If You Haven’t Filed Your 2019 and/or 2020 Tax Returns, You Have One Month to Do So and Avoid Late Filing Penalties

Earlier today, the IRS announced extremely broad penalty relief for 2019 and 2020 late-filed tax returns.  Here’s the beginning of the IRS’s press release:

To help struggling taxpayers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Internal Revenue Service today issued Notice 2022-36, which provides penalty relief to most people and businesses who file certain 2019 or 2020 returns late.

The IRS is also taking an additional step to help those who paid these penalties already. Nearly 1.6 million taxpayers will automatically receive more than $1.2 billion in refunds or credits. Many of these payments will be completed by the end of September.

Besides providing relief to both individuals and businesses impacted by the pandemic, this step is designed to allow the IRS to focus its resources on processing backlogged tax returns and taxpayer correspondence to help return to normal operations for the 2023 filing season.

“Throughout the pandemic, the IRS has worked hard to support the nation and provide relief to people in many different ways,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “The penalty relief issued today is yet another way the agency is supporting people during this unprecedented time. This penalty relief will be automatic for people or businesses who qualify; there’s no need to call.”

The relief applies to the failure to file penalty. The penalty is typically assessed at a rate of 5% per month and up to 25% of the unpaid tax when a federal income tax return is filed late. This relief applies to forms in both the Form 1040 and 1120 series, as well as others listed in Notice 2022-36, posted today on IRS.gov.

The returns impacted by this include:

  • Form 1040 (Individual Income Tax Returns)
  • Form 1041 (Trust/Estate Tax Returns)
  • Form 1120 (C-Corporation Tax Returns)
  • Form 1120-S (S-Corporation Tax Returns)
  • Form 1065 (Partnership Tax Returns)
  • Some foreign information returns, such as Forms 5471 and 3520

Let’s say you haven’t filed your 2020 tax return.  You’re being given a golden opportunity to avoid a 25% penalty.  You will still owe the late payment penalty (0.5% of the tax due per month late) and interest, but these pale in comparison to the late filing penalty.  If I were an impacted taxpayer, I would immediately contact a tax professional to get the return filed!  Most tax professionals are extremely busy (especially with the extension deadlines approaching), but things will only be worse in two weeks.

If you did file one of these returns and late and were assessed a penalty, you should receive your refund by the end of September.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | Comments Off on If You Haven’t Filed Your 2019 and/or 2020 Tax Returns, You Have One Month to Do So and Avoid Late Filing Penalties

On Exchanging Cryptocurrency for Casino Chips (or Cash)

The high stakes poker world works a little differently than you might think.  Most of the players frequenting these games know each other, and borrowing money from one another is common.  Another common occurrence is the exchanging of cryptocurrency for casino chips.  Let’s look at an example.

Russ, a professional poker player, is playing high stakes, and he’s not having a good day.  He needs another $100,000 to stay in the game.  He asks Alice (another professional poker player), can I send you $100,000 of Bitcoin for $100,000 of casino chips?  (Alice knows that Russ will send her the cryptocurrency.)  Russ logs into his online wallet, transfers the Bitcoin to Alice’s address (her Bitcoin wallet), and Alice hands Russ $100,000 of casino chips.  All is well, right?

Not exactly.  Sure, Alice received $100,000 worth of Bitcoin for $100,000 of casino chips but she now might be guilty of money laundering.  At minimum, a currency transaction report (CTR) might be required.

The anti-money laundering laws are complex, and I’m not an attorney.  But the basic idea is that exchanging one kind of cash-valued item for something considered to be cash requires knowing your customer and following the rules and regulations set by FINCEN (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) under the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act (and there are others, including state laws).  If you regularly take in cash (or a cash equivalent) and are exchanging it for something else (or vice versa), you may fall under the definition of non-bank financial institution.  And a single transaction (like the one above) may make someone guilty of money laundering.

So let’s say you’re playing high stakes poker, and someone wants to exchange some Bitcoin for casino chips.  Should you do this exchange (knowing you will get the cryptocurrency)?  My advice is that because of the anti-money laundering laws you should not.

Posted in FINCEN, Gambling | Tagged | Comments Off on On Exchanging Cryptocurrency for Casino Chips (or Cash)

IRS: Let’s Spend $5 (At Least) to Disallow $0.11

When you file an amended return, you’re actually making a claim for refund.  Tax professionals have been filing (for their clients) amended payroll tax returns (Form 941) to obtain the Economic Recovery Credit (ERC).  I’ve done two (so far), and have a few more to go.  Another tax professional filed one claiming a $19,746.61 refund.  The IRS partially disallowed it, so a five-page letter was sent.

The disallowance? 11ȼ.  No, you didn’t misread it: eleven cents.

Why, IRS, are you doing this? This is the literal example of penny-wise and pound-foolish.  I wish I could tell you why this is happening, but….

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on IRS: Let’s Spend $5 (At Least) to Disallow $0.11

Square Pegs and Round Holes: Tornado Cash, Anti-Money Laundering, and Crypto

On August 8th, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) went after virtual currency “mixer” Tornado Cash.  Tornado Cash was sanctioned, and as the Treasury’s press release notes,

As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the entity above, Tornado Cash, that is in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons is blocked and must be reported to OFAC. In addition, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or exempt. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Before I get into the meat of this post, let me explain what a mixer is.  The idea of a mixing service is to literally mix “good” cryptocurrency with “bad” cryptocurrency so that no one knows if you have bad cryptocurrency.  Tornado Cash allegedly took in Ethereum (ETH) from people who just wanted to anonymize their transactions (which is not illegal) and from others who were criminals or state actors such as North Korea, mixed it all together, and it became very difficult (if not impossible) to tell good crypto from bad crypto.

What is the legal basis of Treasury’s sanctions? Anti-money laundering laws.  Let’s go back to the days of the mafia.  Assume you have $500 million of tainted cash you’d love to invest (and have turned into “good” cash).  In John Grisham’s The Firm the mafia used a tax law firm to money launder the funds in the Caribbean (with about 25% of each ‘shipment’ lost to bribes and corruption).  Today, moving such cash around to be legal is tougher than ever as most countries exchange information with each other.  The laws that prohibit this date from this time (and are part of the Bank Secrecy Act and the later Patriot Act).

That takes us to cryptocurrency. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) ruled that cryptocurrency is a type of currency and is subject to the anti-money laundering laws.  This means firms anywhere in the world who deal with Americans must have anti-money laundering law practices for cryptocurrency.  Similar laws exist in most of the world.

But isn’t cryptocurrency anonymous?  No, it’s pseudonymous.  The blockchain is permanent, so if you can figure out someone’s address you can trace people.

Not only was Tornado Cash sanctioned, a developer of the software was arrested in the Netherlands.  Now, I am not an attorney (and I am not in the Netherlands), but I was told by an individual who is familiar with the Netherlands’ anti-money laundering laws that they are similar to those of the US, only tougher.  But how can writing software (or ‘code’) be illegal?

I suspect the issue isn’t the writing of the software; rather, it’s allowing the software to be used and being active in the website allowing the mixing.  Let’s say I write software to allow Bitcoin to be mixed.  I post the software on an open-source forum.  That’s probably not illegal.  But what if I now actively market this product, don’t do anything to comply with anti-money laundering laws even though I don’t take any profits from the mixing: Have I committed a crime?  Almost certainly I have (probably multiple felonies).

That’s the problem cryptocurrency advocates face: the real world is intruding, and anti-money laundering laws are part of the real world.  Here, cryptocurrency is a square peg and the round holes are the anti-money laundering laws.  While I do see headlines stating, “Coin Center prepares legal challenge to Treasury’s Tornado Cash sanctions,” I highly doubt any such challenges will be successful.  FINCEN’s pronouncement that cryptocurrency is a currency for anti-money laundering law purposes seems reasonable (and almost certain to pass Chevron muster), and there’s nothing unconstitutional with the anti-money laundering laws.

But, Russ, won’t that will lead to cryptocurrency being centralized?  Won’t this just defeat the purpose of cryptocurrency and it will just become (more or less) another form of currency–just digital and online?  Yes, that’s the likely result.  This may not please the Libertarian cryptocurrency advocates but I don’t see anti-money laundering laws being overturned during my lifetime.   It appears the freewheeling age of cryptocurrency is ending sooner rather than later.

Posted in Cryptocurrencies, FINCEN | Tagged | Comments Off on Square Pegs and Round Holes: Tornado Cash, Anti-Money Laundering, and Crypto

Answering to a Higher Authority

Robert Brockman, the 2020 Tax Offender of the Year, passed away last weekend.  Mr. Brockman was facing a 39-count indictment for tax fraud and related charges; his trial was set for this coming February.  Mr. Brockman’s attorneys argued that he was incompetent to stand trial due to dementia; however, the judge had ruled him competent.  The criminal case is now moot—Mr. Brockman is answering to a higher authority; the civil case will continue against his estate (the IRS attempting to obtain back taxes, penalties, and interest).

My condolences to his family.

Posted in International, IRS, Tax Fraud | Tagged | Comments Off on Answering to a Higher Authority

Do IRS Employees Know the Postmark Rule?

So what’s the postmark rule?  The IRS notes this on their website:

Your return is considered filed on time if the envelope is properly addressed, has enough postage, is postmarked, and is deposited in the mail by the due date. If you file electronically, the date and time in your time zone when your return is transmitted controls whether your return is filed timely.

Of course, the IRS website doesn’t govern; the Tax Code and regulations promulgated under the Code do.  And here the IRS website exactly matches the law under IRC Section 7502 and 26 CFR § 301.7502-1.  So why aren’t IRS employees aware of this rule?  Let me first explain why I’m asking.

We normally file business return extensions electronically.  However, every year there are a few that must be paper-filed (mailed to the IRS).  On March 11th we mailed an extension for an S-Corporation (call it Acme).  The IRS had yet to process Acme’s S-Corporation election paperwork; when I attempted to e-file the extension, it failed.  So we mailed it certified mail, return receipt to the IRS on March 11th; it was received at the IRS in Ogden, Utah on March 17th.  This past week, Acme received a letter from the IRS stating we cannot accept your extension because it was filed after the deadline.

The owner of Acme was, of course, upset with me until he saw that I did file the extension timely; eventually the extension will end up being valid.  But (a) I had to waste time on a conversation with the owner of Acme, (b) the IRS wasted time and money in sending out the notice, and (c) will waste additional time removing the penalty and noting the extension was timely filed.

And I’m not alone in having clients impacted by this.  On Twitter, another tax professional noted he’s been receiving a “steady stream” of notices denying extensions for business returns.  Why has this happened?

I can only think of two reasons: either the IRS is separating envelopes from extensions (so that the IRS employee processing the mailed extension has no idea when it was mailed and only knows the receipt date) or the IRS employee processing the extensions aren’t aware of the rule.  Neither of these reasons is acceptable, but it appears that’s the reality today.

What does this mean for taxpayers?  First, you must use certified mail, return receipt requested in sending anything to the IRS (or any other tax agency) by mail.  Yes, my envelope mailed on March 11th from Las Vegas should have made it to Ogden by the 15th (it’s about a 6 1/2 hour drive from my office) but it didn’t.  Because I have proof of the postmark there won’t be any issues (in the long run).  Had I not mailed it certified mail, there would be no proof.  Given current IRS practices, this is essential.  Second, where possible e-file.  With electronic filing, there’s absolute proof of the date and time of filing.

Posted in IRS, Tax Preparation | Comments Off on Do IRS Employees Know the Postmark Rule?

When Bad Recordkeeping Helps You (And Bad News for Some Canadian Professional Poker Players)

As we previously reported, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) thought that Jonathan Duhamel, the winner of the Main Event of the World Series of Poker (WSOP) in 2010 was a professional gambler, and that he conducted himself as a professional gambler.  Thus, his gambling winnings should be subject to Canadian income tax.  Mr. Duhamel argued that poker is a game of chance and not subject to tax in Canada, and that even if it were a game of skill Mr. Duhamel did not conduct himself as a professional poker player.  The case was tried in front of the Tax Court of Canada last November, and a decision was released late last month.  (I am indebted to a friend of mine who speaks French for translating the key points of the decision — his translation runs 40 pages.)

The evidence as presented to the court showed that Mr. Duhamel was bad at recordkeeping.  He apparently only kept track of his tournament results, and never tracked cash games (even though he played lots of cash games).  For a Canadian who doesn’t want to be considered a professional gambler, bad recordkeeping appears to be a plus as this was a factor that influenced the court.

(Of course, if you are an American—and this blog caters to Americans—a warning is needed.  Bad recordkeeping is not what you want to do as either an amateur or a professional gambler in the United States.  All gamblers in the United States must pay tax on their winnings, and a gambling log is a must.  But I digress….)

The Court noted (as translated) [1]:

Because the evidence shows that chance is a very important element in poker game results, that Mr. Duhamel’s poker game activities do not demonstrate an ability to generate profits, that the probability Mr. Duhamel’s ruin in his poker gambling business is well over 50% (but less than 87%), that Mr. Duhamel does not act like a serious businessman in his poker gaming activities, that Mr. Duhamel has not developed any system for managing or mitigating risks in connection with his poker gaming activities and that the financial results of his tournaments do not show any consistency or progress in the results, the Court concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Duhamel’s poker gaming activities are not carried on in a sufficiently commercial manner to constitute a source of business income for the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, the net earnings from Mr. Duhamel’s poker gaming activities should not be included in the calculation of his income under sections 3 and 9 for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 taxation years.

The court looked at the activities of Mr. Duhamel, and found that he acted as an amateur; for Mr. Duhamel, this decision is excellent news.  Mr. Duhamel won in part because he didn’t act like he was in business.

However, there is bad news implicit in this decision for some Canadian professional poker players:  It’s clear that there are Canadian poker players who consistently make their living from poker, and who would likely be considered professional gamblers if the CRA were to look at their activities.  I don’t practice in Canada, but I would advise any Canadian professional poker player to seek advice from a Canadian tax professional who understands gambling activities and this decision.

 

[1] This paragraph in French reads, “Puisqu’il ressort de la preuve que le hasard est un élément très important dans les résultats au jeu de poker, que les activités de jeu de poker de M. Duhamel ne démontrent pas une capacité de générer des profits, que la probabilité de ruine de M. Duhamel dans le cadre de ses activités de jeu de poker est bien supérieure à 50 % (mais inférieure à 87 %), que M. Duhamel n’agit pas comme un homme d’affaires sérieux dans le cadre de ses activités de jeu de poker, que M. Duhamel n’a mis au point aucun système de gestion ou d’atténuation des risques dans le cadre de ses activités de jeu de poker et que les résultats financiers de ses tournois ne démontrent aucune constance ni progression dans les résultats, la Cour conclut, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que les activités de jeu de poker de M. Duhamel ne sont pas exercées de manière suffisamment commerciale pour constituer une source de revenu d’entreprise aux fins de la Loi. Conséquemment, les gains nets tirés des activités de jeu de poker de M. Duhamel ne doivent pas être inclus dans le calcul de son revenu aux termes des articles 3 et 9 pour les années d’imposition 2010, 2011 et 2012.”

Posted in Canada, Gambling, International | Comments Off on When Bad Recordkeeping Helps You (And Bad News for Some Canadian Professional Poker Players)

The Real Winners of the 2022 World Series of Poker

Yesterday afternoon, the 2022 Main Event of the World Series of Poker concluded. First, congratulations to Caesars for putting on a mostly great series at the Paris and Bally’s casinos on the Strip. This was the first year the events ran on the Strip (previously, they were held at the Rio Casino about one mile west of the Strip), and the events attracted near-record crowds.

This year, the Main Event had 8,663 entrants, each ponying up $10,000. The prize pool was $80,782,475 (the difference is the funds kept by Caesars for running the event). We focus on the final table of ten, but 1,300 of the 8,663 received winnings from the prize pool; a minimum cash was worth $15,000. The winner received a whopping $10 million…but that’s before taxes.

One important note: I do need to point out that many of the players in the tournament were “backed.” Poker tournaments have a high variance (luck factor). Thus, many tournament players sell portions of their action to investors to lower their risk (and/or “swap” action with other entrants). It is quite likely that most (if not all) of the winners were backed (or had swaps) and will, in the end, only enjoy a portion of their winnings. I ignore backing and swaps in this analysis (because the full details are rarely publicized). Now, on to the winners.

Congratulations to Epsen Uhlen Jorstad, a professional poker player and a native of Norway now residing in London. On the final hand, Mr. Jorstad flopped three of a kind (holding Q-2 in his hand, with the flop being 4-2-2). Adrian Attenborough, the second place finisher, flopped top pair (holding J-4); in heads-up play, any pair is usually a good hand. This was definitely not the case this time, with the 8 on the turn changing nothing. The river Queen gave Mr. Jorstad a full house, and when Mr. Attenborough called Mr. Jorstad’s river all-in bet, we had a winner. Mr. Jorstad is a popular poker streamer on Twitch, and he’s also an instructor at the Run It Once poker training site. Mr. Jorstad’s first place prize of $10 million will be his—just his—to enjoy. Had he still resided in Norway, he’d be looking at 39% vanishing in taxes. However, as a resident of the United Kingdom he benefits first from the tax treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom; gambling winnings are exempt. He also benefits from how gambling is taxed in the United Kingdom, or rather, how it’s not taxed. Yes, the U.K. doesn’t tax gambling.

In second place was the aforementioned Mr. Attenborough. A native of Australia, Mr. Attenborough, now resides here in Las Vegas. A professional poker player, Mr. Attenborough will owe US income tax and self-employment tax. Of his $6 million in winnings, I estimate he’ll have to fork over $2,388,875 to the IRS; his actual winnings after taxes are an estimated $3,611,125. State income taxes are a non-issue for Mr. Attenborough: Nevada doesn’t have a state income tax.

In third place was Michael Duek winning $4 million. Mr. Duek resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida but is a native of Argentina. Mr. Duek, a professional poker player who focuses on pot-limit Omaha, decided to enter the Main Event (the event plays no-limit hold’em). It was an excellent decision, and of his $4 million third-place prize he’ll end up paying an estimated $1,593,064 in tax to the IRS (like Nevada, Florida doesn’t have state income tax) and keep $2,406,936 of his winnings.

John Eames, of Southport in the United Kingdom, finished fourth for $3 million. Mr. Eames is another professional poker player who benefits from the US-UK tax treaty and the United Kingdom’s 0% rate of taxation on gambling. Yes, Mr. Eames gets to keep all of his $3 million.

Finishing in fifth place for $2,250,000 was Matija Dobric of Slatina, Croatia. Mr. Dobric, a professional poker player who mostly plays online, finished 32nd in the 2021 Main Event and bested that this year. The United States and Croatia have just completed negotiating a tax treaty, but it’s definitely not in place today. That means that 30% of Mr. Dobric’s winnings ($675,000) will be withheld and remitted to the IRS. Croatia does tax gambling, but with a maximum tax rate of 30% it is likely that Mr. Dobric won’t owe anything to Croatia: he should be able to take a tax credit on his Croatian tax return to avoid double-taxation of his income. Thus, he should be able to enjoy his $1,575,000 of after-tax winnings.

The sixth place finisher was the first of two amateur poker players at the final table. Jeffrey Farnes, of Dallas, Oregon (near Oregon’s state capital of Salem) ended in sixth place for $1,750,000. As a non-professional poker player, he avoids self-employment tax. However, as a resident of Oregon he owes state income tax on his worldwide income. I estimate he’ll only get to keep $950,312 of his winnings, with $621,968 going to the IRS and $177,720 to the Oregon Department of Revenue.

The other amateur gambler, Aaron Duczak of Kamloops, Canada (in British Columbia) finished in seventh place for $1,350,000. The US-Canada Tax Treaty specifies that Canadians face 30% withholding on their gambling winnings but can get some of this back based on gambling losses. It appears that based on the recent Tax Court of Canada decision in Duhamel c. La Reine that some professional gamblers in Canada will owe Canadian income tax. (Mr. Duhamel, who won the 2010 Main Event, was held to be an amateur gambler in that decision (decision in French); however, it’s clear from the decision that Quebec law would allow for taxation of some professional poker players.) But Mr. Duczak isn’t a professional gambler, so the only tax he’ll owe is the $405,000 withheld to the IRS (he’ll keep the other $945,000).

In eighth place was Phillipe Souki of London. The French professional also moved to the United Kingdom to avoid French taxation. His eighth place finish was worth $1,075,000 and he gets to keep all of it. Had he stayed in France, he’d owe an estimated 47.5% in tax. That’s about 510,000 reasons to be in London rather than Paris.

The ninth place finisher was Matthew Su. A professional poker player residing in Washington, DC, he didn’t have much luck at the final table when his pair of Queens lost to an opponent’s pair of nines. Finishing ninth earned Mr. Su $850,675. That’s before taxes, and Mr. Su will owe an estimated 47.70% of his winnings to tax: $332,898 to the IRS and $72,856 to the District of Columbia’s Office of Tax and Revenue (leaving Mr. Su with just $444,921).

This year, ten players made the final table rather than the usual nine. Day 7 of the Main Event ran so long that the WSOP stopped play with ten left. Finishing tenth was Asher Conniff of Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Conniff’s final table appearance did not last long. On one of the first hands, he went all-in with a pair of tens versus his opponent’s Ace-King. That’s a classic “flip” (a nearly 50% chance for either player to win), but after the flop of three Kings Mr. Conniff was “drawing dead” (he could not win the hand). A professional poker player, Mr. Conniff’s winnings of $675,000 face the highest marginal tax rate of any of the final ten players: 48.21%. I estimate that Mr. Conniff will only keep $349,598 of his winnings, with $253,733 going to the IRS and $71,669 headed to the New York Department of Taxation and Finance.

Here’s a table summarizing the tax bite:

Amount won at Final Table $30,950,675
Tax to IRS $6,270,538
Tax to Oregon Department of Revenue $177,720
Tax to D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue $72,856
Tax to New York Dept. of Taxation and Finance $71,669
Total Tax $5,512,783

That means 17.81% of the winnings at the final table goes toward taxes.

Here’s a second table with the winners sorted by their estimated take-home winnings:

Winner Before-Tax Prize After-Tax Prize
1. Epsen Jorstad $10,000,000 $10,000,000
2. Adrian Attenborough $6,000,000 $3,611,125
4. John Eames $3,000,000 $3,000,000
3. Michael Duek $4,000,000 $2,406,936
5. Matija Dobric $2,250,000 $1,575,000
8. Phillipe Souki $1,075,000 $1,075,000
6. Jeffrey Farnes $1,750,000 $950,312
7. Aaron Duczak $1,350,000 $945,000
9. Matthew Su $850,675 $444,921
10. Asher Conniff $675,000 $349,598
Totals $30,950,675 $24,357,892

Once Again, players residing in the United Kingdom ended up finishing higher than their actual results (based on after-tax winnings). Both Mr. Eames and Mr. Souki get to enjoy more of their winnings based on the favorable tax regime of Britain. Someone recently asked me why don’t American poker professionals all move to the UK? Ignoring immigration law, the problem is that Americans pay tax on their worldwide income even if they reside outside the United States (subject to tax treaties and the foreign tax credit to avoid double taxation). An American residing in the U.K. would still owe tax to the IRS on their gambling winnings.

The Internal Revenue Service did not end up with taxes that exceeded the first place winnings; the agency will have to be content with finishing in third place (based on pre-tax prizes). With three winners exempt from US taxation, the IRS didn’t rack in its usual haul. Tax agencies are left with “only” $5.5 million of the nearly $31 million awarded at the final table. Still, you can’t say that the IRS didn’t do poorly because the house always wins.

Posted in Gambling | Tagged | Comments Off on The Real Winners of the 2022 World Series of Poker

Is It One Penalty of $10,000 or Multiple Penalties of $10,000?

Suppose you are a resident of a foreign country–say, Romania–and you have foreign financial accounts.  You need to file the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) to tell the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) what foreign accounts you have.  There is no tax due; however, there are substantial penalties for not filing the FBAR.  The penalty for willfully not filing the form starts at $100,000 per account.  The non-willful penalty is up to $10,000.

But a questions is unanswered regarding the non-willful penalty: Is the penalty per account that is not reported or per form that is not reported?  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it’s per foreign account; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held it’s per form.  This can make a huge difference (as you might imagine).

Alexandru Bittner failed to file his FBARs.  His violation was held to be non-willful.  He’s in the Fifth Circuit (he resides in Texas); he was assessed a penalty of $2.7 million.  Had Mr. Bittner resided in Nevada, he would have been fined $50,000.  That’s a difference of $2.65 Million, surely a large enough difference to file a petition for certiorari.

The Supreme Court doesn’t take many tax related cases.  Almost all of them relate to circuit conflicts such as this one.  Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court is to make sure that federal law is uniform among the states.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning; the case will likely be heard late this year with a decision probably coming in early 2023.  At that point in time, we’ll know whether the non-willful penalty is based on accounts or forms.

One reminder to everyone: If you have an FBAR filing requirement, just file the form (including all of your accounts) and you avoid all these penalties.  I’d much prefer paying no fine at all then paying $50,000 (or $2.7 million).  The FBAR deadline coincides with the tax filing deadline (with an automatic extension to October 15th).

Case: Bittner v. United States

Posted in International, Supreme Court | Tagged | Comments Off on Is It One Penalty of $10,000 or Multiple Penalties of $10,000?

Standard Mileage Rate Increases Beginning July 1st

The IRS announced today that the standard mileage rate for the second half of 2022 will be $0.625/mile, up from $0.585/mile.  As the IRS notes:

In recognition of recent gasoline price increases, the IRS made this special adjustment for the final months of 2022. The IRS normally updates the mileage rates once a year in the fall for the next calendar year. For travel from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2022, taxpayers should use the rates set forth in Notice 2022-03.

“The IRS is adjusting the standard mileage rates to better reflect the recent increase in fuel prices,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “We are aware a number of unusual factors have come into play involving fuel costs, and we are taking this special step to help taxpayers, businesses and others who use this rate.”

If you use the standard mileage rate, you will need to correctly report your business mileage for each half of the year.  I strongly suggest you take a picture of your odometer at the end of the day on June 30th (or the beginning of the day on July 1st) and email that to yourself so you can prove to the IRS your total mileage for each half of the year.

The official IRS Announcement is here.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on Standard Mileage Rate Increases Beginning July 1st