Posted by: Taxlitigator | March 10, 2014

Simplified Option for Home Office Deduction Now Available !

Beginning with tax year 2013 returns (filed in 2014), taxpayers may elect to use a simplified “safe harbor” option when figuring the deduction for business use of their home.

Recognizing that the calculation, allocation, and substantiation of allowable deductions attributable to the use of a portion of the taxpayer’s residence for business purposes can be complex and burdensome for small business owners, the IRS and the Treasury Department have provided an optional safe harbor method to reduce the administrative, recordkeeping, and compliance burdens of determining the allowable deduction for certain business use of a residence under Internal Revenue Code § 280A.

Under this safe harbor method, taxpayers determine their allowable deduction for business use of a residence by multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer’s residence that is used for business purposes.

Note: The simplified option does not change the criteria for who may claim a home office deduction. It merely simplifies the calculation and recordkeeping requirements of the allowable deduction.

Highlights of the simplified option:

  • Standard deduction of $5 per square foot of home used for business (maximum 300 square feet).
  • Allowable home-related itemized deductions claimed in full on Schedule A. (For example: Mortgage interest, real estate taxes).
  • No home depreciation deduction or later recapture of depreciation for the years the simplified option is used.

Comparison of methods

Simplified Option Regular Method
Deduction for home office use of a portion of a residence allowed only if that portion is exclusively used on a regular basis for business purposes Same
Allowable square footage of home use for business (not to exceed 300 square feet) Percentage of home used for business
Standard $5 per square foot used to determine home business deduction Actual expenses determined and records maintained
Home-related itemized deductions claimed in full on Schedule A Home-related itemized deductions apportioned between Schedule A and business schedule (Sch. C or Sch. F)
No depreciation deduction Depreciation deduction for portion of home used for business
No recapture of depreciation upon sale of home Recapture of depreciation on gain upon sale of home
Deduction cannot exceed gross income from business use of home less business expenses Same
Amount in excess of gross income limitation may not be carried over Amount in excess of gross income limitation may be carried over
Loss carryover from use of regular method in prior year may not be claimed Loss carryover from use of regular method in prior year may be claimed if gross income test is met in current year

Selecting a Method

  • You may choose to use either the simplified method or the regular method for any taxable year.
  • You choose a method by using that method on your timely filed, original federal income tax return for the taxable year.
  • Once you have chosen a method for a taxable year, you cannot later change to the other method for that same year.
  • If you use the simplified method for one year and use the regular method for any subsequent year, you must calculate the depreciation deduction for the subsequent year using the appropriate optional depreciation table. This is true regardless of whether you used an optional depreciation table for the first year the property was used in business.

Full details on the new option can be found in Revenue Procedure 2013-13 available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-13-13.pdf

The Internal Revenue Service recently released a new YouTube video designed to provide useful tax tips to married same-sex couples[1]. The video is less than two minutes long, is available in English, Spanish and American Sign Language and can be accessed via IRS.gov. More than 150 topics covered in various online IRS instructional videos ranging from tips for victims of identity theft to claiming the new simplified home office deduction have been viewed more than seven million times.

Revenue Ruling 2013-17. On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Windsor v. United States[2] that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)[3], denying legally married same-sex couples numerous federal protections and responsibilities of marriage, is unconstitutional. Thereafter, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 ruling that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, are now treated as married for federal tax purposes.[4] Under the Revenue Ruling 2013-17, same-sex couples are treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. As such, the ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, claiming the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country is covered by Revenue Ruling 2013-17. However, Revenue Ruling 2013-17 does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law. Legally-married same-sex couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the married filing jointly or married filing separately filing status.

Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the applicable statute of limitations. Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.

Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

Updated FAQs. The IRS has also updated its list of frequently asked questions providing tax-related information to individuals of the same sex who are lawfully married (same-sex spouses).[5] Selected FAQs include:

Q1. When are individuals of the same sex lawfully married for federal tax purposes? A1. For federal tax purposes, the IRS looks to state or foreign law to determine whether individuals are married. The IRS has a general rule recognizing a marriage of same-sex spouses that was validly entered into in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex even if the married couple resides in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.

Q2. Can same-sex spouses file federal tax returns using a married filing jointly or married filing separately status? A2. Yes. For tax year 2013 and going forward, same-sex spouses generally must file using a married filing separately or jointly filing status. For tax year 2012 and all prior years, same-sex spouses who file an original tax return on or after Sept. 16, 2013 (the effective date of Rev. Rul. 2013-17), generally must file using a married filing separately or jointly filing status. For tax year 2012, same-sex spouses who filed their tax return before Sept. 16, 2013, may choose (but are not required) to amend their federal tax returns to file using married filing separately or jointly filing status. For tax years 2011 and earlier, same-sex spouses who filed their tax returns timely may choose (but are not required) to amend their federal tax returns to file using married filing separately or jointly filing status provided the period of limitations for amending the return has not expired. A taxpayer generally may file a claim for refund for three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. For information on filing an amended return, go to Tax Topic 308, Amended Returns, at http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc308.html.

Q3. Can a taxpayer and his or her same-sex spouse file a joint return if they were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages but they live in a state that does not recognize their marriage?  A3. Yes. For federal tax purposes, the IRS has a general rule recognizing a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex even if the married couple resides in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. The rules for using a married filing jointly or married filing separately status described in Q&A #2 apply to these married individuals.

Q4. Can a taxpayer’s same-sex spouse be a dependent of the taxpayer? A4. No. A taxpayer’s spouse cannot be a dependent of the taxpayer.

Q5. Can a same-sex spouse file using head of household filing status? A5. A taxpayer who is married cannot file using head of household filing status. However, a married taxpayer may be considered unmarried and may use the head-of-household filing status if the taxpayer lives apart from his or her spouse for the last 6 months of the taxable year and provides more than half the cost of maintaining a household that is the principal place of abode of the taxpayer’s dependent child for more than half of the year. See Publication 501 for more details.

Q6. If same-sex spouses (who file using the married filing separately status) have a child, which parent may claim the child as a dependent? A6. If a child is a qualifying child under section 152(c) of both parents who are spouses (who file using the married filing separate status), either parent, but not both, may claim a dependency deduction for the qualifying child. If both parents claim a dependency deduction for the child on their income tax returns, the IRS will treat the child as the qualifying child of the parent with whom the child resides for the longer period of time during the taxable year. If the child resides with each parent for the same amount of time during the taxable year, the IRS will treat the child as the qualifying child of the parent with the higher adjusted gross income.

Q7. Can a taxpayer who is married to a person of the same sex claim the standard deduction if the taxpayer’s spouse itemized deductions?  A7. No. If a taxpayer’s spouse itemized his or her deductions, the taxpayer cannot claim the standard deduction (section 63(c)(6)(A)).

Q8. If a taxpayer adopts the child of his or her same-sex spouse as a second parent or co-parent, may the taxpayer (“adopting parent”) claim the adoption credit for the qualifying adoption expenses he or she pays or incurs to adopt the child? A8. No. The adopting parent may not claim an adoption credit. A taxpayer may not claim an adoption credit for expenses incurred in adopting the child of the taxpayer’s spouse (section 23).

Q9. Do provisions of the federal tax law such as section 66 (treatment of community income) and section 469(i)(5) ($25,000 offset for passive activity losses for rental real estate activities) apply to same-sex spouses?  A9. Yes. Like other provisions of the federal tax law that apply to married taxpayers, section 66 and section 469(i)(5) apply to same-sex spouses because same-sex spouses are married for all federal tax purposes.

Q10. If an employer provided health coverage for an employee’s same-sex spouse and included the value of that coverage in the employee’s gross income, can the employee file an amended Form 1040 reflecting the employee’s status as a married individual to recover federal income tax paid on the value of the health coverage of the employee’s spouse? A10. Yes, for all years for which the period of limitations for filing a claim for refund is open. Generally, a taxpayer may file a claim for refund for three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. If an employer provided health coverage for an employee’s same-sex spouse, the employee may claim a refund of income taxes paid on the value of coverage that would have been excluded from income had the employee’s spouse been recognized as the employee’s legal spouse for tax purposes. This claim for a refund generally would be made through the filing of an amended Form 1040. For information on filing an amended return, go to Tax Topic 308, Amended Returns, at http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc308.html. For a discussion regarding refunds of Social Security and Medicare taxes, see Q&A #12 and Q&A #13.

Example. Employer sponsors a group health plan covering eligible employees and their dependents and spouses (including same-sex spouses). Fifty percent of the cost of health coverage elected by employees is paid by Employer. Employee A was married to same-sex Spouse B at all times during 2012. Employee A elected coverage for Spouse B through Employer’s group health plan beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The value of the employer-funded portion of Spouse B’s health coverage was $250 per month.

The amount in Box 1, “Wages, tips, other compensation,” of the 2012 Form W-2 provided by Employer to Employee A included $3,000 ($250 per month x 12 months) of income reflecting the value of employer-funded health coverage provided to Spouse B.  Employee A filed Form 1040 for the 2012 taxable year reflecting the Box 1 amount reported on Form W-2.

Employee A may file an amended Form 1040 for the 2012 taxable year excluding the value of Spouse B’s employer-funded health coverage ($3,000) from gross income.

To review the entire list of 23 FAQs, see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples


[2] United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 2 (2013).

[3] The “Defense of Marriage Act,” or DOMA, was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The part that was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court is “Section 3,” which prevented the federal government from recognizing any marriages between gay or lesbian couples for the purpose of federal laws or programs, even if those couples are considered legally married by their home state. However, individual states do not legally have to acknowledge the relationships of same-sex couples who were married in another state. Only Section Three dealing with federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

Posted by: Taxlitigator | March 6, 2014

IRS-Criminal Investigation 2014 Investigative Priorities

Posted by: Taxlitigator | March 5, 2014

IRS Identifies the “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams for 2014

Posted by: Taxlitigator | February 5, 2014

Criminal Tax Prosecutions Surge Under President Obama

Posted by: Taxlitigator | February 4, 2014

Civil Detention for Failure to Pay Taxes

“If any part of any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud,” Code section 6663(a) imposes a penalty of 75% of the portion of the underpayment due to fraud. A civil fraud penalty case may be developed based on facts and circumstances of a civil examination or result from a criminal investigation (CI) initiated case. Fraud is intentional wrongdoing designed to evade tax believed to be due and owing.[1] The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the entire record.[2] Fraud is not to be presumed or based upon mere suspicion.[3] However, because direct proof of a taxpayer’s intent is rarely available, fraudulent intent may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences.[4] Fraud will generally involve one or more of deception, misrepresentation of material facts, false or altered documents, or evasion (i.e., diversion or omission).[5]

Fraud includes deception by misrepresentation of material facts, or silence when good faith requires expression, which results in material damage to one who relies on it and has the right to rely on it. Simply stated, it is obtaining something of value from someone else through deceit. Tax fraud is often defined as an intentional wrongdoing, on the part of a taxpayer, with the specific purpose of evading a tax known or believed to be owing. Tax fraud requires both a tax due and owing as well as fraudulent intent.

Avoidance of tax is not a criminal offense. “Tax avoidance” generally refers to legally permissible conduct to reduce one’s tax liability while “tax evasion” refers to willfully and knowingly fraudulent actions designed to reduce one’s tax liability.  Taxpayers have the right to reduce, avoid, or minimize their taxes by legitimate means. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent, but shapes and preplans events to reduce or eliminate tax liability within the parameters of the law. Evasion involves some affirmative act to evade or defeat a tax, or payment of tax. Examples of affirmative acts of evasion might include deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, attempts to color or obscure events, or make things seem other than they are. A classic description of “tax avoidance” was penned by Judge Learned Hand:

                “Anyone may arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible.  He is not bound to choose the pattern which best pays the Treasury, there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.  Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs has to keep taxes as low as possible.  Everyone does it, rich and poor alike, and all do right, for nobody owes a public duty to pay more than the law demands.”[6]

The Government satisfies their burden of proof by showing that “the taxpayer intended to evade taxes known to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes.”[7] The taxpayer’s entire course of conduct may be examined to establish the requisite intent, and an intent to mislead may be inferred from a pattern of conduct.[8]

During a civil examination, an IRS Fraud Technical Advisor (FTA) may be involved to assist in developing a potential fraud case. The FTA will be consulted in all cases involving potential criminal fraud, as well as those cases that have potential for a civil fraud penalty.[9] The FTA serves as a resource and liaison to compliance employees in all operating divisions. The FTA is available to assist in fraud investigations and offer advice on matters concerning tax fraud. Upon initial recognition of indicators of fraud, the IRS examiner will discuss the case at the earliest possible opportunity with his/her manager. If the compliance group manager concurs, the FTA will be contacted immediately; and both the compliance group manager and FTA will provide guidance to the compliance employee on how to proceed.

Civil fraud penalties will be asserted by the IRS when there is clear and convincing evidence to prove that some part of the underpayment of tax was due to fraud. Such evidence must show the taxpayer’s intent to evade the assessment of tax which the taxpayer believed to be due. Intent is distinguished from inadvertence, reliance on incorrect technical advice, honest difference of opinion, negligence or carelessness. In the case of a joint return, intent must be established for each spouse separately as required by Code section 6663(c). The fraud of one spouse cannot be used to impute fraud by the other spouse. Thus, the civil fraud penalty may be asserted on one spouse only.[10]

Circumstances that may indicate fraudulent intent, commonly referred to as “badges of fraud,” include but are not limited to: (1) understatement of income (e.g., omissions of specific items or entire sources of income, failure to report relatively substantial amounts of income received) particularly if part of a consistent pattern of underreporting over several years; (2) maintaining inadequate records or accounting irregularities (e.g., two sets of books, false entries on documents); (3) giving implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior or other acts cts of the taxpayer evidencing an intent to evade tax (e.g., false statements, destruction of records, transfer of assets); (4) concealing income or assets; (5) failing to cooperate with tax authorities; (6) engaging in illegal activities; (7) providing incomplete or misleading information to one’s tax preparer; (8) lack of credibility of the taxpayer’s testimony; (9) filing false documents, including false income tax returns; (10) failing to file tax returns; and (11) dealing in cash.[11] No single factor is dispositive; however, the existence of several factors “is persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud.”[12]

Some factors have no application in a particular matter while other factors may be regarded as neutral. Typically, in litigation, the court will determine whether, on balance, the “badges of fraud” demonstrate that the taxpayer acted with fraudulent intent for each tax year at issue.

In a recent case involving a “gentlemen’s club,” IRS special agents (from IRS CI) engaged in an undercover investigation by posing as buyers interested in acquiring the business.[13] According to the opinion of the U.S. Tax Court, the owner assured the IRS agents that the club was much more profitable than it appeared. He explained that he deposited in the corporate account only enough of the business revenues to cover its expenses and that he wired the balance of its revenues to his personal bank account in Florida. Subsequently the club owner was criminally charged with eight counts under Code section 7206(1) and (2) for making and subscribing false tax returns, and for assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, for himself and the corporate owner of the club.

Ultimately, the taxpayer pleaded guilty to one count of making and subscribing a false Form 1120 on behalf of the corporate owner for a single tax year. Pursuant to his plea, the taxpayer was sentenced to 18 months’ prison time and supervised release for one year.

He was also ordered to pay restitution of $ 400,000. In the factual basis for his guilty plea, the taxpayer admitted under penalties of perjury that he willfully submitted false tax

returns for the corporation for the 2002-05 tax years; that he did not believe those returns to be true and correct as to every material matter; and that he had falsely subscribed those returns with the specific intent to violate the law. During his criminal sentencing the taxpayer stated: “I admitted I falsified my returns and so forth, and it [has] caused me a lot of problems.”

During the criminal investigation, IRS agents seized upwards of $ 200,000 in cash and obtained a second set of sales ledgers that apparently accurately tracked its daily receipts. These ledgers confirmed that annual receipts for 2002-05 were vastly in excess of the amounts that had been reported to the IRS. The difference between its actual gross receipts and the gross receipts reported on the company’s Forms 1120 for those years exceeded $ 2 million.

After the search by the IRS, when he knew he was under criminal investigation, the taxpayer provided his accountant additional bank account information for the 2003-05 tax years. His accountant used this information to file amended Federal income tax returns for those years, both for the corporation and for the taxpayer individually. The IRS assessed additional income tax and penalties (for late filing as well as civil fraud) on the basis of the amounts shown on the amended returns for 2003-05.

Extensive dealings in cash are a badge of fraud because they are indicative of a taxpayer’s attempt to conceal income and avoid scrutiny of his finances.[14] Fraudulent intent may be inferred when a taxpayer handles his affairs in a manner designed “to avoid making the records usual in transactions of the kind.”[15]

As a “gentlemen’s club,” petitioner’s business was a cash-based operation. Its sales receipts were derived principally from food and drink charges run through the cash register, door cover charges, juke box moneys, pool table receipts, and moneys paid to him by the dancers for the privilege of “dancing.” The taxpayer admitted that he weekly wired large amounts of this cash to his personal bank account in Florida. These wire transfers were invariably made in amounts less than $ 10,000 in order to avoid detection. During the search, IRS agents seized more than $ 200,000 in cash from the premises. Although conducting a cash business does not necessarily prove fraud, “[w]hen coupled with attempts to conceal transactions or avoid the requirement of reporting cash transactions, it becomes more probative.”[16]

The taxpayer contended that he lacked fraudulent intent because he is uneducated and unsophisticated and had to hire tax professionals to file his personal and corporate tax returns. However, the Tax Court determined that his lack of education and sophistication is irrelevant. In this context, the Tax Court stated that the tax laws he violated are not esoteric or complex.[17] Civil examinations involving sensitive issues must be handled cautiously. Amending returns during an examination might be the last link necessary for a civil examination to be referred to CI for a criminal investigation.

Tax practitioners must understand the process by which a civil tax case winds its way through the system. Identifying the decision-makers and the factors they consider important may have an impact on the ultimate resolution of the examination. There is no substitute for mastering the facts and anticipating which, if any, “badges of fraud” may arise so as to be able to prepare a cogent response during the civil examination. Filing current year returns during the examination requires extreme judgment since they will have an impact, although not always a taxpayer-favorable impact, on the process. Of equal importance, counseling a client not to perpetuate possible badges of fraud during the investigation, including falsifying, destroying or altering records, continuing questionable practices into the present and future years, or transferring or concealing assets under investigation may be the difference between a civil resolution and a criminal referral.


[1] John M. Potter v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2014-18 (January 27, 2014);Neely v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 79, 86 (2001)

[2] Estate of Pittard v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 391, 400 (1977).

[3] Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 699-700 (1989).

[4] Grossman v. Commissioner, 182 F.3d 275, 277-78 (4th Cir. 1999), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1996-452.

[5] Internal Revenue Manual 25.1.6.3 (10-30-2009)

[6] Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2nd Cir. 1934), aff’d 290 U.S. 465 (1935).

[7] Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 661 (1990).

[8] Webb v. Commissioner, 394 F.2d 366, 379 (5th Cir. 1968), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1966-81; Stone v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 213, 224 (1971).

[9] Internal Revenue Manual 25.1.6.1 (10-30-2009)

[10] Internal Revenue Manual 25.1.1.1 (01-23-2014)

[11] Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943); Morse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-332, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 673, 675, aff’d, 419 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2005); John M. Potter v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2014-18 (January 27, 2014).

[12] Vanover v. Commissioner, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1420-1421.

[13] John M. Potter v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2014-18 (January 27, 2014).

[14] See Evans v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-199, 100 T.C.M. (CCH) 215, 218, aff’d, 507 Fed. Appx. 645 (9th Cir. 2013).

[15] Spies, 317 U.S. at 499.

[16] Valbrun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-242, 88 T.C.M. (CCH) 385, 387.

[17] John M. Potter v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2014-18 (January 27, 2014)

Posted by: Taxlitigator | January 17, 2014

Tax Enforcement Priorities for 2014 and Beyond !!

Contrary to popular belief, the IRS remains active in their core business operations of conducting taxpayer examinations. Returns are identified for examination through an internal IRS process designed to identify issues and returns having significant audit potential. The IRS has been attempting to identify and reduce non-compliance through efficiency, tax form simplification, education, and enforcement. In addition, the IRS has significantly modified its examination process in a manner designed to increase the available resources and experience of its examiners.

The international arena will continue to test the enforcement resources of the IRS for years to come. Issues regarding undeclared foreign source earnings and financial accounts (FBAR filings are due June 30 for the prior calendar year) will continue to generate considerable interest from the IRS and the Department of Justice. The IRS has long encouraged participation in the voluntary disclosure process for all taxpayers, those with interests in offshore accounts and otherwise. The Department has a somewhat similar policy regarding the non-prosecution of taxpayers who have made a timely voluntary disclosure. The IRS policy concerning voluntary disclosure provides that a taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure is a factor that “may result in prosecution not being recommended.” To obtain this qualified benefit, the disclosure must be “truthful, timely, complete,” and must demonstrate a willingness by the taxpayer to cooperate, and actual cooperation, in determining the tax liability, and must include “good faith arrangements” by the taxpayer to pay the tax, interest, and any penalties in full.

Those with interests in foreign financial accounts that have not previously been disclosed should immediately consult competent counsel. They likely remain eligible for the benefits of the current IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) or pehaps the longstanding IRS voluntary disclosure program mitigating the possibility of a future criminal prosecution. The IRS is expected to at least continue its current procedures for a criminal pre-clearance and for disclosures made according to the “three-page letter”. Undeclared foreign financial accounts present a target rich environment for the government. The IRS is committed to enforcement concerning offshore accounts and the changing environment concerning bank secrecy may lead the government to many taxpayers with undisclosed interests in foreign financial accounts. For those with undeclared foreign accounts, now is the time to come into compliance – waiting is not a viable option.

Other examination priorities based on a perceived degree of noncompliance include:

A. Mortgage Interest Deduction Limitations
Code Section 163(h)(3) limitations – $1 million acquisition indebtedness incurred in acquiring, constructing or substantially improving a qualified residence of the taxpayer secured by the residence; refinanced indebtedness but only to the extent the amount of such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the refinanced indebtedness; and home equity indebtedness to the extent it does not exceed the lesser of: (i) $100,000, or, (ii) the FMV of the residence reduced by the acquisition indebtedness of the residence. Acquisition and refinancing indebtedness.

B. Section 1031 Like-kind Exchanges Key examination issues include:
1. 45-Day Rule Violations – Like-kind property must be identified within 45 days following relinquishment of the taxpayers property. The identification period begins on the date the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property and ends at midnight on the 45th day thereafter. This deadline is exactly 45 calendar days, so if the 45th calendar day lands on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the 1031 exchange due date is NOT extended to the next business day. The identification must be in writing, signed by the taxpayer and delivered to a person involved in the exchange like the seller of the replacement property or the qualified intermediary. Replacement properties must be clearly described in the written identification. In the case of real estate, this means a legal description, street address or distinguishable name. Follow the IRS guidelines for the maximum number and value of properties that can be identified. Failure to identify like-kind replacement properties within the 45 calendar day window will result in a failed 1031 exchange transaction and the transaction must be recharacterized as a taxable sale transaction rather than a tax-deferred exchange. Treas. Reg §1.1031(K)-1 (Treatment of Deferred Exchanges).
2. 180-Day Rule – The exchange period begins on the date the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property and ends at midnight on the earlier of the 180th day thereafter or the due date (including extensions) for the taxpayer’s return of the tax imposed for the taxable year in which the transfer of the relinquished property occurs.
3. If, as part of the same deferred exchange, the taxpayer transfers more than one relinquished property and the relinquished properties are transferred on different dates, the identification period and the exchange period are determined by reference to the earliest date on which any of the properties are transferred.
4. Replacement property is identified only if it is designated as replacement property in a written document signed by the taxpayer and hand delivered, mailed, telecopied, or otherwise sent before the end of the identification period to either – (i) The person obligated to transfer the replacement property to the taxpayer (regardless of whether that person is a disqualified person); or (ii) Any other person involved in the exchange other than the taxpayer or a disqualified person. Examples of persons involved in the exchange include any of the parties to the exchange, an intermediary, an escrow agent, and a title company. An identification of replacement property made in a written agreement for the exchange of properties signed by all parties thereto before the end of the identification period will be treated as satisfying the foregoing requirements.
5. Replacement property is identified only if it is unambiguously described in the written document or agreement. Real property generally is unambiguously described if it is described by a legal description, street address, or distinguishable name (e.g., the Mayfair Apartment Building). Personal property generally is unambiguously described if it is described by a specific description of the particular type of property. For example, a truck generally is unambigously described if it is described by a specific make, model, and year.
6. The taxpayer may identify more than one replacement property. Regardless of the number of relinquished properties transferred by the taxpayer as part of the same deferred exchange, the maximum number of replacement properties that the taxpayer may identify is – (A) Three properties without regard to the fair market values of the properties (the “3-property rule”), or (B) Any number of properties as long as their aggregate fair market value as of the end of the identification period does not exceed 200 percent of the aggregate fair market value of all the relinquished properties as of the date the relinquished properties were transferred by the taxpayer (the “200-percent rule”). (ii) If, as of the end of the identification period, the taxpayer has identified more properties as replacement properties than permitted, the taxpayer is treated as if no replacement property had been identified. The preceding sentence will not apply, however, and an identification satisfying the foregoing requirements will be considered made, with respect to – (A) Any replacement property received by the taxpayer before the end of the identification period, and (B) Any replacement property identified before the end of the identification period and received before the end of the exchange period, but only if the taxpayer receives before the end of the exchange period identified replacement property the fair market vlaue of which is at least 95 percent of the aggregate fair market value of all identified replacement properties (the “95-percent rule”). For this purpose, the fair market value of each identified replacement property is determined as of the earlier of the date the property is received by the taxpayer or the last day of the exchange period. (iii) For purposes of applying the 3-property rule, the 200-percent rule, and the 95-percent rule, all identifications of replacement property, other than identifications of replacement property that have been revoked, are taken into account.

C. Real Estate Dispositions Key examination issues include:
1. Verifying the amount realized,
2. Verifying the adjusted basis of the property, and
3. Verifying the that the requirements for gain deferral are met timely.
4. Final Year Returns – Ensuring the proper recapture of items when a negative capital account exists.

D. Rental Income
Rental income includes any payment received for the use or occupation of property. Most landlords operate on a cash basis reporting payments as income in the period they are received and deducting expenses in the period they are paid. Other forms of rental income that may need to be declared may also include:
1. Advance rent payments
2. Early-termination fees on lease agreements
3. Expenses paid by tenant for the landlord (These may also be deductible as rental expenses.)
4. Property or services received in lieu of money.
5. Lease payments with option to buy (These payments are usually counted at rental income. If the tenant buys the property, payments received after the sale date are generally counted as part of the selling price.)
6. Payments for renting a portion of the taxpayers home may or may not be taxable income depending on certain thresholds. See IRS Publication 527, Residential Rental Property.

E. Final Year Tax Returns
Ensuring the proper recapture of items when a negative capital account exists.

F. Partnership Interests Key examination issues include:
1. Sales of Partnership Interests. Verifying that the interests are properly reflected, that income is properly recognized on distributions of installment notes, and that debt cancellation is correctly reported.
2. General income and expense items reported on partners’ tax returns, including checking that partners properly report items from their K-1s.

G. S-Corporations Key examination issues include:
1. Built-in-gains tax with emphasis on the valuations placed on the C Corporation assets on the date the entity converted to an S-Corporation.
2. Tax-exempt employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) acquiring an ownership of an S-Corporation in an attempt to shield from taxation the income the ESOP receives as flow-through income.
3. Verifying that installment income is correctly reported.
4. Verifying that tax credits are claimed correctly.
5. Wage Compensation for S Corporation Officers. S corporations should not attempt to avoid paying employment taxes by having their officers treat their compensation as cash distributions, payments of personal expenses, and/or loans rather than as wages. The instructions to the Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, state “Distributions and other payments by an S corporation to a corporate officer must be treated as wages to the extent the amounts are reasonable compensation for services rendered to the corporation.” See IRS Fact Sheet FS-2008-25 (August 2008).
6. Reasonable Compensation – S corporation and C Corporations. Relevant factors re the reasonableness of compensation include: Training and experience; Duties and responsibilities Time and effort devoted to the business; Dividend history; Payments to non-shareholder employees; Timing and manner of paying bonuses to key people; What comparable businesses pay for similar services; Compensation agreements; The use of a formula to determine compensation.

H. Estates and Trusts Key examination issues include:
1. Grantor trusts, and charitable remainder trusts.
2. Investment management fees deducted erroneously under IRC Section 67(e).
3. Valuations and discounts associated with closely-held entities and properties.
4. GRATS.
5. Sales that occur close to death.
6. Fractional interests.
7. Under-funded marital trusts and over-funded bypass trusts upon the death of the surviving spouse.

I. Employment Taxes and Worker Classifications
There have been approximately 6,000 National Research Program (NRP) examinations since February 2010 significantly focused on Worker classifications, executive compensation and fringe benefits.

J. Unreported Foreign Source Earnings and Undeclared Foreign Accounts. See above.

K. Non-Filers – a forever class of taxpayers challenging the desires and resources of the government. If discovered before coming into compliance, a non-filer can anticipate a long, sometimes unfriendly examination process, at best.

L. Return Preparers – those who prepare returns on behalf of others should exercise a significant degree of due diligence with respect to the preparation of their own returns. when discovered,the non-compliant preparer will likely be penalized.

M. NOL Carryforwards
Verification of losses incurred in the down economy of 2008-2013.

N. Schedule C Taxpayers and “Cash Intensive” Businesses. Audit or investigative techniques for a cash intensive business might include an examiner determining that a large understatement of income could exist based on return information and other sources of information. A cash intensive business is one that receives a significant amount of receipts in cash. This can be a business such as a restaurant, grocery or convenience store that handles a high volume of small dollar transactions. It can also be an industry that practices cash payments for services, such as construction or trucking, where independent contract workers are generally paid in cash.

O. Tax Exempt Entities
A few years ago, Form 990 was revised. Those operating within the tax exempt arena would be well served to identify the changes to the Form 990 as providing a roadmap of concerns the government may have regarding governance of non-profit organizations. Key examination issues include:
1. Executive compensation (upper management and key employees). Reasonable?
2. Conflicts of interest. Independence, family or business relationships; written policy?
3. Investments. Written procedures and policies? Outside investment advisors?
4. Fundraising costs reasonable?
5. Donor-Advised Funds. Can donor exercise control for private benefit? Relationship of fund to for-profit investment firms; donor control over investment decisions; and payouts.
6. Section 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations. Do they actually support another public charity? Set up to avoid private foundation status?
7. Facilitating Abusive Transactions – Accommodation Parties.

If a notice of IRS examination is received, become familiar with IRS Audit Technique Guides (ATG). There are many publicly available ATGs that have been prepared by the IRS. The ATGs coupled with the government’s specialization of examiners is designed to improve compliance by focusing on taxpayers as members of particular groups. Each ATG instructs the agent on typical methods of auditing a particular group of taxpayer, including typical sources of income, questions to be asked of the taxpayer and their representative during the audit, etc. These groups have been defined by type of business (i.e., gas stations, grocery stores, etc.), technical issues (passive activity losses), types of taxpayer (i.e., returns lacking economic reality), or method of operation (i.e., cash businesses).

Before engaging an IRS examiner in an audit, review all potentially relevant ATGs. Preparation and diligence can will help streamline the examination process.

Following the examination of a taxpayer’s tax return, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) might issue a Notice of Deficiency setting forth the proposed adjustments to a taxpayers tax return and the resulting liabilities for tax, interest and penalties arising from the underlying examination.

Section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides that, without having to first pay the amounts in dispute, a taxpayer may file a Petition with the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the amounts set forth in the Notice of Deficiency if the Petition is filed with the Tax Court within 90 days (or 150 days if the Notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) after the date on which the Notice of Deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Importantly, the Petition must be sent to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., not to the IRS.

Timely Mailing, Timely Filing. Code Section 7502(a)(1) contains a “timely mailed, timely filed” rule providing that if a taxpayer actually sends their Petition for delivery to the Tax Court “by United States mail” before expiration of the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period prescribed for filing the Petition, and the Tax Court actually receives the Petition after the foregoing time period has expired, the date of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark on the envelope containing the Petition will be considered the date of filing the Petition.

Code Section 7502(a) also applies with respect to determining the timeliness of filing “any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws.” As such, the discussion below similarly applies to the timeliness of filing a tax return, claim for refund, etc.

If a Petition is sent to the Tax Court by USPS on or before expiration of the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period but is received thereafter, the filing of the Petition is deemed timely and the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear arguments regarding the validity of the adjustments to the taxpayers return as proposed by the IRS Notice of Deficiency.

Unfortunately, however, if a Tax Court Petition is filed after expiration of the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period, the underlying liabilities must generally be paid and subjected to an administrative claim for refund. If the IRS denies the refund claim, litigation would only be available in either the U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (or, if appropriate, pre-payment in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court).

Limited Jurisdiction of the Tax Court. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.[1] Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and the taxpayer, as the party invoking the Tax Court’s jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists.[2] The Tax Court has no authority to extend the 90-day (or 150-day) period.[3]

Designated Private Delivery Services. Code Section 7502(f) extends the “timely mailed, timely filed” rule to certain private delivery services only “if such service is designated by the [Treasury] Secretary for purposes of” Code Section 7502(f).[4] The Treasury Secretary may designate a private delivery service only if he determines that it is at least as timely and reliable as the United States mail and that it meets other criteria specified in the statute.[5]

Almost ten years ago in Notice 2004-83, 2004-2 C.B. 1030,the IRS identified all of the approved private delivery services that have been designated by the Treasury Secretary under Code Section 7502(f).[6] Since January 1, 2005, the list of designated private delivery services is and has been as follows:

1. DHL Express (DHL): DHL Same Day Service; DHL Next Day 10:30 am; DHL Next Day 12:00 pm: DHL Next Day 3:00 pm; and DHL 2nd Day Service;

2. Federal Express (FedEx): FedEx Priority Overnight, FedEx Standard Overnight, FedEx 2 Day, FedEx International Priority, and FedEx International First; and

3. United Parcel Service (UPS): UPS Next Day Air, UPS Next Day Air Saver, UPS 2nd Day Air, UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., UPS Worldwide Express Plus, and UPS Worldwide Express.

Any other type of non-USPS, private delivery service (whether by DHL, FedEx, and UPS or otherwise) not specifically identified above is invalid for purposes of the “timely mailed, timely filed” rule set forth in Code Section 7502(f).

OOPS . . . Robert J. Eichelburg v. Commissioner. On November 25, 2013, in Robert J. Eichelburg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-269 (Docket No. 22837-12), Tax Court Judge Albert G. Lauber determined that the underlying Petition was filed late although it was sent before expiration of the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period prescribed in the Notice of Deficiency. Unfortunately, the taxpayer submitted the Petition by “FedEx Express Saver,” a private delivery service not specifically identified in Notice 2004-83. Since the Petition was not sent to the Tax Court by a specifically identified private delivery service, the mailing date of the Petition is not the date sent by the taxpayer but, instead, is the later date it is actually received by the Tax Court.

The Petition in Eichelburg was received after expiration of the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period prescribed in the Notice of Deficiency and the Tax Court therefore had no jurisdiction redetermine the disputed amounts set forth in the Notice of Deficiency. This very unfortunate result for Mr. Eichelberg could have been avoided had he merely sent the Petition on the same date by the USPS (hopefully by certified mail, return receipt requested) or by a private delivery service specifically identified in Notice 2004-83. 

The time for petitioning the Tax Court runs from the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency by the IRS. To be timely, the taxpayer’s Petition must be filed within the foregoing 90 day (or 150 day) period from the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency by IRS. Note that in Eichelberg, the IRS proved the timely mailing of the Notice of Deficiency by submitting a copy of USPS Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail, dated on the date of the Notice of Deficiency.

In Eichelberg, the Form 3877 listed, among the pieces received for mailing on that day, a letter with certified mail tracking number addressed to Mr. Eichelberg at his proper address. The sender is listed as IRS Detroit Computing Center, and “certified” is checked as the “type of mail or service.” In the upper right-hand corner of the Form 3877, the USPS stamped the postmark date for the Notice of Deficiency. Where the existence of a Notice of Deficiency is not disputed, a properly completed Form 3877 by itself is sufficient, absent evidence to the contrary, to establish that the Notice of Deficiency was properly mailed to the taxpayer on that date.[7]

Harsh Result. Judge Lauber acknowledged that the result in Eichelberg seemed “harsh”; that Notice 2004-83 was issued almost ten years ago; that private delivery companies have likely initiated delivery services resembling those listed in Notice 2004-83; and that many taxpayers may be unaware of the nuanced differences among such services.  However, the Tax Court may not rely on general equitable principles to expand the statutorily prescribed time for filing a Petition.[8] The Tax Court has limited jurisdiction under the “timely mailed, timely filed” rule only if a private delivery service has been “designated by the [Treasury] Secretary.”[9] Since “FedEx Express Saver” has not been designated in Notice 2004-83, the Tax Court determined that the Petition filed by Mr. Eichelberg was not timely.


[1] See sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).

[2] See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff’d, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).

[3] Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).

[4] Code Section 7502(f)(2).

[5] Code Section 7502(f)(2)(A)-(D); see Rev. Proc. 97-19, 1997-1 C.B. 644 (specifying criteria employed by the Secretary).

[6] The IRS Priority Guidance plan released November 20, 2013 indicates that Notice 2004-83 will be updated to add approved applicants for designated private delivery service status under Code Section 7502(f) “only if any new applicants are approved.”

[7] See, e.g., Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90-91 (1990)

[8] See Austin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-11 (citing Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784-785 (1989)).

[9] Code Section 7502(f)(2).

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories