Yearly Archives: 2019

 

2. The main issue in audits: The EITC -Fifty percent of all individual audits involve a taxpayer who is claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. IRS efforts to curb EITC errors largely rely on audits to hold a questionable EITC claim on a return. Politicians have criticized the IRS in the past for picking on low-income taxpayers, and the EITC audit rate is their main evidence. Compared to other taxpayer profiles, the IRS clearly has the propensity to address the EITC taxpayer more than other issues, even the small-business individual taxpayers.

 

3. An alarming amount of people do not respond to an auditThere is linkage here to the EITC mail audit. The Taxpayer Advocate reports that almost two-thirds of all mail audits go without response or are assessed by taxpayer default. That is, the IRS just assesses the additional tax without the taxpayer contesting the service’s determination. Only one in five taxpayers agree to their mail audit adjustment — and likely, from the data, they don’t understand how to appeal. This mess leads to many audit reconsiderations (i.e. an audit “re-do” request). Again, more question marks here for the targets of mail audits — the low-income population.

 

 

 

To be continued in parts II & III. 

 

On November 6, 2019 we posted Ten Facts About Tax Expatriation - Part I, where we discussed that whatever your motives, just because you leave the United States and renounce your citizenship, don't assume you can leave U.S. taxes (or U.S. tax forms and complexity) behind, particularly if you are financially well-off.

For those who expatriate after June 16, 2008, the rules are different, since Internal Revenue Code Section 877A applies instead of Section 877. You are subject to an immediate exit tax, which deems you (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before your departure from the U.S.
We also discussed in Ten Facts About Tax Expatriation - Part I:

1. Uncle Sam taxes income worldwide.

2. Expatriating means really leaving.

3. The old 10-year window is closed.

4. Big changes came in 1996.
Thirty years later, in 1996, after the Forbes story on "The New Refugees" created a stir, Congress tried again. As part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (otherwise known as HIPAA), Congress added a presumption of tax avoidance if an expatriate's five-year average net income tax exceeded $100,000, or if the expatriate's net worth was $500,000 or more (both adjusted each year for inflation). But people could--and with the help of skilled lawyers did--rebut the presumption, and the IRS still had to show tax avoidance in most cases.

5. Tax avoidance is now irrelevant.
In 2004 (in the American Jobs Creation Act), Congress threw out the tax avoidance motive test altogether, imposing 10 years of U.S. tax on U.S. source gross income and gains on a net basis if you left the country for any reason. However, Congress increased the threshold for determining who was subject to this expatriation tax. An individual was only subject to the expatriation tax if he had an average net annual income tax for the five years preceding expatriation of $124,000, or if he had a net worth of $2 million or more on the date of expatriation. (If you expatriated on or after June 17, 2008, under the new Section 877A, there is a higher net worth threshold--currently $145,000 of annual net income tax for 2010.)

In some cases, even if you're below these thresholds, you'll get taxed. For example, expatriates must certify their past U.S. tax compliance by filing an IRS Form 8854. Any expatriate who fails to certify compliance with U.S. federal income tax laws for the five taxable years preceding expatriating is subject to the expatriate income tax even if he didn't meet the income tax liability or net worth tests.
Plus, later U.S. visits can be expensive if you expatriated before June 17, 2008 (and Internal Revenue Code Section 877 applies). In that case if an expatriate comes back to the U.S. for more than 30 days in any year during the 10 years following expatriation, that person is considered a resident of the U.S. for that whole tax year. That means the person would again be subject to U.S. tax on his worldwide income, not just his U.S.-source income. Ouch!

This 30-day rule does, however, have an exception for any days (up to a 30-day limit) that the individual performed personal services in the U.S. for an employer (who is not related). This exception only applies if that individual either had certain ties with other countries or was physically present in the U.S. for 30 days or less for each year in the 10-year period on the date of expatriation or termination of residency.

6. There are special rules for long-term residents.
It's easy to define who is or is not a U.S. citizen, but the term "long-term resident" isn't quite so clear. A long-term resident is a non-U.S. citizen who is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. in at least eight years during the 15-year period before that person's residency ends. A "lawful permanent resident" means a green card holder. However, a person is not treated as a lawful permanent resident for purposes of this eight-year test in a year in which that person is treated as a resident of a foreign country under a tax treaty, and does not waive the treaty benefits applicable to the residents of that country. Caution: holding a green card for even one day during a year will taint the whole year.

7. There's an exit tax for expatriations on or after June 17, 2008.
The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (generally known as the Heroes Act) changed the method of taxation for those who became expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, adding even more complexity and usually higher U.S. taxes. If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
Put differently, you get all of the bad parts of the tax code, and none of the good. That would include, for example, the inability to benefit from the $250,000 per person ($500,000 per couple) exclusion from gain on a principal residence (Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code) and many other rules. The exit tax is like an estate tax, in the sense that everything that would be part of your estate will be subject to income tax on unrealized gains as of the day before you expatriate, as if you sold all your assets the day before leaving. In effect this is Congress' way of making sure your assets don't escape the estate tax entirely through expatriation.

 

 

 

Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig.

"Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS.

In December 2016, the IRS issued Notice 2017-10 (PDF), which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. Specifically, the Notice listed transactions where investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material offering the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two and half times their investment. In many transactions, the deduction taken is significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment. Syndicated conservation easements are included on the IRS's 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.
 

"Abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions undermine the public's trust in private land conservation and defraud the government of revenue," Rettig said. "Putting an end to these abusive schemes is a high priority for the IRS."
 
Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties relating to improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.
The IRS's comprehensive compliance efforts are focused on the abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions described in Notice 2017-10, recognizing that there are many legitimate conservation easement transactions.
 

The IRS is fully committed to putting an end to abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions, and holding accountable the individuals and entities who promoted, assisted with or participated in these schemes. The IRS is committing significant examination and investigative resources to vigorously audit the entities and individuals involved in this scheme, including those who failed to properly disclose their participation as required. Additionally, the IRS is also litigating cases where necessary, with more than 80 currently docketed cases in the Tax Court.
 
In addition to grossly overstating the value of the easement that is purportedly donated to charity, these transactions often fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement. The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving these basic requirements and has now established a body of law that the IRS believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. Where it hasn't done so already, the IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others. Further, the IRS is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty), appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals), promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability), as well as return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability by a tax return preparer).

In December 2018, the Department of Justice filed a complaint seeking to stop several individuals and an entity from organizing, promoting or selling allegedly abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions. The IRS continues to work with the Department of Justice in this area and reminds taxpayers that continued disclosure of syndicated conservation easement transactions is required under Notice 2017-10.