Tax Problem Attorney Blog

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California upheld a decision of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) denying innocent spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally spouses filing joint income tax returns are both liable for any taxes due. In certain circumstances, however, one spouse may be entitled to so-called innocent spouse relief. One of the keys to obtaining innocent spouse relief, however, is making the request in a timely manner. There are a number of different deadlines which must be met, or else innocent spouse relief will be lost. In Huynh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-180 the taxpayer ran afoul of Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) . Not surprisingly the tax law requires that if a taxpayer wishes to claim innocent spouse relief it must be asserted in the same Tax Court case in which the taxpayer is disputing an income tax deficiency. However, Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) creates an exception if the innocent spouse claim was not an issue in the Tax Court proceeding. The exception to the exception, however, is that if the putative innocent spouse “participated meaningfully” in the proceeding than she can not later claim innocent spouse status.

The Tax Court noted that Mrs. Huynh participated in the prior tax deficiency proceeding by among other things, being present at meetings with the IRS’ Appeals Office, as well participating in pre-trial preparations, and settlement negotiations. Under these circumstances the Tax Court refines to allow Mrs. Huynh to later claim innocent spouse relief. Ms. Huynh was not represented by a tax attorney in either the first or second proceeding. Had she been properly advised by a tax attorney she would have raised her innocent spouse claim in the first proceeding.

If you believe you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager, Esq.

Continue reading "Innocent Spouse Relief Not Permitted by Ninth Circuit" »

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

In Kennedy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-33, the United States Tax Court determined that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could not serve a tax levy on the taxpayer’s assets since it failed to send the collection due process (CDP) notice to the taxpayer’s last know address. Generally in order for the IRS to issue a tax levy it must first mail a Notice of Intent to Levy, and Right to Request Hearing, commonly referred to as a CDP Notice, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In Kennedy, the IRS mailed its notices to two different addresses. However, Mr. Kennedy never received them. Apparently this was because both addresses were incorrect. In fact the way Mr. Kennedy found out about the collection due process notice was when the IRS served a tax levy on his bank.

The Tax Court pointed out that Internal Revenue Code § 6330(a)(2) provides that the CDP notice must either be given in person, left at the person’s dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail to the person’s last known address. Since the IRS failed to send the CDP notice to Mr. Kennedy’s last known address the CDP notice was invalid. By the time the case got to the Tax Court the IRS realizing this and had refunded the money seized by the tax levy. That, however, was not sufficient. In order for the IRS to serve any additional tax levies the Tax Court required that the IRS issue a new CDP notice, and give Mr. Kennedy an opportunity for a hearing first in the IRS’ Appeals Division, and then if Mr. Kennedy was not satisfied with the result he would be entitled to a brand new hearing in the Tax Court.

If you have received a tax levy, have tax debts, or other tax problems call the tax controversy lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

Sometimes taxpayers want to be “creative” in filling out IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals). Stephen Miller got too creative, and he was found guilty of tax evasion in violation of Internal Revenue Code § 7201. He was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Stephen Miller (No. 06-11078) (5th Cir. 2008). Miller, who owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about 2 million dollars filed an offer in compromise with the IRS in which he stated he had insufficient assets and income to pay the tax debt. The IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals) he filed stated he only had $40,000 in assets including an IRA with a balance of $25,000. What he didn’t tell the IRS was that he had withdrawn $1,000,000 from his IRA, and transferred it offshore. When the IRS asked about the money taken out of the IRA he responded that the money had been used to pay off a loan Euromex Leasing Corporation in the Isle of Mann. As it turned out Euromex was a shell corporation controlled and formed by a financial planner that Miller consulted to hide his money from the IRS. And how did the IRS find out that it was all a lie? Simple, the financial planner turned Miller in when he wound up with his own tax fraud problems with the IRS.

If you have tax debts and don't want to be convicted of tax evasion call the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Offers in Compromise , Tax Debt , Tax Fraud

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Publication 971 on Innocent Spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally, individuals who sign joint tax returns with their spouses are both jointly and severally liable for any taxes not paid with the return without regard to which spouse created the tax problem. Under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code § 6015, however, some spouses may be able to get out from under their tax problems. Publication 971 gives the IRS take on innocent spouse relief. If you want to read the opinions of our tax lawyers on innocent spouse relief you can see the innocent spouse articles on our website.

Publication 971 points out the time periods for filing for innocent spouse relief. Requests for innocent spouse relief must be filed on IRS Form 8857 no later than two years from the date the IRS first attempts to collect the tax due. IRS attempts to collect the tax due are limited to:

• The filing of a claim for by the IRS in a court proceeding, including a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.
• An IRS offset of a refund claim for a different year, as long as the IRS notified the taxpayer about her right to file for innocent spouse relief.
• The filing of a lawsuit by the IRS to collect the tax due
• The issuance by the IRS of a collection due process (CDP) notice pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §6330.

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has similar rules to the Internal Revenue Service for taxpayers who are requesting innocent spouse relief for taxes owed to the State of California.

If you have a tax problem, and believe that you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief , and wish to have one our tax lawyers represent you please contact us.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

The United States Tax Court held that the IRS did not abuse its discretion when the Appeals Division upheld a notice of intent to levy issued under Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In West v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2008-30, the Wests had obtained an offer in compromise from the IRS, but then violated its terms by failing to pay estimated taxes, failing to timely file tax returns, and failing to pay multiple tax penalties assessed against them during the 5 year period following the acceptance of their offer in compromise.

To make matters worse the IRS tried to notify the Wests about the impending default of the their offer in compromise, but the Wests had moved, and failed to notify the IRS of their new address. The Wests tried to rely on the failure of the IRS to notify their representative that their offer in compromise was in danger, but the Tax Court held that the IRS had no duty to notify their representative.

Points to Remember:

• If your offer in compromise has been accepted don’t forget to pay and file your taxes on time for at least the next five years.
• If you are involved in any type of tax dispute with the IRS make sure that you keep them updated with your current address.

If you have a tax dispute and need a tax lawyer call the tax attorneys, at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Offers in Compromise , Tax Debt

Bookmark:

When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) files a tax lien it is required by Internal Revenue Code § 6320 to notify taxpayers within 5 business days of the filing of the tax lien. In addition, under Internal Revenue Code § 6320(b) it must provide for a hearing before the Internal Revenue Service’s Appeals Division. According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the IRS may not have complied with Internal Revenue Code § 6320in all cases. For example, the IRS is required to send the tax lien notice to the last known address of the taxpayer; yet in some cases it failed to do so. The TIGTA report noted that the failure to do so was a legal violation by the IRS.

The TIGTA report also noted that the IRS failed to follow its own internal guidelines for sending copies of the tax lien notices to the taxpayer’s representatives in 40% per cent of the cases it sampled. Tax attorneys must be alert to the possiblity, that the IRS is not sending copies of all tax lien notices and other required documents to them. Taxpayers need to send copies of all important notices to their tax lawyers even if they think the IRS should be sending the notices directly to their representatives.

If the IRS has filed a tax lien against you contact Los Angeles, California tax attorney Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt

Bookmark:

A district court in Michigan dismissed a complaint challenging an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax levy on a couple’s home. The couple owed income taxes of around $300,000 and payroll taxes of another $161,000. They filed a quite title action pursuant to 28 USC 2410, and they also filed an unauthorized collection action under Internal Revenue Code § 7433 seeking damages. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear either claim. With respect to the quiet title action such actions are available if an IRS tax lien is filed, but not when a tax levy is served. As most tax problem attorneys know there is a big difference between a tax lien and a tax levy, and the court held that the proper method of fighting a tax levy is not through a quiet title action.

The court also dismissed the unauthorized collection action because the couple hadn’t exhausted their administrative remedies. Internal Revenue Code § 7433 allows a taxpayer to sue the IRS if it has engaged in unlawful collection actions such as an improper tax levy; however Treas. Reg. § 301. 7433-1(d) bars a suit until after a claim has been filed with the IRS. Even though the couple had notified the IRS of their claim the court held that the format they used was incorrect since they didn’t address the claim to the right individual at the IRS, list their current home address and telephone number, or meet several other formalities.

The results in this case were not particularly surprising. It does, however, once again point out the importance of completely understanding all of the IRS rules and tax procedures. It also once again illustrates that the IRS can and does seize taxpayers’ homes, and those who assume it can’t happen are mistaken.

Tax problems need to be dealt with at an early stage. It is possible that an offer in compromise or an IRS payment agreement could have saved this couple’s home. If you need help with a tax problem of any kind contact the tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt

Bookmark:

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a decision of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court), and held that an Internal Revnue Service Appeals Officer was not impartial within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330. Cox v. Commissioner, No. 06-9004 (2008), reversing, Cox v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. No.13 (2006). A taxpayer is generally entitled to a collection due process (CDP) hearing before an impartial Appeals Officer before the IRS may levy on his property. If the IRS files a tax lien the taxpayer is entitled to a hearing to contest the tax lien, but only after the tax lien has been filed. In Cox, the taxpayer had received a CDP hearing for the years 2000. In that hearing the Appeals Officer determined that he could not recommend an alternative to a levy since among other things the Coxes hadn’t paid their estimated taxes.

Subequently, the Coxes requested a CDP hearing with respect to the taxes they owed for 2001 and 2002. When the same Appeals Officer was assigned the CDP hearing the Coxes asked the case to be reassigned to a new Appeals Officer since, they argued, the Appeals Officer was not impartial because of his prior involvment. The IRS refused, and ultimately the Coxes appealed to the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court reviewed IRS Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d)(2) which provides that even though an Appeals Officer has had prior involvement with the same taxpayers for a different tax year the Appeals Officer may still conduct the subsequent CDP hearing. The Tax Court upheld the IRS Regulation. On appeal, however, the 10th Circuit reversed. Arguably the 10th Circuit’s decision may be limited to the facts since in Cox the Appeals Officer had reviewed the 2001 and 2002 as part of his decision in the 2000 CDP hearing. In any event the Tax Court is not bound to follow the 10th Circuit’s ruling in cases that are not appealable to the 10th Circuit. Golsen v. Commissioner,54 T.C 742 (1970). It is not, however, unusual for the Tax Court to re-examine its decision where it has been reversed by a Circuit Court of Appeal even though it is not required to do so.

If you have IRS tax problems or California tax problems contact Los Angeles, California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has published final regulations on releases of federal tax liens and discharges of property. These regulations provide rules for how to go about obtaining the release of a federal tax lien after the tax debt has been paid, or in situations where the statute of limitations on collecting the tax liability has expired.

The regulations also provide rules for obtaining tax lien releases in other situations. For example the IRS may issue a certificate of discharge if the IRS interest in the specific property subject to the IRS tax lien is worthless. This can be useful if you own real property which you would like to sell, but is encumbered by an IRS tax lien. Say your property is worth $500,000, and there is a first mortage of $550,000, followed by an IRS tax lien for $300,000. You would like to sell the property, and the bank has agreed to a short sale. The title company will not issue title insurance, and therefore you want be able to close on the sale without a release from the IRS. The regulations allow for the issuance of a certificate of discharge in this circumstance because the value of the IRS lien is zero. However, it can take some persuasion to get the IRS to issue the certificate of discharge, and the IRS is not required to issue the certificate. Our experience is that the IRS can take 30 days or more to issue a discharge of the tax lien. We recommend applying for a certificate of discharge as soon as you know you want to sell the property.

An important change to the final regulations requires to issue a certificate of release of the tax lien in situations where only one year of a multi-year tax lien has been satisfied. For example, the IRS may have filed a tax lien for the years 2000 through 2004. If you paid the tax for the year 2000, the IRS would not issue a tax lien release for the 2000 year. Under the new regulations the IRS is required to do so.

If you have tax liens and tax levies in excess of $75,000 call the California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says that tax audits have increased during the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. For example the IRS audited 84% more returns of individuals with income of over $1 million dollars than the previous year. This amounted to a tax audit rate of almost 10%.Tax audits of individuals with income of $200,000 or more rose almost 30%. Overall the IRS conducted tax audits of more individuals than at any time since 1998.

Business also came in for an increased tax audit rate. S corporation tax audits were up 26%, and partnership tax audits were up by almost 25%.

Tax levies, and tax liens by the IRS were also a growth area, with the IRS filing 3.8 million tax levies and almost 700,000 tax liens during 2007

Contact Los Angeles, California Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. if you or your business needs help with a tax audit, tax appeal or tax debt.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Payroll Tax Audits , Payroll Tax Problems , Tax Debt

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has provided new instructions for persons who wish to file wrongful levy claims against the IRS pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6343(b). These instructions are set forth in IRS Publication 4528 (Rev. Nov. 2007). If the IRS were to take your property to pay taxes that someone else owed a wrongful levy claim is one of the ways to get your property back.

Why would the IRS seize your property to pay someone else’s taxes? Well it might just be a mistake, but that’s unlikely. One way it might happen is if a closely held corporation ran into IRS or California payroll tax problems. Perhaps the owner decided that rather than deal with this tax problem he would start another company; we will call it “Newco.” When the IRS gets wind of this if it determines that Newco is a transferee, nominee or alter ego of the original company (let’s call it “Oldco”) it will levy (that is seize) the assets of Newco to satisfy the payroll tax liability of Oldco.

Newco may have some defenses to the IRS levy. For example in some cases if Newco paid fair market value for the assets of Oldco it is possible that Newco may not be responsible for Oldco’s payroll taxes. In order to get the money back it would be appropriate to file a wrongful levy claim with the IRS. Another possible remedy is to file suit in United States District Court under Internal Revenue Code Section 7426(a)(1).

Perhaps the most important thing to know about a wrongful levy claim is that it must be made within 9 months of the seizure, so you need to act very quickly. If you think that the IRS has improperly served a levy on your property please contact the California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Payroll Tax Problems , Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has extended its policy of granting express installment agreements for in business trust fund taxes through at least June 6, 2008. See IRS Memo dated June 6, 2007 Express installment agreements are available to in-business taxpayers who have payroll tax problems of less than $10,000. These taxpayers may allowed to enter into installment agreements without providing a completed Collection Information Statement (IRS Form 433-B). An express installment agreement can’t last longer than 24 months. Taxpayers requesting express installment agreements must be in compliance with all IRS tax deposit and tax filing requirements as set forth in Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 5.14.1.5.1. In addition if a taxpayer qualifies for an express installment agreement then:

• No Trust Fund Recovery Penalty determination is required; however the revenue
officer must ensure that the Assessment Statute Expiration Date (ASED) is
protected.
• No managerial approval is required.
• A lien determination is required.

Thus in all probability even if an express installment agreement is granted then an IRS tax lien will be filed. See IRM 5.12.2.4.2.

If you or your company owes in excess of $75,000 in payroll taxes to the IRS or have other IRS or California payroll tax problems call California tax attorney Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Payroll Tax Problems , Tax Debt

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen has released her 2007 Annual Report to Congress. It consists of two large volumes outlining:

• The Most Serious Problems Encountered by Taxpayers
• Key Legislative Recommendations, and Additional Legislative Recommendations
• Most Litigated Issues
• Case and Systemic Advocacy.

The Taxpayer Advocate’s Report has a great deal to say, and we will be commenting on many of those items over the next months. Number 9 on the list is tax preparer penalties, and the bypass of taxpayer representatives including tax attorneys, and CPAs. The Taxpayer Advocate’s Report criticizes the IRS for not doing more to enforce tax preparer penalties. She notes that only $2.8 million in penalties were assessed for FYE Sept. 2007. However, this is about a 50% increase over the prior year.

The Internal Revenue Service’s top tax attorney, IRS Chief Counsel Don Korb has already been quoted in IRS Notice, IR-2007-213 as saying that looking at the tax preparer penalty regulations will be a “top priority” for the IRS in 2008. It looks like a bumpy ride for tax preparers, tax attorneys, and CPAs in 2008.

If you are a tax preparer, tax attorney, or CPA who has been targeted by the IRS, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy , Tax Preparer Penalties

Bookmark: