Recently in Payroll Tax Audits Category

Tax Preparers Beware! 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Tax Refund Suit Due to Inability to Prove Timely Filing of Amended Return

April 11, 2013,

The 6th Circuit recently taught an expensive lesson to a Michigan couple about carefully following procedure when dealing with IRS Tax Problems. In Stocker v. United States (6th Cir. 2013), the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Robert and Laurel Stocker's suit against the IRS challenging the IRS' denial of a $64,000 tax refund, holding that because the Stockers could not prove the timely filing of their amended federal tax return under the methods established in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7502, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan was correct in dismissing the case.

The Stockers' tax problems and subsequent loss of their $64,000 refund occurred because of a seeming minor error. Following an IRS tax audit of a business in which the Stockers had invested and lost money, Mr. Stocker's CPA prepared amended 2003 federal tax returns for the Stockers that entitled them to a $64,000 refund. Mr. Stocker's CPA advised him that the returns had to be mailed by October 15, 2007 to comply with the tax law. Unfortunately, though Mr. Stocker testified that he mailed the returns on that day, he neglected to bring copies of the certified mail receipts to the post office, therefore failing to obtain date-stamped receipts. Apparently this was because although the CPA's office manager prepared postage prepaid, certified mail return receipted requested envelopes for the Stockers she mistakenly retained the customer copies of the certified mail receipts for the 2003 amended returns, rather than giving these copies to Mr. Stocker so that he could present them at the post office as he mailed the returns.

This left the Stockers at a disadvantage when their tax dispute began, as the IRS' records stated that the envelope containing the Stockers' amended 2003 return was postmarked four days late. Compounding the Stockers' tax problems, the IRS failed to retain the postmarked envelope in question. Seeking help in their tax dispute the Stockers brought suit, but the District Court granted the IRS' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the suit being barred as past the three-year period for filing a claim for a tax refund. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed.

The 6th Circuit was unmoved by the Stockers' attempts to prove the mailing date of their return through means other than those set forth in IRC Section 7502. As the IRS' records indicated that the returns were postmarked four days late, the Stockers could not prove timely delivery under IRC Sec. 7502(a)(1), which states that the postmark of the returns establishes the date of mailing. Additionally, Mr. Stocker's failure to obtain the certified mail receipt precluded the use of IRC section 7502(c)(1), which states that the "date of registration shall be deemed the postmark date". The court rebuffed the Stockers' attempts to prove timely delivery through circumstantial evidence; rather, the Court stated that its own precedent prevented any other method of proof. Finally, the court held that the District Court had not abused its discretion in refusing to draw the inference that the Stockers had timely filed their returns because of the IRS' failure to retain the postmarked envelope in violation of internal policy.

Despite the seemingly minor nature of the Stockers' mistakes, the 6th Circuit was highly unsympathetic to their plight. Ultimately, the court reiterated that only certain procedures are available to prove timely filing, and the Stockers' own mistakes precluded them from receiving relief, despite their innocent nature. While calling it "unfortunate" that the Stockers could not prove the timeliness of their return, the court sent a strong message to taxpayers that it was unwilling to make exceptions for even the most innocent of mistakes.

Continue reading "Tax Preparers Beware! 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Tax Refund Suit Due to Inability to Prove Timely Filing of Amended Return " »

Payroll Tax Problems Cannot be Solved by Payment after Criminal Tax Charges Filed

March 9, 2011,

A Kansas woman will still face federal criminal tax charges for failure to pay payroll taxes after a federal court ruled the charges should not be dismissed simply because the taxes have since been paid.

As tax litigation attorneys we frequently hear from clients who have been contacted by the IRS criminal investigation division. Their first reaction is, "I will get the taxes paid can you get the IRS to drop the charges?" Unfortunately at that point simply paying the taxes will rarely solve the problem by itself. Payroll taxes cases usually turn criminal because the tax problem has been ignored for far too long.

90376_accounting_calculator_tax_return.jpg

In this case, the employer was charged with seven counts of failing to pay over trust fund taxes (income taxes and FICA), which had been withheld from employees' pay. The tax violations allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2005. She submitted evidence in 2010 that she had turned over to the Internal Revenue Service all unpaid taxes. She argued the charges should be dismissed since the taxes had been paid.

The government argued payment did not "cure" her of the violations or immunize her from prosecution. It was a novel legal question not addressed in case law. Section 7202 of U.S. tax law states: "Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall . . . be guilty of a felony. . . ."

The defendant noted the law makes no reference to a "due date" or other time frame. Section 7203 does make reference to a time frame when it states "at the time or times required by law or regulations."

The court ruled that the statute's wording "failure to pay over" necessarily encompasses late payments by any common sense standard. Additionally, the court ruled the defendant's interpretation of the law would make it the only area of criminal law in which a crime could be undone at any time until conviction.

The defendant was also charged with two counts of failure to pay individual income taxes, which were not addressed in the court decision.

Continue reading "Payroll Tax Problems Cannot be Solved by Payment after Criminal Tax Charges Filed " »

Payroll Tax Problems best Handled by Experienced Business Tax Attorney

January 28, 2011,

Our tax attorneys continue to see businesses struggle with payroll tax problems. Whether you have 3 employees or 300, or whether you have downsized in response to the struggling economy, payroll tax audits can cause serious legal and financial problems that can threaten the survival of a business.

The U.S. Department of Justice reports a recent case out of northern Virginia, in which a business owner was sentenced to 19 months in prison for failing to collect, account for, and pay to the Internal Revenue Service more than $200,000 in employee withholding taxes.
468560_workmen3_1.jpg
He was also ordered to pay $88,826.79 in restitution to the IRS.

The defendant was president of a computer software company. According to the government's allegations, he failed to pay to the government employees' withholdings for Social Security, Medicare and federal income taxes from December 2004 to June 2008.

The case was handled by the Justice Department's Tax Division, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Internal Revenue Service.

Continue reading "Payroll Tax Problems best Handled by Experienced Business Tax Attorney " »

Part-Time Bookkeeper Not an Independent Contractor

April 14, 2010,

In a recent worker classification ruling SS8 2010030006 the IRS held that a part-time bookkeeper/general office worker was an employee and not an independent contractor. Generally the existence of an independent contractor relationship is based upon a 20 factor common law test set forth in Rev. Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 CB 298. Some of the factors the IRS took into account were:

The worker performed services at the payor’s place of business as well as her own home
The payer provided all office supplies including telephone, fax machine etc., although the worker provided her own computer, and accounting software.
The bookkeeper was paid hourly
The worker did not receive any benefits
The worker provided services for a period of about 2 years.
The payer’s had obtained a state ruling that the worker was an independent contractor.
The payer and the worker had an oral agreement whereby the worker agreed to independent contractor status
The worker was trained by the payer on some of its proprietary software.
The worker did not hold herself out as being in an independent business.

As a tax attorney who has been through many payroll tax audits I know it can be difficult to prove that a worker is an independent contractor to the satisfaction of the Internal Revenue Service or the California Employment Development Department (EDD).

Nevertheless payers who are subject to a payroll tax audit have a variety of defenses including the so-called safe harbor provisions of Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. This underused provision of the law allows for workers who fail the 20 factor common law test be treated as independent contractors provided the following requirements are met:

1. For federal employment tax purposes the payer never treated the
individual as an employee for any period, nor did it ever treat workers holding
substantially similar positions as employees;

2. All federal tax returns (including Form 1099) are filed on a basis
consistent with the taxpayer's treatment of the individual as not being an
employee; and

3. A reasonable basis existed for classifying the individual as an independent
contractor
. Reasonable basis includes:

a. Reliance on judicial precedent or revenue ruling;
b. Previous IRS tax audit;
c. Long-standing recognized practice of a significant segment of the
industry; or
d. Any other reasonable basis.


If your company is contacted by the EDD or the IRS for a payroll tax audit or any other tax problem call the former IRS tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A PC.

Tax Fraud Results in 22 Years and $181 Million

June 9, 2009,

Frank L. Amodeo has serious criminal tax problems. The U.S. Department of Justice announced that he has been convicted in one of the biggest employment tax fraud cases in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) history. The penalties for these criminal tax charges exceed 22 years and he will be required to pay a judgment of $181 million dollars.

Amodeo collected federal withholding taxes through his numerous payroll tax companies, and then knowingly neglected to forward this tax money to the IRS. Consequently, he was charged and convicted with five felonies: willful tax evasion (totaling $181 million); obstructing an agency proceeding (by intentionally defrauding the IRS in their attempt to collect payroll tax); and conspiring to commit wire fraud, to obstruct an agency investigation, and to impede the IRS. Amodeo was forced to surrender more than $1 million cash, three homes, several luxury automobiles, commercial real estate, a Lear Jet, and his corporations in attempt to fulfill his outstanding tax debt.

While this may have been one of the larger tax fraud cases on record, people have gone to jail for tax evasion for much smaller cases.

If you have any tax problems, including potential tax fraud or payroll tax problems, contact the tax controversy lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Independent Contractor or Employee Brochure Release by IRS

October 30, 2008,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released IRS Publication 1779 with guidance for workers to help them determine whether they are employees or independent contractors. Interestingly IRS Publication 1779, which is only two pages does not specifically mention the 20 factor test set forth in IRS Revenue Ruling 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 296. Instead it groups various factors into three categories—Behavioral Control, Financial Control and Relationship of the Parties. For example under the category Behavioral Control it states that “if you receive extensive instructions on how work is to be done this suggests you are an employee.”

While the publication appears to be aimed at workers rather than employers, an employer could be lulled into a false sense of security by relying on the publication since among other things it fails to mention that even though an employer does not actually exercise control, if the employer maintains the legal right to control the worker those workers may well be employees.

Nor does the publication mention that Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 also known as the “safe harbor rules” allows employers to treat individuals as independent contractors even if they do not qualify under the common law rules. For more information on that topic see our article Independent Contractor Treatment for Workers is Broadly Available.

If you are an employer and the IRS or the California Employment Development Department (EDD) has challenged your treatment of workers as independent contractors, or you have other payroll tax problems, contact the tax problem attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group for assistance.

Expect IRS Payroll Tax Crackdown

September 10, 2008,

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hasn’t been doing a very good job collecting payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are amounts that employers withhold from employee wages for federal income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare (so called trust fund taxes) as well as the employer’s matching contributions. The willful failure to pay these payroll taxes is a violation of the criminal tax law, a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7602.

The GAO study found that over 1.6 million businesses owed over $58 billion dollars in uncollected payroll taxes. The GAO concluded that the IRS didn’t file tax liens quickly enough, and that it didn’t go after the owners of businesses for the trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) fast enough. The report also suggested that the IRS wasn’t seizing business assets often enough, pointing out that there were only 667 seizures in fiscal 2007, down from over 10,000 in 1997. The report was a rather scathing indictment of the IRS, and various U.S. Senators were quick to jump on the "bash the IRS bandwagon." Senator Norm Coleman called on the IRS to “ratchet up its efforts” to recover billions in unpaid payroll taxes, and to hold “tax cheats” accountable.

The IRS responded that among other efforts it is developing and testing streamlined procedures to file injunctions against business with repeat payroll tax problems, and shut them down quickly. Apparently this would include employers whose principals were previously assessed a trust fund recovery penalty, as well as those who have operated multiple entities with payroll tax problems.

If your business has payroll tax problems you are at risk of the IRS putting you out of business, and assessing the trust fund recovery penalty resulting in owners, and officers having substantial personal tax liability. If you would like assistance in dealing with these, and other types of tax problems contact the Los Angeles California tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) Upheld Against Both CFO and CEO

May 2, 2008,

Internal Revenue Code § 6672 provides that so-called responsible persons who willfully fail to pay corporate payroll taxes may be held personally responsible for the payment of the trust fund portion of these taxes. Internal Revenue Code § 6672 is sometimes referred to as the trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP). Who is a responsible person? As the court in Horovitz v. United States (WD PA 2008) explained: “responsibility is a matter of status, duty or authority.” The definition of responsible person is not limited to the person with the final say on which bills get paid, but includes others as well.

Horovitz illustrates the principle that more than one person can have liability for the trust fund recovery penalty. The CFO was deemed to be a responsible person since he had the full authority to sign checks, could hire and fire employees, signed payroll tax returns, was a corporate officer, and a 20% owner. The CEO was also held liable for the trust fund recovery penalty since he invested several million dollars in the business, owned 80% of the stock, had unlimited hiring and firing ability and check writing authority, and served as the CEO with day to day involvement in the business.

If you have payroll tax problems, and the IRS is threatening to impose the trust fund recovery penalty contact the Los Angeles, California tax litigation lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

California Employment Development Department (EDD) and Internal Revenue (IRS) to Collaborate

February 21, 2008,

The California Employment Development Department (EDD) announced that it will be exchanging payroll tax information with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . The EDD is the state agency which includes in its duties making sure that employers withhold and payover state payroll taxes. The EDD programs include payroll tax audits of business owners to make sure that all workers who have been treated as independent contractors are truly independent contractors, and not employees. In determining whether workers are properly classified the EDD sometimes relies on the 20 factor test set forth by the IRS in Rev. Proc. 87-41. It also relies on a 9 factor test set forth in the California Supreme Court case set forth in Tieberg v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1970), 2 Cal. 3d 943 P. 2d 975; 88 Cal. Rptr. 175. The factors listed are:

1) Whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;


(2) The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of a principal or by a specialist without supervision;


(3) The skill required in the particular occupation;


(4) Whether the employer or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and place of work for the person doing the work;


(5) The length of time for which the person is employed;


(6) The method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;


(7) Whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer;


(8) Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship; and


(9) Whether the principal is or is not in business.

Although the EDD has supplied information from its payroll tax audits to the IRS for many years, the IRS has not been particularly efficent at using this information to start its own payroll tax audits. Whether or not this new agreement foreshadows an increased degree of enforcement by the IRS is unknown. However, it underscores the risk of not contesting an EDD payroll tax audit. For more information about filing an appeal of an EDD payroll tax audit see our article

If your company has been contacted the EDD for a California payroll tax audit or has other California payroll tax problems contact the California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, a P.C.

Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) Deadlines Shortened by Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

January 26, 2008,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ( has reversed its previous lenient policy of allowing the IRS Appeals Division to consider untimely protests of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP). First, what is a trust fund recovery penalty? Actually, its not really a penalty. It’s simply a collection tool that the IRS uses to collect payroll taxes owed by corporations. Under Internal Revenue Code § 6672 the IRS may collect the trust fund portion of the taxes owed by a company from so-called responsible officers who willfully fail to collect or pay over payroll taxes.

The TFRP used to be known as the 100 per cent penalty, but the name probably created too much confusion so it was changed. Before the TFRP can be collected from an individual the IRS must issue a 60 day letter, allowing for a tax appeal to the IRS Appeals Division. In the past IRS procedures provided that even if a protest was filed late it would be forwarded to the Appeals Division for review. See IRM 5.7.6.1.6(5) (04-13-2006)

The IRS has issued an internal memorandum which provides that if the tax appeal is not filed in a timely manner than the case will not be heard. It’s definitely not the kinder gentler IRS.

If you receive any notice from the IRS its very important that you respond in the manner set forth in the notice, and during the stated time frame. If you fail to do so you may lose important rights.

If you have received a notice from the IRS that you may owe payroll taxes totaling over more than $75,000 contact Los Angeles, California tax problem lawyer Dennis Brager.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Payroll Taxes Collected from Sole Member of LLC

January 25, 2008,

Small businesses which get behind on their debts also often fail to pay their payroll taxes resulting in payroll tax problems for the owners. Not paying payroll taxes is a big mistake since the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can collect the trust fund portion of the payroll tax debt from responsible officers of a corporation under Internal Revenue Code § 6672. Not all corporate shareholders , however, are necessarily persons liable for trust fund taxes under Internal Revenue Code § 6672. For example, if the payroll tax problems were concealed from the owner he might not be personally liable. Some tax lawyers may have thought that an LLC would provide similar protection for its members, but that’s not always true.

According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that’s not the case for a sole member of an LLC. McNamee v. IRS, 488 F. 3d 100 (2nd Circuit 2007). McNamee, who was apparently an accountant (I don’t know whether he was a CPA), represented himself in court, and didn’t have a tax lawyer. McNamee was the sole member of a limited liability company formed under Connecticut state law. Like most states, Connecticut provides that a member of a single owner LLC is generally not liable for its debts.

IRS regulations allow single-owner limited liability company to choose whether to be treated as a corporation--or to be disregarded as a separate entity. If an LLC elects to be treated as a corporation the owner is subject to double taxation--once at the corporate level and once at the individual shareholder level. On the other hand, the LLC may chooses not to be treated as a corporation, either by affirmative election or by the failure to make any election. In the later instance IRS regulations provide that the LLC is disregarded, and that the member is fully liable not just for the trust fund taxes, but all the payroll taxes including interest and penalties accrued on the overdue payroll taxes. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the IRS regulations were valid, and in so doing hit McNamee personally with a large tax debt.

The rules are different for a multi-member LLCs which is classified by default as a partnership. According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-41, absent special circumstances such as transferee liability, members of such entities are not personally liable for payroll tax debts of the LLC without a separate assessment by the IRS under Internal Revenue Code § 6672.

If you or your company has a tax dispute contact Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. Our tax lawyers represent companies and individuals all over California including Los Angeles County, Orange County, the Inland Empire, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County including the cities of Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Santa Ana with payroll tax problems with the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and the IRS.