of a tax-exempt hospital was a responsible person liable for the Code Sec. 6672(a) trust fund penalty. The chairman, who played an active role in various aspects of the hospital's operation and could have ensured that the hospital paid its taxes, chose instead not to exert any authority over these business affairs. Further, since the chairman wasn't serving solely in an honorary capacity, he didn't qualify for the protection given voluntary board members under Code Sec. 6672(e).

Observation: The case once again demonstrates the perils faced by a taxpayer who becomes involved in a financially distressed company. As this case illustrates, the fact that a company is a tax-exempt entity will not shield a taxpayer who fails to carefully exercise his duties to make sure employment taxes are paid to IRS.

Background. Where an employer fails to properly pay over its payroll taxes, IRS can seek to collect a penalty equal to 100% of the unpaid taxes from a “responsible person,” i.e., a person who: (1) is responsible for collecting, accounting for and paying over payroll taxes and (2) willfully fails to perform this responsibility. (Code Sec. 6672(a))

Unpaid volunteer board members of tax-exempt organizations who are solely serving in an honorary capacity, aren't involved in day-to-day financial activities, and don't know about the penalized failure are exempt from the penalty, unless that results in no one being liable for it. (Code Sec. 6672(e))

Facts. The primary business of Community Healthcare Foundation (Foundation), a Code Sec. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, was the operation of Doctors Hospital. Under the hospital's by-laws, the Foundation provided that the Board of Trustees, which was comprised of voluntary and unpaid members of the community, would act as the governing body of the hospital. The by-laws also provided for a Chairman of the Board and a Chief Administrative Executive Officer (CEO).

Stephen Verret served in various capacities on the hospital's board during a 26-year tenure, including as Chairman of the Board from '99 until his departure in 2002. In addition, a company in which Verret was a majority stockholder performed electrical services for the hospital, and his wife was employed by the hospital as Chief Operating Officer from January through March 2001. Verret also contracted with, and was paid by, a business involved in the operation and management of hospitals to help recruit specialized physicians and increase the hospital's revenues.

Because of a steadily deteriorating financial situation, the hospital failed to remit employment withholding taxes during the first part of 2001. While the outstanding tax liability was ultimately satisfied with borrowed cash appropriated to buy medical equipment, the hospital's Executive Director David Cottey was informed by Verret, individually, and by the Board, collectively, that the payment of employment withholding taxes was of paramount importance. Under no circumstances, he was told, was he to fail to pay these taxes again. However, contrary to his repeated assurances throughout 2001, in November of 2001, Cottey told Verret and the Board that the income and FICA taxes for the employees were delinquent for the third and fourth quarters of 2001.

IRS found Verret and the hospital's Controller and Chief Financial Officer to be liable as responsible persons. Verret paid $407,098 in tax (and $1,821 in interest), and sought a refund in the district court. IRS responded by seeking a summary judgment against Verret.

Taxpayer is responsible person. The district court concluded that Verret clearly qualified as a responsible person under Code Sec. 6672. The court rejected his contention that he wasn't responsible for the hospital's day-to-day operations and that he didn't have the authority to decide what bills (including taxes) were paid. The by-laws clearly stated that the Board of Trustees had the final responsibility for the hospital's administrative activities and professional services and for the operation of the hospital. The uncontested facts showed that Verret: (1) served approximately 26 years in various capacities on the hospital's Board; (2) held the position of Board Chairman during the relevant periods; (3) negotiated and personally guaranteed a $500,000 working capital loan for the hospital; (5) took steps to ensure payment of delinquent withholding taxes on the previous occasion after Cottey had failed to do so; (6) actively participated in recruiting physicians and developing a new source of revenue for the hospital; (7) conversed with Cottey on almost a daily basis; (8) signed the hospital's Form 990 for '99 and 2000; (9) possessed, along with the Board, the authority to hire and fire high level employees; and (10) was a signatory on all of the hospital's checking accounts.

The district court also concluded that his failure to pay taxes was willful. The court reasoned that it was inconceivable that Verret, who spent significant amounts of time visiting the hospital and conversing with Cottey on a daily basis, was unaware of Cottey's failure to pay the employment taxes. If Verret didn't know of Cottey's failure to pay the tax liability during the third and fourth quarters of 2001, it was because he chose not to know. Verret could have exercised substantial control over the decision-making process to ensure that the hospital paid its taxes, but instead of verifying that the taxes were paid, he chose not to exert authority over Cottey or the hospital's business affairs. The court reasoned that this inaction, at a minimum, constituted gross negligence or reckless disregard and so a willful failure to collect, account for, or pay over the hospital's taxes.

The court also found that Verret didn't qualify for the protection afforded a voluntary board member under Code Sec. 6672(e). He wasn't serving solely in an honorary capacity as the Chairman of the Board. Rather, he played an active role in the management of the hospital, attending board meetings, negotiating and guaranteeing a loan, recruiting physicians, and signing the hospital's Form 990 for '99 and 2000.

IRS Tax Problems? Get Resolution today - here's why

If you owe the IRS, you're better off resolving your tax debt now. As you know, tax problems do not go away by themselves! Stop IRS wage garnishment today, stop IRS bank levy today, and release IRS tax lien today.

As you can see from the statement below by Mr. Douglas H. Shulman, the new IRS Commissioner, he will first concentrate on Enforcement, then secondly its Service! Are you saying where is the kinder and gentler IRS?

Contact us today to resolve your tax problems.

Statement of Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman

I want to extend my thanks to the members of the Senate and the Senate Finance Committee, especially Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley. I also want to thank President Bush for nominating me and Treasury Secretary Paulson for his support.

The Internal Revenue Service touches virtually every adult, every business and every non-profit organization in America. It is an honor to assume the leadership of this critical agency. I recognize the great responsibility I have been given and will work to ensure that the IRS is fair, impartial and respects the rights of all taxpayers.

As Commissioner, I will concentrate on both enforcement and service. For the majority of Americans who pay their taxes willingly and on time, there must be clear guidance, accessible education and outstanding service. Our aim should be to make it as easy as possible for citizens to pay the correct amount of taxes in the most efficient and least burdensome manner possible.

For taxpayers who intentionally evade paying taxes, there must be rigorous enforcement programs.

I am looking forward to working with the dedicated and talented IRS workforce, along with the broader tax community and important stakeholders to continue to build an efficient, effective and respected IRS.

Contact us today to resolve your tax problems.

Don't compromise on your representation! We represent taxpayers before the IRS and any taxing authority.

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

IRS 2008 list of notorious tax scams

IRS unveils 2008 list of notorious tax scams - the “Dirty Dozen”

Mike Habib, EA

myIRSTaxRelief.com

IRS has recently unveiled its latest list of notorious tax scams, which it calls the “Dirty Dozen,” highlighted by Internet phishing scams and several frivolous tax arguments. New to the “Dirty Dozen” this year is a scheme, which IRS auditors discovered, that relates to unreasonable and/or excessive fuel tax credit claims.

Observation: Taxpayers should steer clear of these schemes and take steps to remedy the situation that they may have gotten involved in one of them.

“Dirty Dozen” for 2008. IRS has identified the following tax scams as this year's “Dirty Dozen:”

• Phishing. This is a tactic used by Internet-based thieves to trick unsuspecting victims into revealing personal information they can then use to access the victims' financial accounts. Phishing scams often take the form of an e-mail that appears to come from a legitimate source. IRS never uses e-mail to contact taxpayers about their tax issues.
• Economic stimulus payment scams. Some scam artists are trying to trick individuals into revealing personal financial information that can be used to access their financial accounts by making promises relating to the economic stimulus payment, often called a “rebate.” To obtain the payment, eligible individuals in most cases will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 federal tax return. But some criminals posing as IRS representatives are trying to trick taxpayers into revealing their personal financial information by falsely telling them they must provide information to get a payment.
• Frivolous arguments. Promoters of frivolous schemes encourage people to make unreasonable and unfounded claims to avoid paying the taxes they owe. Most recently, IRS expanded its list of frivolous legal positions that taxpayers should stay away from. Taxpayers who file a tax return or make a submission based on one of the positions on the list are subject to a $5,000 penalty.
• Fuel tax credit scams. IRS is receiving claims for the fuel tax credit that are unreasonable. Some taxpayers, such as farmers who use fuel for off-highway business purposes, may be eligible for the fuel tax credit. But some individuals are claiming the tax credit for nontaxable uses of fuel when their occupation or income level makes the claim unreasonable. Fraud involving the fuel tax credit was recently added to the list of frivolous tax claims, potentially subjecting those who improperly claim the credit to a $5,000 penalty.
• Hiding income offshore. Individuals continue to try to avoid paying U.S. taxes by illegally hiding income in offshore bank and brokerage accounts or using offshore debit cards, credit cards, wire transfers, foreign trusts, employee leasing schemes, private annuities or life insurance plans. IRS and the tax agencies of U.S. states and possessions continue to aggressively pursue taxpayers and promoters involved in such abusive transactions.
• Abusive retirement plans. IRS continues to uncover abuses in retirement plan arrangements, including Roth IRAs. IRS is looking for transactions that taxpayers are using to avoid the limitations on contributions to Roth IRAs.
• Zero wages. Filing a phony wage- or income-related information return to replace a legitimate information return has been used as an illegal method to lower the amount of taxes owed.
• False claims for refund and requests for abatement. This scam involves a request for abatement of previously assessed tax using Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.”
• Return preparer fraud. Dishonest tax return preparers can cause many problems for taxpayers who fall victim to their schemes.
• Disguised corporate ownership. Some people are going as far as forming domestic shell corporations in certain states for the purpose of disguising the ownership of a business or financial activity. IRS is working with state authorities to identify these entities and bring their owners into compliance.
• Misuse of trusts. For years, unscrupulous promoters have urged taxpayers to transfer assets into trusts. They promise reduction of income subject to tax, deductions for personal expenses and reduced estate or gift taxes. However, some trusts do not deliver the promised tax benefits.
• Abuse of charitable organizations and deductions. IRS continues to observe the misuses of tax-exempt organizations. These include arrangements to improperly shield income or assets from taxation, attempts by donors to maintain control over donated assets or income from donated property and overvaluation of contributed property. In addition, IRS is seeing an upturn in instances where taxpayers try to disguise private tuition payments as contributions to charitable or religious organizations.

For professional tax representation CLICK HERE

For professional audit representation 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

Tax Negotiation Buyer Beware Report

How to compare tax relief and resolution service companies?

Customer…Beware!

How To Keep From Getting Ripped Off?

Many “Tax Negotiation” companies out there will absolutely rip you off. These unscrupulous firms will take your money regardless of whether they can help you or not. They'll lie to you and tell you they can get all the penalties and interest wiped out. They'll lie to you and tell you they'll settle with the IRS for "pennies on the dollar" when they know damn well you don't possibly qualify for the Offer in Compromise program.

How do they get away with this? Easy, most of the people you talk to at these unscrupulous firms are sales representatives. They have NO license to protect. You don't actually speak to the EA (Enrolled Agent), the CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or the attorney that these firms claim to have. Nope, you speak to some slimy unlicensed salesman. Some of these firms make up titles like Tax Resolution Specialist, or Tax Consultant. What a scam! In fact, many of these unscrupulous firms aren't tax firms or law firms at all, they’re just sales organizations!

We NEVER take on any client that we don't believe we can truly help. But, I absolutely guarantee you that 90% of the unscrupulous tax negotiation firms that advertise on TV and the internet would take any client and their money regardless of whether they could help them or not. And that stinks!

So, what should you do?

1) Always speak with the “licensed representative” who is on the Power of Attorney, that will actually represent you, usually the principal / owner of the firm,

2) Stay away from any firm/website that doesn't clearly give the names and bios of the licensed representative (Enrolled Agents, CPAs & Attorneys),

3) Ignore guarantees, promises and so-called testimonials. They're nothing more than meaningless hype; instead check the Better Business Bureau rating – A MUST!

4) Ask tough questions. If the answers don't make sense, don't hire the firm. What kind of tough questions? Are you an EA, CPA or attorney? When they say, "I'm a tax resolution specialist", ask them, is that a State or Federal license?

5) Finally, use your good common sense. You know when something isn't right. You work too hard for your money to give it away to some slime ball that makes promises you know he can't keep. Only deal with someone who is “Licensed” and who “Specialize” is Tax Resolution.

Don’t get ripped off! Do the right thing-hire a Licensed Representative!

Compliments of: Mike Habib, EA http://www.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