Due to the current COVID-19 "Safer-at-Home" order affecting California, we are working remotely until further notice.
Please click here for further information.

Articles Tagged with tax penalties

Most, if not all, Payroll Protection Program (PPP) borrowers are focused on the question of whether they will be able to have their PPP loan forgiven.  Many questions have arisen, and some but not all, have been answered by the Loan Forgiveness Application and instructions   released by the SBA on Friday, May 15, 2020.  Here are some of the highlights.

  • Annual “cash” payroll costs are capped at $100,000 per employee. While this is not news, the SBA calculates that this amount on a pro-rata basis for the 8 week “Covered Period” is $15,385. If you do the math, that is equal to 8 weeks per year divided by 52 weeks multiplied by $100,000. Some were hoping that those on a semi-monthly pay schedule could use a larger amount based upon 24 pay periods per year. Apparently not.
  • Alternative Payroll Covered Period. The Covered Period is generally eight weeks (actually 56 days) beginning on the date the loan is first funded. The Alternative Payroll Covered Period is only for employers with bi-weekly or more frequent payroll schedules. Therefore, it doesn’t appear to apply to employers who pay semi-monthly. It begins on the on the first day of the first payroll period following the PPP Loan Disbursement Date and ends 56 days later.  The following example is provided:  Alternative Payroll Covered Period: “… if the Borrower received its PPP loan proceeds on Monday, April 20, and the first day of its first pay period following its PPP loan disbursement is Sunday, April 26, the first day of the  Alternative Payroll Covered Period is April 26 and the last day of the Alternative Payroll Covered Period is Saturday, June 20.”  This suggests that one cannot include payments for a payroll period that begins before the PPP Loan Disbursement Date but is paid after that date. However, that is inconsistent with the Press Release issued concurrently by the SBA which states that the form and instructions provide “Flexibility to include eligible payroll and non-payroll expenses paid OR incurred during the eight-week period after receiving their PPP loan.” (emphasis supplied).  See more below.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, the IRS has provided relief to taxpayers by extending filing and other deadlines. Now, in an internal memorandum from Fred Schindler the Director of Headquarters Collection (SBSE), the IRS continues to provide relief to taxpayers with tax debt by suspending most tax collection activities. These changes mirror the previous relief provided by the IRS, and restates the relief contained in the People First Initiative.  Our tax litigation attorneys are advising our clients that they can expect enforced tax collection activities to be suspended unless there is an exigent circumstance including the loss of the opportunity for the government to collect taxes due. The expiration of the statute of limitations is one example.

The importance of the memo is that while it mostly repeats and fleshes out the People First Initiative, it is a direct “order” from the head of SBSE Collection to all Collection Executives. The People First Initiative is a bit more nebulous in terms of its actual impact on the activities of rank and file employees.  The collection activities outlined in the memo include most activities related to the collection process such as meeting with taxpayers, filing new Notices of Federal Tax Liens (NFTL), issuing levies, taking or scheduling seizures actions, and pursuing civil suit proceedings. Automated tax levy programs are also suspended. The memorandum also directs Collections not to default installment agreements for missed payments due between April 1 and July 15, 2020 (the suspension period).  Due to the ongoing and ever changing nature of the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States, the IRS may extend the suspension period and the incorporated relief provisions further.

It is important for taxpayers and their advisors to remember that even though collection enforcement activity will be rare from now through July 15th, once the suspension period ends the IRS may begin filing liens and levies with a vengeance. Our tax lawyers are therefore recommending to our clients that, to the extent practicable, they position themselves to take appropriate action to forestall collection after the suspension period ends. This includes submitting offers in compromise, and requesting installment agreements now.

In a 2019 U.S. Tax Court case, Palmolive Building Investors, LLC v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. No. 4, (2019) (Palmolive II), the Tax Court held that both penalties determined by the Revenue Agent in a tax audit and additional penalties later determined  by an Appeals Officer in the IRS Independent Office of Appeals met the written approval requirements of I.R.C. § 6751; thus making Palmolive Building Investors, LLC (Palmolive) a two-time loser. Palmolive was initially in Tax Court in 2017 (Palmolive I) over a disallowed charitable deduction for a façade easement.  As the owner of a historical building in Chicago, it had donated a façade easement to a conservation organization and took a large charitable deduction for the easement. In addition to questioning the $33,410,000 valuation of the easement, the IRS argued that the mortgages on the building limited the easement’s protection in perpetuity. The Tax Court agreed and concluded that the façade easement was not protected in perpetuity and therefore failed to qualify for a charitable deduction under I.R.C. § 170(h)(5)(A).

Following the disallowance in Palmolive I, the taxpayer returned to the Tax Court to dispute whether the penalties assessed by the IRS complied with the provisions of IRC Section 6751(b)(1).  During a tax audit, a Revenue Agent had asserted in a 30-day letter that Palmolive was responsible for a 40% penalty for a gross valuation misstatement and a 20% negligence penalty. These two penalties were approved on Form 5701 by the Revenue Agent’s supervisor. Subsequently, a 60-day letter was issued. The taxpayer took its case to the IRS Office of Appeals. The Appeals Officer assigned to the case proposed four penalties: the two assessed by the Revenue Agent and the Substantial Understatement and Substantial Valuation Misstatement penalties. The Appeals Officer’s immediate supervisor approved all of these penalties on Form 5402-c. In Tax Court, Palmolive argued that the initial determination of penalties was made by the Revenue Agent who did not assert the Substantial Understatement and Substantial Valuation Misstatement penalties; therefore the penalties asserted by the Appeals Officer were not approved as part of the first determination of the penalties.

In examining the validity of the penalty assessments, the court cited I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1) which states that penalties can only be assessed when the initial determination of such penalties are approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the person making the determination. The court also pointed out that the Congressional motive behind enacting this provision was to make sure penalties were not used as bargaining chips. The court first noted that all penalties were approved in writing. The next issue was what defines an “initial determination” for the purposes if I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1). The court held that the initial determination is when the penalties were first communicated to the taxpayer. The court stated that the Revenue Agent’s 2008 mailing of the 30-day letter was the date of the initial determination and the Appeals Officer’s 2014 issuance of the Notice of Final Partnership Administrate Adjustment are both initial determinations. Since the IRS forms were signed by the respective supervisors prior to the time of the initial determinations, the penalties met the requirements of Section 6751(b) (1).

Have a Bankruptcy Judge Review Your Tax Fraud Penalty
Civil tax fraud penalties are 75% of the underpayment of tax attributable to tax fraud. Whenever the IRS believes that a taxpayer has intentionally violated a known legal duty, these penalties can be assessed, in addition to possible criminal prosecution.

The IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) need to prove that tax fraud was committed by clear and convincing evidence. However, sometimes these penalties are assessed in situations where there is insufficient evidence to meet this standard. In these cases, having a bankruptcy judge review your tax fraud penalty can be an excellent option.

While bankruptcy can be a good option for taxpayers that just want to discharge some of their tax debt, it can also be an effective way to resolve a tax dispute. Section 505 of the Bankruptcy Code provides authority for a judge to determine the amount of legality of any tax or penalty relating to tax, regardless of whether or not the taxpayer has already paid the disputed amount.

How to Resolve a Payroll Tax Dispute
Payroll tax disputes often arise when a worker is paid as an independent contractor, but the IRS or California Employment Development Department (EDD) believes that the worker is an employee. There are some differences between federal and state requirements, but a business will often have to deal with both the IRS and EDD when a worker misclassification problem arises.

The 20-Factor Test

Many employers believe that as long as they have a contract stating that a worker is an independent contractor, they are covered. This is not true. A worker is legally classified as an employee or independent contractor based on the circumstances of the employment relationship.

What Are the Penalties for Failure to File a Tax Return?
If you owe tax and fail to file a return on time, the IRS can assess both civil and criminal tax penalties. The penalty for failure to file is separate from the penalty for failure to pay taxes, and both civil and criminal penalties can be assessed for the same return.

Penalty for File to File a Tax Return

The penalty for failure to file is 5 percent of the tax owed per month. Contrast that with the failure to pay penalty of only half a percent per month, and you can see why it is a good idea to file your return on time, even if you cannot pay your tax.

What Is an Abusive Tax Shelter
An abusive tax shelter is an investment scheme that attempts to reduce income tax without serving any other economic purpose. The value of income or assets is not changed, so the sole purpose of an abusive tax shelter is to avoid tax.

The IRS attempts to deter participations in abusive tax shelters through tax audits, summons enforcement, litigation and other methods. There is also an abusive tax shelter hotline, where anyone can anonymously provide information about abusive tax shelter transactions.

Analyzing an Abusive Tax Shelter

Do I Qualify for First Time Tax Penalty Abatement?
Many taxpayers are unaware that they may be eligible for relief from tax penalties under the IRS First Time Penalty Abatement policy. The penalty abatement is available for penalties due to a failure to file, failure to pay taxes, or a failure to deposit taxes.

Requirements for First Time Penalty Abatement

To qualify for First Time Penalty Abatement, you must meet the following requirements:

Contact Information