Tax Liens

Posted on by katemley

IRC 6321

In the case of Julie Dinwiddie v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates the reach of the federal tax lien. This case is No. 21-35368 filed May 11, 2023. The action in this case was an allegation by Julie Dinwiddie that her personal bank account was wrongfully levied by the IRS.  In 2007 the IRS assessed Julie Dinwiddie’s husband, Jeffrey, with $3.7 million in tax liabilities.  And a tax lien attached in favor of the government to his property.  At that time, Jeffery was sole shareholder of Evergreen Nursery Incorporated (“ENI”). As the court explains, a tax lien broadly reaches every interest in property that a taxpayer might have.  As such, the lien attached to the stock and any monetary distribution associated with that stock.  At some point after the lien is filed, Jeffrey transferred his stock to Julie.  Julie then distributed funds from ENI’s bank account to her personal account as the new sole stockholder.  Because the lien attached to ENI and the money that flowed from it, the IRS properly levied her personal bank account. There are methods to transfer property to another free of the federal tax lien, but none of those situations existed in this matter. 

Passport Notice

Posted on by katemley

IRC 7345

The Tax Court ruled in Guy Alvarez Gayou v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2023-61, Filed May 16, 2023 that the IRS properly certified the taxpayer’s account as seriously delinquent under the law for action by the Secretary of State as it relates to the denial, revocation or limitation of a taxpayer’s passport.  This ruling is representative of the rather straightforward effect of the now 7-year-old law. As the Court explains, a taxpayer may be notified that they have a “seriously delinquent tax debt,” and that certification shall be transmitted to the Department of State so that the Secretary of State may act, as reflected above, relating to the taxpayer’s passport.  The assessment amount for this process must be higher than $50,000 – which has adjusted for inflation and currently stands at $59,000. The Court analyzed the exceptions to the definition of “seriously delinquent tax debt,” to support the taxpayer’s position.  Those exceptions are: 1) that the debt is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an installment agreement under IRC section 6159, 2) that the debt is being paid properly under an Offer in Compromise, 3) that collections is suspended because the taxpayer asked for a Collection Due Process hearing, or 4) that collections is suspended while the IRS reviews an application for innocent spouse relief.  While the taxpayer previously had an installment agreement in place, he did not have one in place at this time. This is the most common way to decertify the seriously delinquent debt and put one’s passport in good standing.  

Offer in Compromise 

Posted on by katemley

IRC 7122

The Tax Court ruled in Duane Whittaker and Candace Whittaker v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2023-59, filed May 15, 2023 that an IRS Settlement Officer had abused her discretion when calculating the Reasonable Collection Potential (RCP) of the taxpayers while reviewing an Offer in Compromise as a collection alternative in the context of a Collection Due Process hearing. The Court remanded the matter to the Appeals Office to consider updated financials and other directives of the Court in resolution of the matter. Taxpayers owed approximately $50,000 at submission of the Offer in Compromise.  The issue before the Court was whether the IRS abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider: 1) the taxpayers’ reliance on their retirement account for income, 2) the special circumstances that they raised – specifically that they were near retirement and unable to borrow against their home, and 3) the change in their financial situation due to the pandemic.  In regards to the retirement income, the taxpayers argued that under the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) and under Treasury Regulation section 301.7122-1(c)(3)(iii)(example 2), that the IRS may characterize retirement funds as income, rather than equity, when the taxpayer is within one year of retirement and they need the funds for necessary living expenses.  The Court indicated that even though the Settlement Officer made reference to this issue in the administrative record, the analysis did not make it into the determination notice from the Settlement Officer.  On the issue of home equity, the taxpayers indicated they would have problems borrowing because the assessed value was not reflective of the appraised value based on the condition of the home. They offered to obtain more information for the Settlement Officer,  but instead of asking for that information, the Settlement Officer merely indicated that she would not remove the equity in the home from the calculation of RCP. The Court concluded that the Settlement Officer’s conclusion that the taxpayers could tap the equity of the home was erroneous as their evidence was not, in fact, reviewed. And therefore, the Settlement Officer’s reliance on the equity to calculate the Reasonable Collection Potential was an abuse of discretion. Though the Court did not necessarily indicate that the taxpayers had sound positions on the issues they raised, this opinion should have a beneficial effect on how closely Settlement Officers address Reasonable Collection Potential in that it would be detrimental to the IRS to not inquire further about issues like these and document the provision, or lack of provision, of further evidence by the taxpayer.  

Penalty Abatement—Preparer Reliance

Posted on by katemley

IRC 6662

The Tax Court held in Lucell Trammer, III & Sharonda M. Trammer v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 6615-22, issued March 14, 2023 that the taxpayers had met the reasonable cause exception of IRC Section 6664(c)(1) that provides relief from the accuracy related penalties assessed against them under IRC Section 6662.  The taxpayers filed returns for 2019 and 2020 – taking their receipts to a return preparer who decided how and where to report items on their returns.  As it turned out, some personal expenses, like mortgage interest, were reported multiple times.  Some personal expenses were claimed as business expenses. Ultimately, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency assessing tax and accuracy related penalties under IRC 6662(a). The Court indicated that relief from an accuracy-related penalty only applies if the taxpayers’ reliance on the return preparer meets Treasury Regulation Section 1.6664-4(b), as follows: (1) the advisor was a competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the advisor, and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the advisor’s judgment.  Though the taxpayer was held liable for the tax adjustment, the Court ruled that the accuracy related penalties would not apply to the years at issue. 

Offer in Compromise

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 7122(f) Deemed Acceptance review

The United States Tax Court in Michael D. Brown v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, at 158 T.C. No. 9, filed on June 23, 2022 ruled that the time during which the IRS Appeals Office reviews the return of an Offer in Compromise is not included as part of the 24-month “deemed acceptance” period of IRC 7122(f).  The rule at issue states that “[a]ny offer-in-compromise submitted under this section shall be deemed to be accepted by the Secretary if such offer is not rejected by the Secretary before the date which is 24 months after the date of the submission of the offer.”  See IRC section 7122(f).  In this case, taxpayer filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing after the filing of a tax lien.  Right away, the taxpayer filed for an Offer through IRS Appeals.  The collection specialist that reviewed his file returned the Offer because other investigations of the taxpayer were pending. He owed about $50 million in taxes.  During the actual CDP hearing, the taxpayer urged the Settlement Officer to override this decision.  The Settlement Officer would not do it and proceeded to close the CDP case.  It was approximately 28 months from the time the CDP hearing was filed until the IRS issued a notice of determination.  Taxpayer argued that the IRS exceeded the rule for deemed acceptance and the Offer should be accepted.  The Court analyzed the statute and regulations associated with it.  In part, the taxpayer tried to argue that even though the Offer unit “returned,” the Offer, it was only Appeals that can make the determination to return the Offer. As such, it should be deemed accepted.  The Court didn’t buy it. Rather, they point out that the relevant procedures explaining the deemed accepted provision specifically state that the “period during which the IRS Office of Appeals considers a rejected offer-in-compromise is not included as part of the 24-month period.” The Court explained that this would be true even outside of the CDP setting. In other words, if an Offer is rejected and a taxpayer Appeals that rejection, nothing about the Appeal extends the 24-month period in the rule. 

Penalty Abatement

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 6651(a) 

The United States Tax Court in George Anton Remisovsky and Ellen Jones-Remisovsky, T.C. Memo 2022-89, filed on August 30, 2022, entered judgment in favor of the government because the taxpayer had not proved that their failure to file and pay their return was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect per IRC Sections 6651(a)(1) and (2).  The tax return at issue in this matter is the taxpayers’ form 1040 for tax year 2013.  Taxpayer husband was a medial doctor and taxpayer wife was a retail manager. On May 25, 2016, taxpayers filed their 2013 return, after the government prepared a substitute for return for them.  Ultimately, the taxpayers requested a Collection Due Process hearing after a final notice of intent to levy was issued. While reviewing a collection alternative with the Appeals Officer, the taxpayer husband alleged that alcoholism and depression was reasonable cause for failing to satisfy their 2013 tax obligations. The husband said he had been hospitalized for alcoholism in 1990 and suffered a relapse in 2012.  He stated he was able to continue practicing medicine because he was a “binge drinker while active.” He also supplied a letter from a psychiatrist who was treating him for depression.  The letter stated that he had a “history of being alcoholic, although he has had periods of sobriety,” and that “his cognitive capacity to comply with his financial obligations and to pay his taxes in timely fashion were severely diminished.”  The Tax Court went through the standard review associated with their review of a Collection Due Process hearing.  Regarding the penalty abatement issue, the court stated that to prove reasonable cause for failure to pay and file, the taxpayer must generally prove that he acted with ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file or pay. The Court stated that the evidence showed a generalized struggle with depression and alcoholism, but there was no testimony that the taxpayer suffered from these at the relevant times – such as early 2014 when the return was due, or in May 2016 when the return was filed without payment.  Fundamentally, taxpayer husband managed to practice medicine during this time, and his spouse presented no evidence that she was unable to file or pay.  As this case illustrates, abatement analysis always includes a review of when the relevant issues affected the taxpayer.  

Offer in Compromise

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 7122 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Estate of Kwang Lee, Deceased, Anthony J. Frese, Executor v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Case No. 21-2921 handed down an opinion on August 23, 2022 in which the Court ruled that the denial of an Offer in Compromise for estate taxes by the IRS was appropriate and that the Executor could be held personally liable for non-payment of the Estate taxes.  The decedent in this matter passed away many years ago – in 2001.  The Executor, Anthony J. Frese miscalculated the estate tax on the estate and ultimately received a notice of deficiency in 2006 and a formal deficiency from the IRS in 2010.  However, between 2004 and 2010, the Executor distributed over $1 million in assets to the beneficiaries, including $640,000 after receiving the notice of deficiency.  The Estate filed an Offer in Compromise and tried to settle for the remaining assets of the estate.  The IRS rejected the Offer, arguing that their reasonable collection potential was higher than what was offered, in part because IRC section 3713(b) allows the government to hold the executor personally liable when the executor transfers property before satisfying a known estate tax. As such, the argument by the estate that the IRS Office of Appeals had abused its discretion in denying the Offer based on payment of the remaining assets of the estate, fails. 

Passport Revocation

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 7345

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in James Franklin v. United States et al., Case No. 21-11104, handed down an opinion on September 15, 2022 in which it affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas as it relates to revocation of the taxpayer’s passport for seriously delinquent taxes.  Plaintiff, James Franklin was found by the IRS to have not filed accurate tax returns and had not reported a foreign trust for which he was a beneficial owner.  Penalties were assessed against the taxpayer and enforcement action in the form of filing a federal tax lien, levying Social Security benefits and notifying the Department of State that the taxpayer was seriously delinquent ensued. The taxpayer ultimately sued the government over these issues and argued that the passport revocation scheme of the statute violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment because it affected his fundamental right to travel internationally.   This Court reviewed several Supreme Court rulings and provided the following guidance: the right to international travel can be regulated within the bounds of due process. The Court analyzed the passport revocation statute’s goals, protections and objectives…ultimately deeming the statute to be constitutional.  This decision is at least the second decision of a Court of Appeals on this topic in the last year.  In Jeffrey T. Maehr v. United States Department of State, Case No. 20-1124, handed down on July 20, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled the statute to be constitutional also.

Liability Review by IRS

Posted on by katemley

IRC Section 6330

The Tax Court ruled in Edgerton Mighty and Eulalee Mighty v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2022-44, filed on May 4, 2022 that a taxpayer may dispute his underlying liability in a Collection Due Process case only if he did not receive a valid notice of deficiency or otherwise have a prior opportunity to contest his liability.  This is a common ruling by the Tax Court and illustrates the fact that there are limited opportunities for liability review.  It is highly advised that the taxpayer take advantage of the Appeals process post IRS Exam. Alternatively, this practitioner has found that the Offer in Compromise – Doubt as to Liability works very well to work through the issues if an opportunity to review liability has been missed. In the instant case, the taxpayers were examined and under exam the IRS made three changes to their return: 1) adjusted taxpayers’ itemized deductions by $35,923, 2) adjusted deductions on schedule C by $12,605 and 3) adjusted income to account for $28,296 of other income from cancellation of debt.  The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for $17,304 plus penalties and interest.  Shortly after, the taxpayers filed an amendment of the return and substantiated that Chase Bank had issued duplicate 1099-C documents – one to their daughter and one to them as guarantors, for the cancellation of debt.  The IRS agreed and removed this item of income from their assessment. The IRS then filed a notice of federal tax lien on the remaining debt and the taxpayers filed a request for Collection Due Process hearing in response to that notice.  The taxpayers never seemed to understand why they owed the government.  In spite of discussions with IRS Appeals and proceeding to Tax Court, they continued to argue that the cancellation of debt was not appropriate.  Both IRS Appeals and the Court explained that they owed for other reasons.  Ultimately, the ruling was going to be the same no matter what.  The underlying liability could not be addressed in Appeals because they had had an opportunity to review the liability at the time the notice of deficiency was issued.  The Tax Court ruled that Appeals had not abused its discretion.

Fraudulent Transfer,Alter Ego and Nominee

Posted on by katemley

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled against the government in  United States of America v. Thomas Weathers, et al., Case No.: 3:18-cv-5189-BHS decided February 8, 2022 because the government failed to prove its alter ego and nominee claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to prove its fraudulent transfer claim by clear and satisfactory evidence. This case was commenced by the Government to reduce tax assessments to judgment and foreclose federal tax liens.  The Government alleged that three entities owned or controlled by the Weathers were their nominees or alter egos and that certain properties owned by the Weathers were transferred fraudulently for their purpose of avoiding the tax lien.  The Government simply got carried away on this claim. In part, the reason for that was because there were 8 other properties that the Government was successful in foreclosing through Summary Judgment Motion. In this case, however, the Court ruled that the taxpayers never had an ownership interest in the entity that owned the relevant property, they were never officers, never received personal benefit and the only funds flowing from the entity were for services that were legitimate.  There was no shifting of ownership from the Weathers to the entity/owner and no evidence of actual intent to hinder or delay.  This case details the factors of alter ego/nominee claims and fraudulent transfers carefully, then applies the facts of this case to those factors, clearly showing the Government fell far short of its burden to establish the claims.