The Only Thing Not Thrown at the Petitioner Was the Kitchen Sink

There’s a time to be a protester and there’s a time not to be. In Tax Court, it’s imperative you have legitimate arguments; you can pay a very high price for frivolity. Today’s petitioner learned that…perhaps.

The petitioner neglected to file tax returns from 1999 through 2007. (I suspect this might continue to future years at it does take some time for a case to get to trial at Tax Court.) He faced the Failure to File Penalty, the Failure to Pay Penalty, the Underpayment of Estimated Tax Penalty, and the Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty. He timely filed a Tax Court petition.

The petitioner didn’t show up for trial, and something else I hadn’t seen before:

We hold petitioner in default. He has failed to comply with the Rules of the Court. He has not cooperated in the preparation of these cases for trial, he has failed to comply with Court orders, and he did not appear for trial. His responses are filled with tax-protester rhetoric. Such conduct provides ample basis for holding him in default.

So what is the Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty?

Section 6651(f) imposes an addition to tax of up to 75% of the amount of tax required to be shown on the return where the failure to file a Federal income tax return is due to fraud. “[R]espondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner underpaid his income tax and that some part of the underpayment was due to fraud.” There is no question that petitioner’s failure to file a return for each of the years in issue resulted in underpayments for each year. To establish fraudulent intent, the Commissioner must prove that a taxpayer intended to evade a tax known or believed to be owed by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of tax. Not only do respondent’s averments show such intent, but petitioner is deemed to have admitted that his failure to file returns for the years in issue “was not due to mistake” and “was due to * * * [his] fraudulent intent to evade taxes”. We have adequate grounds on which to sustain respondent’s section 6651(f) additions to tax for all years in issue. [Internal citations omitted.]

All of the other penalties were upheld, too. Rubbing salt into the wounds the IRS asked for a penalty for filing a frivolous tax court petition.

Among his frivolous arguments, petitioner claims that he is not subject to Federal income tax, that the only persons required to pay Federal income tax are those people working directly for the Federal Government or the U.S. military, and that the Internal Revenue Code does not establish any liability for the payment of Federal income tax. A position maintained by a taxpayer is frivolous where it is “contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.”

But the Tax Court didn’t give him a penalty. Rather, there were two Tax Court cases filed, so the Court assessed two penalties of $25,000 each–the maximum–for wasting the court’s time. That’s also the first time I’ve ever seen that done.

A helpful hint to anyone considering preparing a frivolous Tax Court case: Don’t! Other than making tax bloggers laugh, you will find that Tax Court judges will have a somewhat different reaction…a reaction that could separate substantial sums of money from your wallet.

Case: Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-101

Posted in Tax Court | Comments Off on The Only Thing Not Thrown at the Petitioner Was the Kitchen Sink

Something New From the IRS that We Can All Like!

I’ve been bashing the IRS recently, but I’ve had lots of good reasons to do so. The new signature verification policy is somewhere between stupid and useless; the IRS’s response to the current IRS scandal is poor; and customer service at the IRS has been, to put it mildly, bad. Yet it’s time to praise the IRS for something new that’s beneficial to everyone–and it works!

The IRS has an electronic payment system called EFTPS. It’s useful, and once you’re enrolled in it, it works reasonably well. But what if you want to make a payment today and you aren’t enrolled in EFTPS? You must mail a check or pay by debit or credit card. Most state tax agencies have a webpay system.

Now, the IRS does too.

Welcome IRS Direct Pay. This is the IRS’s new webpay system, and can be used to pay your tax, pay an IRS notice, or make an estimated payment. The system is only for personal use (Form 1040 and related payments). I’ve had several clients use the system, and my clients were pleased with the system.

The system does take two business days to process a payment, but it seems to work very well. Kudos to the IRS in getting this right.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

Staking and the 2014 WSOP: Nothing Has Changed

The poker world is about to descend on Las Vegas. Over the next several weeks, many players who enter the myriad of poker tournaments from expensive tournaments at the World Series of Poker to more affordable tournaments at Binion’s and the Venetian will be “staked.” Instead of the player putting up 100% of his or her buy-in, he or she will have backers who have put up part of the entry fees. Since some tournaments will cost upwards of $10,000 (there are $25,000, $50,000 and a $1 million buy-in this summer), staking is commonplace.

There are rules you must follow when you’re staked. You must make sure proper IRS paperwork gets to your backers. A lot depends on where you will be playing. If you’re at the Venetian playing in their Deep Stack Extravaganza, you’ll find a cooperative cage ready and willing to accept Form 5754. (Form 5754 is used when you have backers). The same is true for Binion’s. However, if you are playing at a Caesars property–and this includes the Rio Hotel & Casino, where the World Series of Poker takes place–you are on your own; Caesars will issue one W-2G (or Form 1042-S) to the winner. This is a decidedly player-unfriendly attitude; it also violates IRS rules. What does this mean for the player?

Back in 2007 I wrote about this situation. It has now been seven years and nothing has changed. If you’re backed, you have to send out 1099-MISC’s or 1042-S’s for your backers:

  1. If you’re backed by an American get a signed and completed Form W-9 from him before you pay him. If someone refuses to complete a Form W-9, you are required to withhold.
  2. The issuance of 1099s is based on you backer profiting $600 or more for the entire year.  So realize that if you have backers who profit $600 or more, the onus is on you for sending out Form 1099-MISC’s. (The 1099s are not sent until year-end.)
  3. If you’re backed by a non-American, the situation is far more complex.  You will need to obtain a Form W-8BEN; make sure it’s the new version that was released this year.  The form must be complete in order for you not to withhold.  It must have an ITIN, a Tax Treaty Article noted, with reasoning why there is no withholding, and it must be signed and dated.  If you don’t have the complete paperwork, you must withhold even if your backer is from a Tax Treaty friendly (for gambling) country.  If you don’t, you could be held liable for the tax plus penalties and interest!  For specific scenarios, see this article I wrote in 2011.

As I’ve said before, eventually Caesars will be called on the carpet for their policy. Until they are the onus is on you to obey the law. When the casino ignores the rules, you effectively become the casino for your backers.

Posted in Gambling | Tagged | 3 Comments

New Identification Rules Go Over Like a Lead Balloon

Joe Kristan had a post this morning noting the reaction of 250 Iowa tax professionals to the new rules on third-party verification rules. The reaction was “You must be kidding me.”

The problem was that the IRS wasn’t kidding.

Jason Dinesen (who is an Iowa EA) noted that the debate between the two of us on what a “remote” signature is over. Unfortunately, I was right and Jason was wrong. This is one time I’d like to have been wrong.

Let me explain the issue for those who are just joining this discussion. The IRS released a new version of Publication 1345. That’s the bible for Electronic Return Originators–people who efile tax returns (like me). We’re required to follow the rules in this publication. There was one piece of good news in the new version of Publication 1345: The IRS will allow electronic signatures. That was outweighed by lots of bad news, including mandatory ID checks for anyone whose return I file when they come into my office (yes, mom, I need to see your ID) and mandatory third-party identity verifications for remote transactions.

Jason has done some research with his attorney and found the same issue that I and other Nevada tax professionals will face: It’s probably illegal for us under state law to run credit checks and similar verifications. The only time it’s legal is if we’re going to offer credit. The IRS is apparently telling us to violate state law. I don’t want to visit ClubFed nor do I want to visit the High Desert State Prison.

In this morning’s post, Joe Kristan told his readers to call the IRS. I agree; I urge all tax professionals to speak to or email their IRS Stakeholder Liaison.

(The above link is to the IRS list. You likely have a local Stakeholder Liaison. Be advised that your local Stakeholder Liaison may know nothing at all about this issue. When I was attending a continuing education event last week I brought this issue up with both my local Stakeholder Liaison and a representative from the Taxpayer Advocate; neither knew anything about this.)

Additionally, if you are a member of a professional society such as AICPA or NAEA, make sure you contact someone with government relations in your organization. The more people who are aware of this issue, the more likely it will be resolved favorably to tax professionals (and the public).

Joe Kristan updated his post and noted,

I received a call from an IRS representative this morning saying that they have been getting phone calls as a result of this post (well-done, readers!). She tried to reassure me by telling me that the third-party verification doesn’t apply to in-person visits. I knew that. I told her that as I read the rules, there are either “in-person” or “remote” transactions, with no third category of, say, “I’ve worked with this client for many years and they’re fine.” She didn’t disagree, though she still thinks I’m overreacting. She did say IRS field personnel are “elevating” the issue and seeking “clarification” from the authors of these new rules, including what “authentication” means for in-person visits and what a “remote transaction” is that would require third-party verification. Keep it up, folks!

In a tweet today, Jason Dinesen wondered why this was released with little fanfare. The cynic in me felt that the IRS hoped that this would be a fait accompli so that tax professionals would be stuck with the new rules.

My hope is that the IRS will adjust the definition of a remote signature so that the new rules will only apply for electronic signatures. If not, the IRS can expect a large increase in paper returns for next tax season.


For those wondering what the reaction of the tax professionals in Iowa was, I immediately thought of the reaction of the audience in this scene from The Prodcuers.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

One Good Crime Deserves Another

I’ve written about Nifty Fifty’s before. It’s a Philadelphia-area chain featuring food themed from the 1950s. The owners of the chain used ideas from the 1850s to help their profitability: They skimmed cash, paid employees in both paychecks and the skimmed cash, paid supplies with the skimmed cash, inflated expenses on their tax returns, and submitted false tax returns to bank to obtain loans. The five owners all pled guilty to various tax charges and were sentenced last year. Full restitution is being made to the IRS.

However, that wasn’t the end of the story. The accountant who prepared Nifty Fifty’s tax returns is now under indictment. William Frio is charged with conspiracy to commit tax evasion, filing false tax returns (his own returns), structuring, and loan fraud. Mr. Frio is alleged to have taken active participation in the Nifty Fifty’s tax evasion scheme. Frio is also alleged to have falsified a loan application and structured transactions with the same bank. And the structuring that happened is alleged to be quite large ($2.6 million). During this same time period he allegedly didn’t report some income that he received from another corporate account on his personal tax return.

The most interesting accusation in the indictment is that Mr. Frio allegedly embezzled “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from Nifty Fifty’s. “Oft evil will shall evil mar.”

Mr. Frio faces up to 57 years at ClubFed plus restitution to the IRS if found guilty of all charges.

Posted in Tax Evasion | Tagged | 2 Comments

Deadlines for Us, But Not for Them (Part 2)

Back in March I wrote about my client who received an IRS notice regarding his 2012 tax return. I had immediately sent a reply in to the IRS. The IRS received it and it went into the queue. In March, the IRS sent a collection notice (a CP501) requesting payment. As my client doesn’t owe the tax, I called the IRS up. A nine-week hold was put on collection activities, with the woman I spoke to believing that would be sufficient.

It wasn’t.

On Friday I received a CP503 notice for this client; that’s the third of four nastygrams the IRS will send requesting payment. (The IRS skipped sending the CP502.) I called the IRS up, and my client’s file still has not been looked at. Later this week it will be seven months since my reply was received. Another nine-week hold has been put on collection activities as the IRS admits that there is correspondence waiting to be reviewed. If we go nine more weeks it will be over nine months since I responded.

Unfortunately, many times it takes two to three letters to resolve a matter. If this is the case here, it could easily take over a year before this is resolved. I happen to have an understanding client (mainly because he knows the original IRS notice is wrong), but not all clients are understanding. Worse, things figure to go downhill from here.

The IRS and Democrats wishing the IRS scandal to vanish won’t make it so. The revelations during the last week are going to harden Republicans’ stance on funding the IRS. The taxpaying public will suffer because of this, but I can’t lay the blame on the GOP here. Someone ordered the targeting of Tea Party groups, and until that person is made known and the IRS stops its delaying tactics on the scandal, the IRS’ budget will go down, not up.

The IRS now must deal with:
– Implementing the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare);
– Tax extenders passing in November or December; and
– Potentially more budget cuts.

This is not a recipe for good customer service.

If you’re a tax professional, remember to let your clients know that it may take a long, long time before they hear anything from the IRS. If you’re a taxpayer and you’ve written the IRS, be patient. It only seems like you’re Waiting for Godot.

Posted in IRS | 1 Comment

Tax-Exempt Tax Filing Deadline Today

Today, May 15th, is the day that calendar year tax-exempt organizations must file their Form 990 series tax returns. This includes the 990 postcard form, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-PF, and Form 990. What do you do if you’re not ready? File an extension, of course!

The extension form is Form 8868 and can be downloaded from the IRS website. The form can be filed electronically or by mail; the mailed form goes to the Ogden, Utah IRS Service Center. If you mail the form, send it certified mail, return receipt requested…and mail it today. The instructions for Form 8868 are included with the form. Note that the automatic extension gives a tax-exempt organization three additional months to file its return (to August 15th).

You may be thinking, tax-exempt organizations and taxes? Yes. Tax-exempt organizations are required to file what is basically an information return noting the revenues, expenses, and changes to the fund balances of the organization. This form is available for public inspection. Some tax-exempt organizations owe tax. For example, private foundations can owe a tax on their investment income.

If a tax exempt organization does not file its Form 990, it can lose its tax-exempt status so this is something that tax-exempt organizations do need to take care of.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on Tax-Exempt Tax Filing Deadline Today

Florida Doctor Does Much Wrong on her Way to ClubFed

Dr. Patricia Hough was a successful entrepreneur. She owned two medical schools in the Caribbean. That’s the good portion of this story. It’s what she did with the profits of the business (and the sale of the business)–or better put, what she did not do–that was the cause of the problem.

As for the bad, there’s plenty. She (and allegedly her husband) created nominee accounts at UBS and other foreign banks; of course, that income didn’t find its way to her tax return. Her half of the sale of the medical schools also didn’t find its way to the tax return. Those nominee accounts were at foreign banks; she didn’t file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). And the money was used for conspicuous consumption: an airplane and three homes.

Last year she was found guilty of filing three false tax returns and conspiring to defraud the IRS. She was sentenced on Friday to two years at ClubFed, three years of supervised release, and must make restitution of $15,518,382.

Posted in Tax Fraud | 1 Comment

When Two Intelligent Individuals Reach the Opposite Conclusion…

…You know there’s a problem. Welcome to the brave new world of signature documents.

Jason Dinesen has a post where he believes that I am wrong about the conclusions I’ve drawn on signature documents. Jason might be right or I may be correct.

What’s a fax? Is it a handwritten signature document or an electronic signature document? What’s a scan of a handwritten signature document? Consider that many tax professionals now scan every document they receive; we don’t keep paper. IRS policies allow for the keeping of scanned documents (as long as there’s a system to track them and as long as you can print them). Let’s assume that the IRS audits us and wants copies of all the “handwritten” signature documents. We print them all out. How can the IRS tell which ones were scanned and which ones were handwritten in my office? Mind you, if the IRS tells me that scanned signature documents are electronic signature documents, I’ll note that.

Jason and I reached the opposite conclusion on what this new policy means. The only way to know for sure which of is right is for the IRS to issue guidance on the questions I asked in my original post. As Jason said, “But the fact that two smart tax pros like us can have different takes on this just drives home the fact that the IRS needs to clarify this.” On that I agree completely.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

A Better Idea on Identity Theft

As I wrote yesterday, the IRS announced new rules on tax professionals regarding electronic filing. Based on my reading of these rules, the IRS should expect a significant increase in paper-filed returns. Why? Because the new rules likely violate state laws, they add costs to tax filing, and the simple (and cheapest) solution will be to just paper-file all remote returns. In my case, I may be required to do so as it appears to be illegal under Nevada law for me to run credit checks for the purpose of identifying my clients.

There is another major problem with the new rules: The scamsters will ignore them. Assume for the moment you’re an identity thief who is filing phony tax returns (or are an IRS Electronic Return Orginator who is sending phony returns to the IRS). That’s a crime, of course (probably several felonies). So if you’re such a person, are you going to make sure you follow IRS rules and check IDs of everyone who comes to your office and/or run credit checks on all clients, or are you just going to violate one more rule?

(A few years ago South Carolina passed a law that stated that any terrorist must register with the state. I am not making this up. I suspect that South Carolina has collected exactly $0 from this law. The new policy reminds me of this law. But I digress….)

The new IRS policy will have a minor impact, at best, on identity theft while increasing costs for tax professionals and their clients. It will increase the amount of returns that are paper-filed. Yet the IRS’s goal is laudable. Is there a better solution?

There is. It’s a combination of an idea I floated back in 2012 with a few minor tweaks.

Back in 2012 I wrote a post titled, “A Modest Proposal on Tax-Related Identity Theft.” It appeared to me to be a simple solution that would stop much of the problem of tax-related identity theft at a minimal cost to the IRS. That’s the first part of the plan.

(For those who have not read my initial idea, it’s fairly straightforward. The IRS should check each tax return’s address to verify it matches the address on file for the taxpayer. This should be simple to program into the IRS’s computers.)

The second part is to have a new box on Form 1040 (towards the top of the Form) titled “Change of Address.” If you changed your address from the last tax return you filed, you must check this box. (Many state returns have such a box.) There’s a catch: If you change your address, you must attach a copy of some third-party documentation noting the new address such as a utility bill, a HUD Settlement Statement, an apartment lease, etc. Since the IRS now accepts pdf’s of documents, these could be attached to efiled returns.

There’s a third part to this plan. There would be a second new box at the top of Form 1040 titled “First-Time Filer.” This box would be checked if this is the first tax return the individual has filed or the individual has not filed a tax return in (say) the last three years. The first tax return would need to be paper-filed. (This would be an additional exception to mandatory efiling and would be noted on Form 8948). With a taxpayer’s first return, the IRS computer systems would not be able to readily run identity theft checks; thus, such returns likely need to be paper-filed.

This plan, if implemented, would be a low cost method that should eliminate 90% of tax-related identity theft. It would cost taxpayers very little. Excluding the one-time programming costs for the IRS, this would not cost the IRS very much. (This really does appear to be a simple check. Does “Address” match “Address on File”?)

Let’s compare this to the costs involved with what the IRS announced in Publication 1345. This will directly cost tax professionals; we’ll have to subscribe to services to do this. This will increase the public’s cost; tax professionals will pass the additional costs on to the public. This will increase the IRS’s costs. A low-cost solution for tax professionals is to force clients to paper-file. Indeed, in some states that will be the only choice as the IRS’s new policy appears to violate state laws. Even if there’s a work-around for that, there appears to be no method for expatriates to now efile returns. They will be forced to paper-file.

The IRS’s policy is almost guaranteed to raise the ire of the tax-paying public. Under my proposal, it would be mostly seamless. More importantly, the IRS’s proposal will likely do nothing to stop the scamsters. These miscreants are not obeying numerous laws and are committing multiple felonies. Does anyone actually expect them to obey these new rules?

Had the IRS asked tax professionals who deal with remote clientele about the proposal, they would have heard about this prior to revising Publication 1345. Someone told me today that what has happened was unsurprising given how the IRS acts. That’s a shame, because there are better solutions.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 2 Comments