DC Court of Appeals Rules Against IRS: Loving Decision Upheld

Posted on February 11, 2014 by Russ

This morning the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously upheld the district court’s decision in Loving v. IRS. This means that the IRS’s goal of mandating licensing for all tax professionals is dead. At some future date Congress might enact such laws, but until that happens the RTRP designation is likely dead.

The IRS had interpreted an 1884 statute “signed by President Chester A. Arthur” (how often can I put President Chester Arthur into a blog post!) that regulated the practice of representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1)) to mean they could regulate all tax professionals.

In our view, at least six considerations foreclose the IRS’s interpretation of the statute.

That’s what the Court found, and let’s go over each in turn.

First is the meaning of the key statutory term “representatives.” In its opening brief, the IRS simply asserts that there “can be no serious dispute that paid tax-return preparers are ‘representatives of persons.’” IRS Br. 31 n.11. Beyond that ipse dixit, however, the IRS never explains how a tax-return preparer “represents” a taxpayer. And for good reason: The term “representative” is traditionally and commonly defined as an agent with authority to bind others, a description that does not fit tax-return preparers…

Put simply, tax-return preparers are not agents. They do not possess legal authority to act on the taxpayer’s behalf. They cannot legally bind the taxpayer by acting on the taxpayer’s behalf. The IRS cites no law suggesting that tax-return preparers have legal authority to act on behalf of taxpayers.

The second problem is that “practice…before the Department of the Treasury” doesn’t mean tax preparation. And for my friend Scott, some of the argument in this section turns on grammar: Congress used an “and” rather than an “or” in Section 330(a)(2), and the IRS’s view that practice before Treasury meant preparing tax returns was wrong.

The third issue is that Section 330 was enacted for people making claims against the Treasury. Here’s the Court’s excerpt:

[T]he Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing claimants before his Department, and may require of such persons, agents and attorneys, before being recognized as representatives of claimants, that they shall show that they are of good character and in good repute, possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable them to render such claimants valuable service, and otherwise competent to advise and assist such claimants in the presentation of their cases. [Emphases in original]

The Court didn’t believe that this meant tax preparers.

The fourth issue is that the broader statutory framework already includes regulations on tax preparers.

Under the IRS’s view here, however, all of Congress’s statutory amendments would have been unnecessary. The IRS, by virtue of its heretofore undiscovered carte blanche grant of authority from Section 330, would already have had free rein to impose an array of penalties on any tax-return preparer who “is incompetent,” “is disreputable,” “violates regulations prescribed under” Section 330, or “with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens the person being represented or a prospective person to be represented.”

The fifth issue is that the scope of authority that the IRS claimed was beyond the scope anticipated by Congress in passing Section 330. I think this is the weakest of the six reasons as noted by the Court: There was no tax preparation industry in 1884. Still, it’s another point where the IRS lost.

The final issue is that the IRS never interpreted the law during the 127 years preceding 2011 as giving it the authority to regulate tax professionals.

Until 2011, the IRS never interpreted the statute to give it authority to regulate tax-return preparers. Nor did the IRS ever suggest that it possessed this authority but simply chose, in its discretion, not to exercise it. In 2005, moreover, the head of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division testified to Congress that “[t]ax return preparers are not deemed as individuals who represent individuals before the IRS.” Fraud in Income Tax Return Preparation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 109th Congress (2005) (testimony of Nancy J. Jardini). At the same hearing, the National Taxpayer Advocate – the government official who acts as a kind of IRS ombudsperson – stated to Congress that “the IRS currently has no authority to license preparers or require basic knowledge about how to prepare returns.”

All-in-all, the IRS’s proposed regulations on tax professionals are as dead as the dodo bird.

I’ve had quite a few individuals ask me why I’m against regulating tax professionals. I’m regulated as an Enrolled Agent; why shouldn’t others? After all, I report on bozo tax professionals all the time.

If Congress lawfully decides that regulating tax professionals should be done, that’s fine. However, I am very much opposed to the huge expansion of government during the past thirty years. The real problem is the huge complexity of the Tax Code, and the biggest villain here is Congress. Rather than regulating tax professionals, we need to regulate (gut) the Tax Code itself.

Finally, I want to congratulate Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

Really Big Tax Evasion Leads to Really Long Sentence at ClubFed

Posted on February 9, 2014 by Russ

There’s tax evasion, big tax evasion, and then we have this story of really, really big tax evasion. And we also must highlight once again that tax protester arguments have as much chance of flying as the dodo bird.

I’ve actually written about this case before. Back in 2010 Bill Melot, a farmer in New Mexico, was convicted of tax evasion, agriculture program fraud, and several related offenses. His tax liability to the IRS was estimated at $18 million. When he was sentenced in 2011 he received five years at ClubFed followed by three years of supervised release. Mr. Melot appealed his conviction; the government appealed the sentence. The DOJ thought he should receive a far longer stay at ClubFed.

Last October the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the appeals. Suffice to say it didn’t go well for Mr. Melot. Here’s a pertinent excerpt:

The Government’s evidence demonstrated overwhelmingly that Melot engaged in behavior consistent with an individual who had actual knowledge of his obligation to file returns and pay tax. Melot paid employees in cash, advising them they could avoid reporting the cash payments as income. He attempted to pay cash for inventory for his gas stations, in an effort to avoid creating a paper trail in his bank account. He used Social Security numbers he knew were false for numerous purposes. He transferred substantial assets into a foreign bank account but failed to file the necessary disclosure forms with the IRS. He frequently made domestic bank deposits in amounts slightly below $10,000, the amount at which he knew a bank must file a currency transaction report with the Internal Revenue Service. He transferred assets to corporations and trusts and used nominees to open bank accounts, but admitted he maintained control over the assets associated with these accounts and entities. He sent letters to the Internal Revenue Service denying he was a United States citizen or claiming to be either a non-resident alien or a citizen of the “republic of New Mexico.” Nonetheless, when he applied for a passport from the State Department and agricultural farm subsidies from the Department of Agriculture, Melot declared he was a United States citizen.

Both Mr. Melot and the DOJ didn’t like the sentence. Mr. Melot thought it was too long; the DOJ though it was too short. The sentencing judge had given Mr. Melot a two-level decrease (in the federal sentencing guidelines) for acceptance of responsibility. There was a problem with this according to the Court of Appeals:

…nor did [Melot] engage in any other conduct demonstrating an acceptance of responsibility for his offenses…To the contrary, the record clearly shows Melot continued to deny that he willfully engaged in criminal conduct and unambiguously shows Melot did not voluntarily pay restitution.

The Court of Appeals ordered a new sentencing hearing, with no downward adjustment in federal sentencing guidelines. It was not Mr. Melot’s day at the Court of Appeals.

The sentencing hearing occurred last week, and Mr. Melot’s five years at ClubFed lengthened to 14 years at ClubFed. The restitution hasn’t changed: $18,469,998 to the IRS and $226,526 to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Melot apparently believed that tax protester arguments (see the Tax Protester FAQ for a complete dismissal of each and every one of them) work. They don’t. Mr. Melot will have plenty of time to think that through.

Posted in Tax Evasion | 1 Comment

Mailbag: Can Gambling Income Transform to Ordinary Income by Moving It Through a Business Entity?

Posted on February 9, 2014 by Russ

Back in the Middle Ages, alchemists attempted to transform base metals into gold and silver. If only one could change lead into gold. Unfortunately, lead is lead and gold is gold.

Why do I bring up alchemy? Because I received the following email:

I saw your post on [redacted’s] [social media] regarding gambling income. You said, “Gambling income stays gambling income no matter if you run it through 10 LLC’s….”

But [redacted]’s response basically said you didn’t know what you were talking about, and that it can be done, and that forming a business entity to transform gambling income is done all the time for casinos, hedge funds, venture capital firms and related entities.

I believe you are wrong, and that gambling income can be changed into normal [ordinary] income by running it through an LLC or corporation.

I’ve been asked this question many times. The devil that everyone wants to avoid is Section 165(d) of the Tax Code:

(d) Wagering losses
Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions.

So we first must look to the question, what is a wagering transaction? The Tax Code itself and the regulations promulgated under the code do not answer this question. The IRS, in Technical Advice Memorandum 200417004, does answer this (though the TAM cannot be used as a precedent). A transaction needs three things to be a wagering transaction: It must have a prize, the element of chance must be present, and the individual (who is doing the wagering) must be offering consideration.

There’s one other element: The transaction cannot be defined in the Tax Code as something else. For example, a securities trade has (at least to some) the exact same elements as a wagering transaction. However, the Tax Code says that securities are securities and aren’t wagers.

Section 165(d) holds for everyone under the Tax Code. Let’s say that you formed Acme Wagering as a C-Corporation, and you had the corporation place bets in Las Vegas. Let’s further assume you lost money on your bets. Section 165(d) prohibits Acme Wagering from taking the losses in excess of wins.

Well, what about an LLC? I’ll just note the gambling wins and losses as ordinary income on the Form 1065 I file and no one will know the better. There are two major issues with this:

1. You have gambling wins and losses. If you have a net loss, §165(d) applies to whomever is paying the tax.
2. Gambling wins and losses are not included as ordinary income.

A single-member LLC is a disregarded entity–it files a Schedule C (unless it elects corporate taxation–and that won’t transform gambling income into ordinary income). An LLC with multiple members files a partnership return (Form 1065). The instructions to Schedule K-1 for a partnership return note that gambling gains (wins) and losses are included on line 11 of Schedule K-1 using code F. (Ordinary income is included on line 1.) From the IRS instructions:

Code F. Other income (loss). Amounts with code F are other items of income, gain, or loss not included in boxes 1 through 10 or reported in box 11 using codes A through E. The partnership should give you a description and the amount of your share for each of these items…
Code F items may include the following…Gambling gains and losses.

So the IRS has told you not to report gambling income as ordinary income. And if you’re thinking you can get away with this in an S-Corporation, you can’t; the same instruction exists for the Schedule K-1 on a Form 1120S return; the only differences are the line number (10) and the code (E).

Alchemy has been tried in the past. Many have tried to change gambling income into capital gains income. This has been as successful as a lead balloon. For example, in Davis v. Commissioner (119 T.C. No. 1), the petitioner won a jackpot in the California lottery. He then sold the rights to future payouts and wanted to take the money he did receive as a capital gain (which is preferentially taxed) rather than as ordinary income. It didn’t work.

Well, why can hedge funds, casinos, venture capital firms and the like have ordinary income? Because they are not in the business of wagering. Hedge funds and venture capital firms invest; investments are not considered wagering transactions under the Tax Code. A casino does not wager; rather, it takes wagers. A wagering transaction for a gambler is ordinary income for the casino.

There is no Tax Fairy[1]. The Tax Code, no matter how unfair, is law. Until Congress rescinds §165(d), it holds for everyone. If the individual who sent me this email knows someone who is using a business entity to transform gambling income into ordinary income (so he or she can take gambling losses), this works well…until they’re audited. Bluntly, those individuals are playing audit roulette. Most partnership returns aren’t audited, so they’re hoping they sneak through. But if they’re audited they stand a 0% chance of prevailing. Additionally, they would be liable for potentially significant penalties (plus tax and interest, of course).

Finally, I strongly advise anyone to use some common sense when reading the Internet. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Alchemy didn’t work in the Middle Ages; it doesn’t work today with the Tax Code.

[1] My thanks to Joe Kristan for the concept of the Tax Fairy.

Posted in Gambling, IRS | Comments Off on Mailbag: Can Gambling Income Transform to Ordinary Income by Moving It Through a Business Entity?

IRS Harassment of Tea Party Groups Reportedly Has Continued

Posted on February 8, 2014 by Russ

Congress continues to investigate the IRS scandal, and news this week indicates that it continues. Here’s the first two paragraphs of a Washington Examiner article:

Tea Party officials told a congressional panel Thursday they are still being targeted for harassment despite claims by President Obama and top IRS officials that the illegal activities were stopped last year.

“It’s shocking, it’s repugnant, it’s infuriating,” Becky Gerritson told a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “And most troubling of all, those responsible have not stopped.”

Meanwhile, IRS attorney William Henck has been in the IRS Office of the General Counsel for over 26 years. He wrote a piece for the PowerLine blog. It is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read in quite some time. Here’s an excerpt:

I do not personally know whether the IRS has targeted conservative groups or individuals, but I do know that the environment within the agency is ripe for such activity and there is nothing to prevent it from occurring. As stated in more detail below, I have personally witnessed improper giveaways of billions of dollars to taxpayers with inside access at the agency, bullying of elderly taxpayers, the cover-up of managerial embezzlement and misappropriation of thousands of dollars in government funds, and a retaliatory audit. I have also heard credible accounts of, among other things, further improper giveaways, blatant sexual harassment, and anti-Semitism. All of these matters have been swept under the rug.

I strongly suggest you read the entire thing.

Finally, we have President Obama stating that there was no corruption involved with this scandal. Here’s the quote from an interview he had with FoxNews’s Bill O’Reilly:

O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption, none?

OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.

O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption.

Really?

Republicans in Congress have cut the budget to the IRS because of the scandal. And whether you’re a member of the GOP, a Democrat, or an independent (politically), Republicans are correct in doing this. As I’ve said before, we need a non-partisan IRS. Until the true cause of the scandal is known (and whatever it is, it’s in Washington, not Cincinnati), we’re all going to pay the price. Sooner or later the news will come out, and most likely to the detriment of those in power in Washington.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on IRS Harassment of Tea Party Groups Reportedly Has Continued

100 Months of Boredom

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Russ

The cliche, “He who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones,” is the theme of this post. Let’s take Larry Hill of Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Mr. Hill had a tax preparation business. He made this YouTube video asking young people to think before they act:

Unfortunately, Mr. Hill had his own issues. From the DOJ press release when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy:

Between 2010 and 2012, HILL and his co-conspirators filed well over 2,000 federal income tax returns for HTS customers that claimed, collectively, over $14 million in tax refunds. Most of the HTS returns reported materially false information – including false dependents, income, and withholdings – in order to maximize the earned income tax credit and otherwise cause the issuance of inflated refunds. HILL and his co-conspirators pocketed a portion of every fraudulent tax refund that was issued. According to the criminal information, HILL personally collected, on average, $1,000 or more from each such refund.

Today, he found out how long he would face at ClubFed: 100 months (a little over 8 years). While Mr. Hill could have received 125 months, prosecutors asked for the bottom end of the range because he cooperated with authorities. But as WRAL reported,

The judge agreed to the lower sentence of 100 months but said Hill deserved the “most severe punishment to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” pointing out that Hill used much of the money to buy himself expensive jewelry and cars, including a Maserati. The judge also noted that Hill was on supervised release from an insurance fraud prison term when he committed the tax fraud.

Mr. Hill had emailed WRAL when his legal troubles emerged, and stated,

“He without sin cast the first stone,” Hill wrote, adding that “life would be boring” if everyone was like actor Bill Cosby.

That might be boring, but I’m betting that Bill Cosby lives an exciting life compared with the 100 months that Mr. Hill will spend at ClubFed.

Posted in Tax Fraud | Tagged | 1 Comment

Tax “Professionals” Behaving Badly

Posted on February 2, 2014 by Russ

A couple of news pieces out of the Department of Justice this week highlighted two tax “professionals” who apparently behaved badly. Let’s start with an alleged violator out of Plantation, Florida. Keisha Stewart owns Professional Tax Services Inc., but her methods allegedly were anything but professional. Her customers were satisfied, and why not: They apparently received $1.6 million in tax refunds they weren’t entitled to.

Ms. Stewart wanted her clients to get tax credits. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is a mandatory factor: You have to be eligible for the credits. The American Opportunity Credit (a refundable education credit) requires that you (or a dependent) be an undergraduate at a college or university; residential energy credits (another refundable credit) require that you make energy upgrades to your residence. That minor detail apparently escaped Ms. Stewart according to the DOJ. The DOJ asked for a permanent injunction against Ms. Stewart to bar her from preparing federal tax returns for others.

Meanwhile, a Natchitoches, Louisiana tax preparer will enjoy ClubFed for 18 months. In what will sound familiar, Lashanda Harris used a similar strategy to that Ms. Stewart allegedly did: Phony W-2s, withholdings, and credits. “As part of the scheme, Harris received ‘kickbacks’ from the customers.” Ms. Harris pleaded guilty last October.

I do agree completely with a suggestion made by the DOJ in the press release on Ms. Harris:

Keep your personal information safe by:

  • shredding personal information before trashing it;
  • being aware of imposters who send phony emails that look like they’re from the IRS asking for personal information; and
  • limiting the personal information given to the public and businesses.

That’s excellent advice.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

Life as a Second-Class Citizen

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Russ

I’m quite perturbed at the IRS today. The NAEA in its weekly eAlert email confirmed that I am now a second-class citizen. I reported last week about being told that tax professionals might be unable to order transcripts through the Practitioner Priority Service. The NAEA wondered about this, too:

The trouble is that we have also received several messages from members who have been turned away from PPS [Practitioner Priority Service] when requesting client transcripts. When we forwarded examples from EAs who had been denied service and instructed to file Forms 2848 (by fax, of course, because IRS cares about its partners) and wait five days to download transcripts through e-Services, the response was:

We are monitoring implementation of the changes to PPS Service and addressing any inconsistencies identified. The new policy is intended to focus the service we provide on those requests from Tax Practitioners who are working with their clients on tax account related issues that require direct contact with IRS. We will direct requests that do not support tax account work with a client and related to non-tax matters to other appropriate resources. That said, if a Tax Practitioner meeting the above criteria requires a transcript, a transcript will be provided through PPS. [Emphasis added]

So if I’m working on a tax account issue, I can call PPS, hope they agree that it’s a tax account issue, and obtain a transcript. It also means I can no longer obtain a transcript with a Tax Information Authorization (Form 8821) even though the form specifically allows for transcript requests! And even though TIGTA wanted more tax professionals to use 8821s rather than a Form 2848 (Power of Attorney) in situations where all the tax professional needs is a transcript.

I have a few clients who only want me to obtain transcripts on their behalf and do not want me to have a Power of Attorney. They now have the choice of:

  1. Giving me a Power of Attorney, allowing me to obtain transcripts, and then, after I let them know I have obtained the transcripts, revoking the Power of Attorney (giving the overworked IRS CAF unit double-work);
  2. Using the new Get a Transcript option to obtain a transcript themselves. (Though see below for problems with this service.)
  3. Giving me a Tax Information Authorization, and hoping that PPS will bend the rules and order the transcripts.

Meanwhile, the Get a Transcript has its own problems. My partner attempted to use the service, but it could not verify either him or his wife as living where he’s lived for years. Second, the verification information relies on publicly available information for many. (It did for my partner, myself, and one other individual.) This is anything but a secure system. (I have sent a request to TIGTA noting the weakness of the system and requesting that they audit it. If TIGTA audits this, it’s unlikely we will hear anything for many months–probably not until 2015.)

A special demerit needs to be awarded to NAEA for this bad advice:

As we mentioned last week in our coverage of IRS’ new online transcript delivery system (“Get Transcript”), in many cases you may find the process easier if your client goes online to pull his or her own transcript and e-mails it to you. And yes, we know this approach is complete nonsense and share our concern with the agency during nearly every conversation. [Emphasis Added]

While I agree completely with the NAEA that the new IRS policy is complete nonsense, a client should never email a transcript (unless he redacts his social security number by each entry). I requested my Wage & Income Transcript for 2012, and the document has my social security number printed by each item of income. Email is fast, but it is not secure; that’s why we and most tax professionals use a web portal for secure communications. (Had NAEA written, “…and send the transcript by secure means to you,” I’d agree completely with them.)

Overall, we have another step backwards for tax professionals. This will especially impact those with Tax Information Authorizations (8821s) on file and use them for obtaining transcripts. You will now have to obtain Powers of Attorney from every client. There is one other possible solution to this portion of the problem: Have the IRS modify eServices so that we can also obtain information when we have a Tax Information Authorization on file. Until this is done, the Tax Information Authorization has only one value: the ability to be copied on notices the IRS sends to a client.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Speaking of Transcripts…

Posted on January 26, 2014 by Russ

Last week I wrote about the possible elimination of the ability for tax professionals to request transcripts through the Practitioner Priority Service beginning tomorrow (Monday, January 27th). I have not received confirmation of this, nor have I received any official denial of this. I guess we’ll find out about this in the next few days. However, the IRS does have a new “Get Transcript” program that has at least one tax attorney worried that it will be yet another godsend for identity thieves.

Kenneth Ryesky, a former IRS attorney who now teaches business law and taxation at Queens College of CUNY has written a piece for American Thinker wondering if the new program has identity theft countermeasures.

So I tried out the program. You have to give your name, address, tax filing status, and then wait for a confirmation code. You then have to answer some questions that are used by a third-party to verify you are who you say you are. Unfortunately, at least three of the four questions asked of me were public information; the fourth wasn’t public but the IRS should not have had access to the information it wanted verified. I don’t know if the information asked for varies randomly, and I do not want to compromise the program, so I’m not going to post specifics on the questions asked. Once my answers were verified, I was able to immediately download a transcript. (You can download Tax Return, Tax Account, Record of Account, and Wage and Income Transcripts; you can also obtain a Verification of Nonfiling Letter.) So individuals can absolutely obtain a transcript (as long as they have recently filed tax returns) through the program.

However, I am suspicious that the security on this program is not stringent enough. All the questions were multiple choice, so a lucky guesser combined with publicly available information could make this an identity thief’s new best friend since the Death Master File. If you’re a tax professional and have five free minutes, try the program out. I’ll update this post tomorrow after I have my partner run through the same exercise. For the moment, I’ll close by stating that I suspect this program could be abused by identity thieves.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | Comments Off on Speaking of Transcripts…

It’s Only $1,300; Do You Really Have To Send Me the 1099?

Posted on January 26, 2014 by Russ

The deadline for mailing 1099s to recipients is this coming Friday, January 31st. That’s a postmark deadline. If you mail a 1099 on Friday and it takes two weeks to get to the recipient, that’s not a problem. (Well, it is a problem for the postal service, but not the sender.)

One of my clients sent a Form W-9 to an individual; that individual received $1,300 from my client so a 1099-MISC needs to be sent. The individual responded, “It’s not much money–it’s only $1,300. Can’t you just skip sending the 1099?” As I told my client, the answer should be no.

A few years ago the IRS wised up and added questions on business forms, such as Schedule C:

You now have to answer a question whether or not you made any payments in 2013 that would require you to file a 1099 (Question I); Question J asks, “If ‘Yes,’ did you or will you file required Forms 1099?” It’s pretty obvious that my client needs to check the “yes” box to Question I. Checking “no” on Question J after checking “yes” on Question I is an excellent way of asking the IRS, “Can you please audit me?”

I suspect the recipient would prefer that $1,300 be under-the-table. My client and I agree that we’re going to obey the law and issue the 1099. (He did receive the completed Form W-9.) As a reminder, if someone refuses to complete a Form W-9 you must begin backup withholding. I also suspect that reminding the recipient of that detail influenced his decision to complete the Form W-9.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | 1 Comment

No More Ordering Transcripts Through Practitioner Priority Service?

Posted on January 23, 2014 by Russ

The IRS Practitioner Priority Service (PPS) is a wonderful tool for tax professionals. It allows us an easy way to obtain information on clients, set up installment agreements, and for practitioners to deal with the IRS. This morning I called PPS to order transcripts for a client. During the conversation, the helpful woman informed me that as of this coming Monday, January 27th, PPS will no longer accept requests for transcripts.

Supposedly you will now have to fax the Power of Attorney (IRS Form 2848) to the CAF unit, wait one week for the POA to be entered into the computer system, and then download the transcript from IRS eServices. The woman stated that this new policy is on the IRS website (I couldn’t find it) and that she was told this was going into effect by her supervisor.

I’m hoping the information I received is wrong, but I suspect it isn’t. This new policy is bad for a number of reasons:

– You can no longer use a Tax Information Authorization (IRS Form 8821) to obtain transcripts even though a Form 8821 authorizes a tax professional to receive transcripts and a tax professional is supposed to use Form 8821 when the goal is only to receive a transcript. You cannot order transcripts with an 8821 through eServices.
– It will delay getting taxpayers into compliance with the IRS.
– It will take even longer to resolve issues with the IRS.

In any case, this was a surprise I could have done without.

UPDATE: I asked the NAEA if they knew anything about this. Robert Kerr emailed me back stating he suspects the staffer was misinformed but that he sent it to the National Office for clarification.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 3 Comments