The 2020 State Business Tax Climate Index: The Usual Laggards, but Some New Faces on Top

Posted on October 24, 2019 by Russ

The Tax Foundation released its annual State Business Tax Climate Index. There weren’t many surprises with the best states:

1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Alaska
4. Florida
5. Montana
6. New Hampshire
7. Nevada
8. Oregon
9. Utah
10. Indiana

This is the first time I remember Oregon in the top-ten of this list. These states share one of two attributes: the lack of certain taxes (such as individual income taxes) or low tax rates across all taxes (such as in Utah and Indiana). Meanwhile, it’s “Bring me the usual suspects” for the bottom ten:

41. Louisiana
42. Iowa
43. Maryland
44. Vermont
45. Minnesota
46. Arkansas
47. Connecticut
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey

As the Tax Foundation says, “The states in the bottom 10 tend to have a number of afflictions in common: complex, nonneutral taxes with comparatively high rates. New Jersey, for example, is hampered by some of the highest property tax burdens in the country, has the second highest-rate corporate income tax in the country and a particularly aggressive treatment of international income, levies an inheritance tax, and maintains some of the nation’s worst-structured individual income taxes.”

I noted Oregon being in the top ten, but the state is likely going to fall out soon. Oregon adopted a gross receipts business tax, and that’s almost certain to send the state out of the top ten next year. Oregon will be one of only two states with both a corporate income tax and a gross receipts tax.

My home state, Nevada, ranks near the top in individual income tax (fifth), which isn’t a surprise since we don’t have that tax. (A few ‘individuals’ will owe the Nevada gross receipts tax on their businesses, which is why the Silver State doesn’t share the top ranking here.) We also rank towards the top (tenth) in property tax. We’re right in the middle for corporate income tax (25th) which shows the impact of the gross receipts tax. We’re towards the bottom (44th) in sales tax (Nevada sales taxes are relatively high; the rate is 8.25% in Clark County) and in unemployment insurance tax (47th). But overall Nevada is a good state for taxation; this is one reason I moved here in 2011.

Contrast that with California. Corporate taxation is actually in the middle (28th) and property tax is in the top half (16th); the property tax ranking is due to Proposition 13 which Democrats in the Golden State are proposing to partially due away with. Unemployment Insurance Tax ranks 22nd, about average. It’s individual income tax which is the major contributor to California’s low ranking. The state ranks 49th. California also fares poorly in sales tax, ranking 45th.

Note that taxation is just one piece of why businesses relocate. It’s an important component, but it’s not everything. Another major factor is regulatory burden, and that’s another place where California ranks at or near the bottom. This is something I’ll be reporting on in the future.

As to individuals who state that businesses don’t move because of taxes, that’s hogwash. Businesses do move because of this, and will continue to do so. It is just one reason, but it’s a very important reason. California lawmakers who look at the map provided by the Tax Foundation (showing California in dark grey (dark grey indicates a bad score) while numerous neighboring states are in blue (indicated a good score) should be worried. But given how I think the Democratic majority in Sacramento thinks, it’s unlikely they’ll do so.

Posted in California, Nevada, Oregon | Tagged | Comments Off on The 2020 State Business Tax Climate Index: The Usual Laggards, but Some New Faces on Top

“[D]id you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?”

Posted on October 23, 2019 by Russ

I haven’t posted that much this year for a few reasons. I’ve had some family issues (and that takes priority over just about everything), and this was a difficult tax season. Now that Tax Season is over, I’m going to be increasing my posting. The next few posts are all going to be looking at cryptocurrency (what the IRS calls “virtual currency”) because there’s been a lot of activity in this area over the past few weeks.

Today, we’re looking at an upcoming issue. During the second half of each year, the IRS releases draft tax forms for the following tax season. The IRS gets industry comments, and it also alerts both software makers and tax professionals of upcoming items. Here’s the top of the draft Schedule 1 for 2019:

CryptoQuestion

The question reads, in full, “At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?”

The IRS thinks that some taxpayers just might not be telling the truth about cryptocurrency. This question means that if you own any cryptocurrency and had any transactions in 2019, you need to check a box. It’s similar to the boxes on the bottom of Schedule B asking about foreign financial accounts.

Tax returns are filed under penalty of perjury. Thus, a taxpayer who answers that question “No” when he or she is trading virtual currency would be committing perjury. Indeed, it’s yet another way the IRS is looking into cryptocurrency transactions.

Kelly Erb, who alerted me to this new question, believes the location of the question is poor. I agree. An individual who sells cryptocurrency must complete Schedule D and Form 8949. That individual might not include Schedule 1 on his or her tax return. If you’re looking for improving compliance with the law, the question should be asked where impacted individuals will see it. The IRS will take comments for the next 17 days on the draft form, and I have suggested to the IRS that the question be put on Schedule D rather than Schedule 1. (If you want to comment, you can send an email to WI.1040.Comments@IRS.gov. Note that the IRS does not respond to each comment, but absolutely does look at the comments and considers them before making draft forms final.)

A client was in my office toward the end of September to finalize his 2018 returns. He had a lot of cryptocurrency transactions, but the overall gain or loss was about $100. As we attached a listing of his thousands of trades to his tax return, he asked if I thought someone would be prosecuted over cryptocurrency. I strongly believe that IRS criminal investigation will look at making an example of someone. There’s likely a kid in Dubuque or Dallas or Denver who made $3 million in cryptocurrency and thinks it’s “free money.” It’s not–accessions to wealth are, by definition, income and all income not exempted by Congress is subject to income tax. As always, it’s a whole lot easier to simply pay your tax than not do so.

Posted in Cryptocurrencies | Tagged | Comments Off on “[D]id you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?”

It’s Time to Panic!

Posted on September 23, 2019 by Russ

If you use a tax professional and have not yet provided your paperwork to him or her, it’s time to panic and work on this. In past years, I’ve made this post in early October. But this tax year is different than others, and if you turn your paperwork in after the end of September, it’s quite possible your return will end up being filed after the October 15th extension deadline.

Tax returns are taking longer to prepare this year than last. We’re seeing the average return taking 10% longer than last year. Let’s assume that an average tax professional could prepare ten returns in a day; this year, he or she might only get nine done. That doesn’t sound like much, but most tax returns on extension are difficult ones, with complications.

If you file late, realize it’s as if your extension never happened. Of course, if you’re getting a refund filing late is not the end of the world: The penalties for late filing are based on the tax you owe, so if you don’t owe any tax there are no penalties.

Our official deadline for receiving paperwork was September 17th. Most tax professionals I know had similar deadlines. That means if you haven’t turned in your paperwork you’re on borrowed time. It’s time for the procrastinators out there to stop procrastinating if you don’t want to pay an extra 25% of your tax for late filing.

Posted in Tax Preparation, Taxable Talk | Comments Off on It’s Time to Panic!

Jolly Good News on the Swart Front

Posted on September 10, 2019 by Russ

Let’s say you’re the managing member of an LLC headquartered in Seattle (duly registered as an LLC in Washington State). You invest in another LLC (a Delaware LLC) that invests in property throughout the United States. You own between one and five percent of the Delaware LLC each year, and are not involved in any of the decisions of the Delaware LLC. The Delaware LLC invests in California property, and is considered doing business in California (it registers with the California Secretary of State and files a California LLC tax return). Is your Washington State LLC doing business in California?

The California Franchise Tax Board has been holding for years that if you invest in a California LLC–or a foreign LLC doing business in California–your LLC is considered doing business in California. Even an indirect investment (investing in LLC 1 that invests in LLC 2 that invests in a California LLC) is enough to be doing business in California in the view of the FTB. Then came Swart.

As previously discussed on this blog, Swart Enterprises, Inc challenged the FTB regarding its 0.2% interest in a manager-member California LLC. The courts held that such a passive investment is not doing business in California. After Swart, the FTB held that if your passive interest is 0.2% (or less), you’re not doing business in California; greater than that, you are.

Jali, LLC is a Washington State LLC that mirrors the fact pattern in the first paragraph. They invested in Bullseye Capital Real Property Opportunity Fund, LLC and California’s Franchise Tax Board asserted they were doing business in California. Jali, LLC paid the FTB for the years in question and filed a claim for refund; the claim was denied because Jali, LLC owned more than 0.2% of Bullseye. Jali, LLC appealed to the California Board of Tax Appeals.

In what will be a precedential decision, the Board of Tax Appeals noted:

FTB thus takes the position that a 0.2 percent membership interest in an LLC doing business in California is the new, post-Swart bright-line ownership threshold used to determine whether an out-of-state member is also doing business in the state. As applied to the facts of this appeal, FTB concludes that appellant is deemed to be “actively” doing business in California because its membership interest in Bullseye “was well beyond the 0.2% Swart limit.” We disagree.

FTB misconstrues the Swart court’s statement, “We conclude Swart was not doing business in California based solely on its minority ownership interest in Cypress LLC.” The court’s opinion was not “based solely” on Swart’s minority ownership interest. Rather, in making this statement, the court was simply dismissing FTB’s argument that the court should base its decision on that fact alone. When the entire opinion is considered, it becomes abundantly clear the court’s holding was squarely grounded on the relationship between the out-of-state member and the in-state LLC.

But that’s not all. The Board of Tax Appeals realizes that the key questions are, (a) Is the entity a limited or general partner, and (b) Can the limited partner control the activity of the LLC that is doing business in California?

FTB misconstrues the Swart court’s statement, “We conclude Swart was not doing business in California based solely on its minority ownership interest in Cypress LLC.” The court’s opinion was not “based solely” on Swart’s minority ownership interest. Rather, in making this statement, the court was simply dismissing FTB’s argument that the court should base its decision on that fact alone. When the entire opinion is considered, it becomes abundantly clear the court’s holding was squarely grounded on the relationship between the out-of-state member and the in-state LLC…Indeed, in rejecting the same argument FTB advanced there as it does here, the court concluded that “[b]ecause the business activities of a partnership cannot be attributed to limited partners, Swart cannot be deemed to be ‘doing business’ in California solely by virtue of its ownership interest in Cypress LLC.” (Ibid., emphasis added and internal citation omitted.) Accordingly, Swart did not establish a bright-line 0.2 percent ownership threshold for purposes of making nexus determinations for out-of-state members holding interests in in-state LLCs classified as partnerships.

Employing the foregoing legal analysis from Swart, we agree with appellant that it is not subject to California tax. Appellant points to certain relevant facts—none of which FTB contests—that are virtually identical to those in Swart. Under its operating agreement, (1) Bullseye is a manager-managed LLC, (2) it is managed by an elected director(s), not appellant, (3) appellant is not personally liable for any debt, obligation, or liability of Bullseye, (4) appellant has no power to participate in Bullseye’s management, or bind or act on behalf of it in any way, and (5) appellant has no interest in any specific property of Bullseye. And, even though appellant’s percentage interest in Bullseye is greater than that in Swart (between 1.12 to 4.75 percent versus 0.2 percent), both are undisputedly minority interests. Therefore, like Swart’s interest in Cypress, appellant’s interest in Bullseye closely resembles that of a limited, rather than a general, partner, and there is no evidence that appellant had any ability or authority, directly or indirectly, to influence or participate in the management or operation of Bullseye. [footnotes omitted]

The conclusion of the Board of Tax Appeals is clear:

[W]e reject FTB’s 0.2 percent ownership threshold as the new bright-line legal standard for distinguishing between an active and a passive ownership interest in an LLC classified as a partnership.

Unlike the earlier decision in Satview Enterprises (which was not precedential), this decision will soon be precedential. The big question is whether the FTB will appeal into the California court system. There’s a definite possibility they will (it would be consistent with the FTB’s general legal practices). No matter, this decision is excellent news for owners of minority interests in California LLCs.

(It’s also, overall, excellent news for California. You want to encourage investment in the state. The FTB’s policy of demanding the $800 for minority interest in California LLCs discourages California investment.)

If you have a non-California LLC that has been forced to pay California LLC tax for indirect interest in a California LLC (or a foreign LLC doing business in California), you should consider filing a claim for refund–or a protective claim if your statute of limitations is nearing expiration.

Case: In the Matter of the Appeal of Jali, LLC

Posted in California | Tagged , | Comments Off on Jolly Good News on the Swart Front

Gambling With an Edge Podcast

Posted on September 1, 2019 by Russ

I appeared on last week’s “Gambling With an Edge” podcast. We discussed the IRS letters sent to cryptocurrency users, does having a large number of W-2Gs increase audit risk, and sending tax returns by regular mail — and many other topics. You can download the podcast at the link (above), or subscribe to “Gambling With an Edge” on iTunes and other podcast services.

Posted in Gambling, Taxable Talk | Comments Off on Gambling With an Edge Podcast

Should You Be Reporting Cryptocurrency Held in a Foreign Exchange on the FBAR and Form 8938?

Posted on August 5, 2019 by Russ

It’s been assumed that the answer to the question I posed as the title to this post is “Yes”, that you should be reporting cryptocurrency held in foreign cryptocurrency exchanges on the FBAR. However, the AICPA Virtual Currency Task Force asked this question to FINCEN and was surprised to find the answer is no:

FinCEN responded that regulations (31 C.F.R. §1010.350(c)) do not define virtual currency held in an offshore account as a type of reportable account. Therefore, virtual currency is not reportable on the FBAR, at least for now. This may change in the future, especially considering the influx of stable coins, so practitioners should stay abreast on this topic. FinCEN did tell the task force that it, “in consultation with the IRS, continue[s] to evaluate the value of incorporating virtual currency held offshore into the FBAR regulatory reporting requirements.” Absent this clarity, the conservative approach would be filing the FBAR.

I think the conservative approach is best, and we can look back at the Hom decision at a parallel situation. Years ago, online gambling accounts were reportable. Then FINCEN said to tax professionals, you do not have to report these accounts on the FBAR. However, a court then ruled in United States v Hom that these accounts were reportable. Nothing today prevents the identical situation from occurring with regards to cryptocurrency.

Indeed, let’s say John Smith has $1,000,000 worth of Bitcoin on some foreign cryptocurrency exchange. He doesn’t file the FBAR. He sells his cryptocurrency and the IRS discovers this when no tax return (or FBAR) is received. The matter is referred for criminal prosecution, and not only are charges filed for failing to file a tax return, the Department of Justice adds charges for not filing the FBAR.

There is no penalty for overreporting accounts on the FBAR, just underreporting. Thus, the mantra, “When in doubt, file the FBAR,” definitely applies. I strongly suggest you file the FBAR for foreign cryptocurrency exchanges (assuming you have an FBAR filing requirement).

But what about Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), the FATCA reporting statement that’s required with certain tax returns? Nothing has changed with regard to this form. Thus, even if you elect not to report your foreign cryptocurrency exchange holdings on the FBAR, you are still required to report them on Form 8938 (assuming you meet the Form 8938 filing threshold).

Again, there’s no penalty for overreporting and lots of penalties for underreporting. The conclusion I draw is the only logical conclusion given the current situation.

Posted in Cryptocurrencies, FINCEN | Tagged , | Comments Off on Should You Be Reporting Cryptocurrency Held in a Foreign Exchange on the FBAR and Form 8938?

We’ve Moving, and We’re on Vacation

Posted on July 28, 2019 by Russ

Our offices are moving (conveniently while we’re on vacation). Our new address is:

Clayton Financial and Tax
222 S Rainbow Blvd, Ste 205
Las Vegas, NV 89145-5356

And we’re going to enjoy a vacation. If something earth-shattering in the tax world happens while I’m relaxing, I’ll take time out to post on it. Otherwise, enjoy the fine bloggers listed in the blogroll on the right.

I’ll be back on Tuesday, August 6th.

Posted in Taxable Talk | Comments Off on We’ve Moving, and We’re on Vacation

IRS Sending Letters Based on Coinbase Summons

Posted on July 26, 2019 by Russ

In 2017 the IRS won its fight with Coinbase, and received information from that cryptocurrency exchange on customers who traded cryptocurrency. Today, the IRS announced that they’re sending letters to individuals who may need to file or amend their returns to report cryptocurrency transactions.

The IRS notice states:

The Internal Revenue Service has begun sending letters to taxpayers with virtual currency transactions that potentially failed to report income and pay the resulting tax from virtual currency transactions or did not report their transactions properly.

“Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously by reviewing their tax filings and when appropriate, amend past returns and pay back taxes, interest and penalties,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “The IRS is expanding our efforts involving virtual currency, including increased use of data analytics. We are focused on enforcing the law and helping taxpayers fully understand and meet their obligations.”

The IRS started sending the educational letters to taxpayers last week. By the end of August, more than 10,000 taxpayers will receive these letters. The names of these taxpayers were obtained through various ongoing IRS compliance efforts.

For taxpayers receiving an educational letter, there are three variations: Letter 6173, Letter 6174 or Letter 6174-A, all three versions strive to help taxpayers understand their tax and filing obligations and how to correct past errors.

Two of my clients received Letter 6174-A today. They had both included their cryptocurrency sales on their tax returns for all years, so they can ignore the letter. My suspicion is that Letter 6174-A is sent to taxpayers the IRS believes are in compliance.

The more serious letter is Letter 6173. This letter states, “For one or more of tax years 2013 through 2017, we haven’t received either a federal income tax return or an applicable form or schedule reporting your virtual currency transactions.” That’s potential trouble for recipients. If you receive (or received) Letter 6173, you should consult a tax professional immediately. This letter requires a response, and it means the IRS thinks you’ve erred on your taxes. Having said that, remember that it’s entirely possible you did include your cryptocurrency transactions on your return and the IRS simply erred.

I should point out that it’s my conclusion that these letters are the result of the Coinbase summons. The IRS notice states only they used “data analytics” and that “[t]he names of these taxpayers were obtained through various ongoing IRS compliance efforts.” It could be something else, but I’m not aware of any other ongoing compliance efforts related to cryptocurrency.

Posted in Cryptocurrencies | Tagged | Comments Off on IRS Sending Letters Based on Coinbase Summons

Location, Location, Location: The Real Winners of the 2019 World Series of Poker

Posted on July 17, 2019 by Russ

This year was the 50th anniversary of the World Series of Poker (WSOP). And by all accounts, this year’s series of tournaments was highly successful. Attendance was up across the board. The Main Event, which concluded early this morning, was no exception. 8,569 entrants paid $10,000 each for their chance to win $10 million, the second-most entrants all time.

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 Hossein Ensan of Munster, Germany. Mr. Ensan beat second place winner Dario Sammartino when Mr. Sammartino’s two-way draw (he had both a flush and straight draw) did not catch up to Mr. Ensan’s pocket kings. Mr. Ensan’s German Wikipedia page notes that he emigrated from Iran in 1990 and is listed as a professional poker player. Whether he’s a professional or an amateur makes a huge difference for taxes. In 2017, the Federal Fiscal Court (Germany’s highest court dealing with tax issues) ruled that professional gamblers must pay income tax on their net gambling winnings (less expenses); amateur gamblers do not have to pay income tax on gambling winnings. The US-Germany Tax Treaty exempts his winnings from US taxation.

This is a huge issue for Mr. Ensan; the classification is the difference between earning $10 million and earning $5,393,531. Assuming Mr. Ensan is subject to income tax, he’ll lose $4,606,469 to the Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (BZSt). That’s a reason why many German professional poker players reside in the United Kingdom: They avoid the high German taxes.

Finishing in second place and winning $6,000,000 was the aforementioned Dario Sammartino. The native of Naples, Italy now resides in Florence, Italy after a stay in Slovenia. Italy does tax gambling winnings: Mr. Sammartino will owe an estimated $2,572,350 to Italy’s Agenzia delle Entrate (42.87%)

In third place was Alex Livingston. The resident of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada benefits from Canadian law on gambling: His winnings will not be subject to tax in Canada. However, he will lose a flat 30% of his $4,000,000 ($1,200,000) to the IRS per the US-Canada Tax Treaty. (He can file a Form 1040NR return for the 2019 tax year to recover a portion of his tax based on any taxes US gambling losses he had during the year.)

Garry Gates of nearby Henderson ended in fourth place. Mr. Gates, who has worked in the poker industry for years, earned $3,000,000 for his finish. An amateur gambler, he avoids self-employment tax. As a Nevada resident, he also avoids state income tax. I estimate he will owe $1,050,813 (35.03%) of his income to tax.

Another amateur gambler, Kevin Maahs of Chicago, finished in fifth place. Mr. Maahs won $2,200,000 before taxes for his finish. He owes both federal and Illinois income taxes on his winnings; he’ll likely lose $870,729 (39.58%) to tax.

Finishing in sixth place was Zhen Cai. Mr. Cai, a professional gambler residing in Lake Worth, Florida earned $1,850,000 for his efforts. One of two American professional gamblers at the final table, he must pay self-employment tax and federal income tax (as a Floridian, he avoids state income tax). I estimate he will lose $706,679 (38.20%) to tax.

Nick Marchington from London, England finished in seventh place for $1,525,000. Mr. Marchington, a professional gambler, gets to keep all of his winnings. The US-UK Tax Treaty exempts gambling winnings of UK residents from tax. And the United Kingdom doesn’t tax gambling winnings. As my mother says, location, location, location.

In eighth place was Timothy Su of Boston. Mr. Su, a software engineer, does avoid self-employment tax. He does have to pay federal and Massachusetts income taxes. There’s a slight bit of good news for Mr. Su: Massachusetts’s income tax rate dropped for 2019 from 5.15% to 5.05%. That’s not a huge change, but when you win $1,250,000 and will have to pay an estimated $491,150 in tax, saving $1,250 is still better than nothing.

The ninth place finisher was Milos Skrbtic. Mr. Skrbtic, a professional gambler, was born and raised in Serbia, but currently resides in San Diego. Had he remained in Serbia he would lose 50% of the $1,000,000 he won to tax. The US and Serbia don’t have a Tax Treaty, so 30% would be withheld by the IRS. Serbia does give a tax credit on their income tax, but only for taxes paid to a country which Serbia has an income tax treaty for. Since the US and Serbia do not have such a treaty, he would have been liable for Serbia’s 20% tax on gambling winnings. Unfortunately, Mr. Skrbtic lives in California; the Golden State is anything but a low tax environment. I estimate he faces the highest tax burden of any of the final table participants: He will owe an estimated $474,463 in tax (47.45%).

Here’s a table summarizing the tax bite:

Amount won at Final Table $30,825,000
Tax to BZSt (Germany) $4,606,469
Tax to IRS $3,313,395
Tax to Agenzia delle Entrate (Italy) $2,572,350
Tax to Illinois Department of Revenue $108,900
Tax To Franchise Tax Board (California) $108,414
Tax to Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue $63,125
Total Tax $11,972,653

That means 38.84% 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. Hossein Ensan $10,000,000 $5,393,531
2. Dario Sammartino $6,000,000 $3,427,650
3. Alex Livingston $4,000,000 $2,800,000
4. Garry Gates $3,000,000 $1,949,187
7. Nick Marchington $1,525,000 $1,525,000
5. Kevin Maahs $2,200,000 $1,329,271
6. Zhen Cai $1,850,000 $1,143,321
8. Timothy Su $1,250,000 $758,850
9. Milos Skrbtic $1,000,000 $525,537
Totals $30,825,000 $18,852,347

Mr. Marchington finished in seventh place but ended up in fifth based on after-tax income. As my mother says, it’s location, location, location.

The Internal Revenue Service didn’t end up as the biggest winner at the final table this year. Thanks to two of the top three winners being exempt from US taxation, the IRS had to be content with earning just a bit more than fourth place money. The German Tax Agency, Bundeszentralamt für Steuern, is the biggest winner among tax agencies. As usual, the house–the tax agencies–ended up with more than first place money. The house always wins.

Posted in Gambling | Tagged | 1 Comment

It Looks Just Like the L.A. Freeway System!

Posted on July 14, 2019 by Russ

One of the things I love about living in Las Vegas is not dealing with the Southern California traffic. I remember running into a horrendous traffic jam at 2 a.m. I remember the ten mile drive that took two hours. I don’t miss that in the least. Yes, there’s some traffic here in Las Vegas–I complain when my commute home takes twenty minutes instead of the usual twelve minutes–but it’s really benign when compared to Los Angeles.

I bring this up because the Taxpayer Advocate released a “roadmap” of what happens with a tax return. Here it is:

TAS_Roadmap

There are some comments I’d like to make about this:

1. Yes, our tax system is that convoluted. We should have a simple, straightforward system. Our current Tax Code reminds me of differential equations (and yes, I took that in college).

2. There are important steps that are left out of the roadmap. One of the items listed in “Tax Return Processing” is IRS Issues Math Error Notice. When I think of a math error, I think of 2 + 2 = 5. Those kinds of math errors are appropriate for a math error notice. However, one of my clients just received a math error notice where the IRS inserted a $300 penalty for no particular reason. That’s not appropriate for a math error notice (at least, I don’t think it is), yet if my client didn’t write the IRS within 30 days of receiving that notice it would be next to impossible to have that corrected. Indeed, the Taxpayer Advocate has, in the past, complained about math error notices.

3. The equivalent of traffic jams do occur. One of the current issues taxpayers and practitioners face is slow response time on the IRS reading its mail. Consider my client’s response to the math error notice. She received the notice on July 10th, and on July 11th mailed the response (using certified mail, return receipt requested). It was received on July 13th. The average IRS response time for reading correspondence is 14 weeks. That means it will likely be November 1st before my client receives a response to the erroneous penalty on a math error notice. And suppose a second letter is needed (which happens). The lack of timely responses by the IRS negatively impacts all taxpayers (and the IRS). I have a second client who received a late filing penalty for filing a tax return without an extension. The extension was filed, but it wasn’t processed until after the tax return was processed! That client had to file a request for abatement for the penalty. Here’s a situation where the IRS’s internal systems should have automatically abated the penalty, yet my client must mail another piece of paper to the IRS, wait 14 weeks for it to be read, and hope that the agent who reads it understands that this was an IRS error.

4. The IRS’s automated systems hurts “edge-case” taxpayers. My mother is not that computer literate. Yet she is supposed to pay her taxes (like all of us). Now, she happens to have a son who is a tax professional, but what if she didn’t? Would she really be able to determine how much of her social security is taxable? Or how to compute the new Section 199A deduction on her dividends that qualify for that deduction?

5. Did I mention that the Tax Code (and how it works) is far too complex? I’m pretty sure I did.

Most of the blame does not fall to the IRS; it falls to Congress, which enacts the laws that have resulted in this mess. Additionally, Congress has not adequately funded the IRS. These are issues that need to be resolved, but cannot be resolved by the IRS.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on It Looks Just Like the L.A. Freeway System!