Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2019

Tax Gap Hearings in House NOT Likely to Result in Passable Legislation

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.On May 9, 2019, the House Ways & Means Committee held a hearing about the "tax gap" — the difference between the amount of taxes owed and those paid on time. The IRS needs more revenue officers and resources. 

“The most recent Internal Revenue Service estimate of the annual gross tax gap is about $460 billion and, after enforcement activities and late payments, the net amount is $400 billion a year,” said House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., in his opening statement. “Despite this astounding number, the true tax gap is greater than what the IRS estimates. This is because the IRS estimate does not include taxes owed on income from illegal activities or taxes avoided on certain international activities. The tax gap simply represents estimates of different types of noncompliance with our individual, corporate, and other tax laws.”

He pointed out that there is noncompliance in the form of underreporting, which includes taxpayers who understate their income or overstate their deductions, exemptions, or credits. That accounts for nearly $390 billion of the gross tax gap. Noncompliance by taxpayers who file their tax returns but fail to meet the deadline to pay what they owe accounts for about $40 billion of the gross tax gap.Then noncompliance by taxpayers who are required to file a tax return, but don’t accounts for about $32 billion of the gross tax gap. Neal pointed out that the amount of the tax gap that the IRS can collect depends on its funding and resources.  

“Insufficient IRS funding creates incentives for some taxpayers to take aggressive tax positions,” he said.

 

 

“Well-advised taxpayers, including multinational companies and high-income taxpayers, have the incentives and the resources to do just that.”  
While high-income taxpayers have the most opportunity to engage in tax avoidance planning, the IRS isn’t focusing its audits on them. “Instead, in 2017, the IRS targeted low-income, Earned Income Tax Credit taxpayers,” said Neal. “Many question why the IRS is using its limited resources in this manner rather than deploying them on high-income taxpayers and corporations where the return is greater per hour of a revenue agent’s time.

Taxpayers are more compliant when they may be audited. 
 But the overall audit rate has plummeted below .005. 

 

  • IRS examination personnel have decreased by nearly 5,000 employees or 38 percent over seven years, and
  • IRS revenue officers have decreased by over 1,600 employees or 42 percent during the same period.

 

 

This All May Well Be an Academic Exercise,

 

As Any Bill Has Almost No Chance of Passing a
Republican-Controlled Senate, Let Alone a Republican President, Who Has Been under Audit Every Year.

 

J. Russell George, inspector general at TIGTA, presented a report on the tax gap and taxpayer noncompliance and pointed to some of TIGTA’s earlier reports on taxing the gig economy. In a report evaluating the gig economy’s impact on self-employment tax compliance, TIGTA reported that cases with billions of dollars in potential tax discrepancies involving taxpayers who earn income in the gig economy are not being worked by the IRS,” he said.

 

“Many cases were not selected to be worked by the IRS due to the large volume of discrepancies that were identified
and resource constraints.
In addition, a lack of an overall gig economy compliance strategy led IRS employees to remove thousands of cases from inventory without justification or with justifications
that were inaccurate.”

James R. McTigue, Jr., director of strategic issues at the Government Accountability Office, also presented a report by the GAO on how multiple strategies are needed to address taxpayer noncompliance. “GAO’s work has demonstrated that no single approach will fully and cost effectively address noncompliance since the problem has multiple causes and spans different types of taxes and taxpayers,” said the report. For example, expanding third-party information reporting could increase voluntary compliance and providing IRS with the authority to regulate paid tax return preparers could improve the accuracy of the tax returns they prepare.”

Need an Reliable Tax Planning?
 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A.  
 

 

 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:

 

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 

 

 

Sources

Rep Tom Suozzi

TaxProToday

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Beneficiaries Were Liable for Estate's Unpaid Tax Liability

A district court found that beneficiaries were liable for an estate's unpaid tax liability under Code Sec. 6324(a)(2). The undisputed facts showed the estate's federal estate tax was not paid when due and each beneficiary received property includible in the gross estate. (U.S. v. Ringling, (DC SD 2/21/2019) 123 AFTR 2d ¶2019-448)

 
If an imposed federal estate tax is not paid when due, a transferee, surviving tenant, or beneficiary, who receives, or has on the date of the decedent's death, property included in the gross estate under Code Sec. 2034 to Code Sec. 2042, is personally liable for such tax. (Code Sec. 6324(a)(2))

Donna Ringling, JoAnn Jandreau, and Kathryn Standy are the daughters of the late Harold and Margery Arshem. Margery predeceased Harold. Kory Standy is the son of Kathryn Standy and the grandson of Harold Arshem (Arshem).

Arshem bequeathed his Estate in equal parts to his three daughters and also provided a specific bequest of real property to Ringling as part of her one-third portion of the Estate. Shortly before his death, Arshem also forgave Kory Standy a debt arising from the purchase of property; conveyed the family farm to Kory Standy (retaining a life estate and the right to receive the rent income and profits during his lifetime); paid to Kory Standy proceeds from the redemption of a certificate of deposit; and gifted Kory Standy approximately 6,000 bushels of corn.

Letters of representative were issued to the daughters. A special administrator was appointed over the probate proceeding, and he filed a federal estate tax return and amended the state inheritance tax return to reflect the fair market values of the real property rather than the county assessed values (as had been previously reported).

On behalf of the Estate, Ringling signed Form 706, reporting a gross estate of $834,336 and a net estate tax due of $28,939. However, the Estate did not make any payments with the return. On the Form 706, the Estate reported its assets as: three pieces of real property, co-op shares, stocks, bonds, two contracts for deeds, cash, bank accounts, CDs, two life insurance policies, gifts of the corn crop to Kory, the pickup truck, the van, and other miscellaneous property. The Estate also reported the values of the assets the beneficiaries each received. Kathryn Standy and Jandreau each received $121,988, Ringling received $121,987, and Kory Standy received $416,116.

IRS made assessments against the Estate totaling $65,875. The estate tax owed was $28,939, the late filing penalty was $6,511, the failure to pay penalty was $7,235, and the interest was $23,190. IRS sent the Estate a notice of assessments and demanded payment. After the Estate failed to pay the tax liability, IRS sent the Estate a notice of intent to levy.

IRS filed this case against the beneficiaries seeking a judgment against each for personal liability for unpaid federal estate tax debt of Arshem's Estate under Code Sec. 6324(a)(2). Jandreau, Kathryn Standy, and Kory Standy failed to respond to IRS's motion for summary judgment. Ringling filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Granting IRS's summary judgment motion, the district court found that the beneficiaries were liable for the Estate's unpaid tax liability under Code Sec. 6324(a)(2).

In her answer, Ringling asserted several affirmative defenses. She alleged that IRS's claims were barred by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, waiver, estoppel (alleging that an IRS employee made statements that led the beneficiaries to believe that the interest and penalties would be waived), statute of limitations (although she stated no argument or facts that supported this defense), and reasonable care (alleging that she exercised due care in engaging a tax attorney to advise her).

The district court found that Ringling couldn't resist IRS's motion for summary judgment with her affirmative defenses because she failed to identify any specific facts in the record that supported these defenses. 

Have a US Estate Tax Problem?

 
Estate Tax Problems Require an
Experienced Estate Tax Attorney
 
 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
 
 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 

 

Robert S. Blumenfeld  - 
 Estate Tax Counsel
Mr. Blumenfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of International Tax and Estate Planning, Probate Law, and Representation of Resident and Non-Resident Aliens before the IRS.

Prior to joining Marini & Associates, P.A., he spent 32 years as the Senior Attorney with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Deputy Commissioner, International.

While with the IRS, he examined approximately 2,000 Estate Tax Returns and litigated various international and tax issues associated with these returns.As a result of his experience, he has extensive knowledge of the issues associated with and the preparation of U.S. Estate Tax Returns for Resident and Non-Resident Aliens, Gift Tax Returns, Form 706QDT and Qualified Domestic Trusts.

 


                                      

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Available IRS Payment Plans – Part I

For the 2019 filing season, the IRS projects that more taxpayers than ever will file and owe. Many will be able to pay – but a lot of them will need to make other arrangements because they can’t pay their full tax bills to the IRS.

When taxpayers can’t pay their tax bills, they have a number of options, including payment plans, to pay off their outstanding taxes and accrued penalties and interest. Of the 16 million taxpayers who owe back taxes, 97 percent of them qualify to use a payment plan that’s fairly easy to set up and would likely give them the best payment terms.
The IRS has three simplified payment plans:

  • Guaranteed Installment Agreements (GIA): 36-month payment terms for balances of $10,000 or less.
  • Streamlined Installment Agreements (SLIA): 72-month payment terms for balances of $50,000 or less.
  • Streamlined Processing for Balances Between $50,000-$100,000: 84-month payment terms for balances between $50,000 and $100,000.

Advantages of 36-, 72-, and 84-month agreements
These are the three most common IRS payment plans. They’re all easy to obtain from the IRS, because they:

  • Require minimal, if any, financial disclosure to the IRS;
  • Don’t require an IRS manager to approve the payment terms;
  • Don’t require taxpayers to liquidate assets to pay the IRS; and,
  • Can be set up in one phone call or interaction with the IRS.

The GIA (36 months) and SLIA (72 months) can be completed online using the Online Payment Agreement tool at IRS.gov. The GIA and SLIA are also attractive to taxpayers who don’t want a public record of their tax debt, because these agreements don’t require the IRS to file a public notice of federal tax lien. Taxpayers who owe between $25,000 and $50,000 must agree to pay by automated direct debit or payroll deductions to avoid a tax lien.

The “Streamlined Processing” 84-month payment plan works a little differently. The IRS started the 84-month plan as a pilot program in 2016 to make it easier for taxpayers who owe between $50,000 and $100,000 to get into a payment plan with the IRS. Taxpayers can avoid filing their financial information with the IRS if they agree to pay their tax bill by direct debit or payroll deductions. If they don’t agree to these automated payments, the IRS requires taxpayers to provide a Collection Information Statement (IRS Form 433-A or 433-F). Even with streamlined processing, the 84-month plan has one catch: The IRS will file a federal tax lien.

The pilot program for the 84-month plan is still in effect today. The IRS hasn’t completed its study on whether the 84-month plan is an effective collection option. One thing is clear about the program: It likely provides better payment terms and relieves burden for taxpayers.

The rules
GIAs are for taxpayers who owe the IRS $10,000 or less. As the name suggests, the payment plan is “guaranteed” if the taxpayer meets all conditions of the GIA:

  • It’s for individual income taxes only;
  • Total balances owed, including penalties and interest, must be $10,000 or less
  • The taxpayer must pay within 36 months;
  • All required tax returns have been filed; and,
  • The taxpayer has not entered into an installment agreement in the previous five years.

SLIAs can be used by individual taxpayers who meet these conditions:

  • It’s for income taxes and other assessments, including unpaid trust fund penalty assessments;
  • The total assessed balance is $50,000 or less (not including accruals of penalties and interest after the original assessment of tax, penalties, and interest);
  • The taxpayer must pay within 72 months; and,
  • All required tax returns have been filed.

Taxpayers can set a GIA or SLIA by:

  • Using the online payment agreement tool at IRS.gov;
  • Filing Form 9465 with the IRS; or,
  • Contacting the IRS by phone

Terms may be shorter for old tax debt

Taxpayers should be aware that they may not get the full length of time to pay their outstanding tax balances if their debt is old. For each of these simple payment plan options, the IRS will limit the terms if the collection statute of limitations (generally 10 years from the date that tax is assessed) is shorter than the prescribed payment terms.

For example, if a taxpayer’s collection statute expires in 24 months, any GIA, SLIA, or 84-month plan will be limited to 24 months. Taxpayers who can’t afford these payments may have to consider a payment plan based on their ability to pay.

Ability-to-pay installment agreements require taxpayers to file a Collection Information Statement and prove their average monthly income and necessary living expenses. In addition, the IRS often asks taxpayers to liquidate or borrow against their assets to pay their outstanding tax bill in ability-to-pay agreements.

Fees apply
There is a setup fee for all IRS installment agreements. The fees range from $225 for installment agreements set up by phone and paid by check, to $31 for agreements set up online and paid by automatic direct debit. Taxpayers who meet low-income thresholds can get the fee waived.

Tips for all three agreements
The GIA, SLIA, and 84-month payment plans are usually the best way to set up a payment plan with the IRS. They’re usually quick and easy to set up and likely provide taxpayers with better payment terms than most other options.

Taxpayers who can’t pay according to the GIA and SLIA terms face tax liens if they owe more than $10,000. Taxpayers also need to request the GIA or SLIA before the IRS files a tax lien. After the lien is filed, taxpayers must pay their full balance to get the lien released, or pay down the balance to $25,000 to start lien-withdrawal proceedings.

Here are a few other tips related to these simple agreements:

1. Avoid a tax lien – pay down the balance to get into a SLIA. Here’s the best plan for taxpayers who owe more than $50,000: Get an extension to pay of up to 120 days, get funds to pay the balance down to under $50,000, and obtain a SLIA. Doing so will avoid the filing of a tax lien.

2. For SLIA, it’s the “assessed” balance – not the total amount owed. The $50,000 SLIA threshold is based on the taxpayer’s assessed balance – not the total amount they owe. The assessed balance includes tax, assessed penalties and interest, and all other assessments for each tax year. It doesn’t include accrued penalties and interest after the original assessment. For example, if a taxpayer’s original assessment is under $50,000 for an older tax year, he may accrue additional penalties and interest that puts the total balance over $50,000. In this situation, they would still qualify for a SLIA based on the original assessed balance. Taxpayers can also designate payments to reduce their “assessed balance only” to help them qualify for a SLIA.

3. Apply and pay automatically to reduce fees. The IRS increases installment agreement setup fees if taxpayers pay by check. Reduce the setup fee by agreeing to automatic direct debit payments. Automatic payments also avoid a monthly reminder letter from the IRS about the payment due.

4. Pay by direct debit or payroll deduction to avoid default. IRS installment agreements have a high default rate. To avoid a default, taxpayers must make their monthly payments. The best way to avoid missing a payment is to have the payment automatically deducted from the taxpayer’s financial accounts.

5. Don’t owe again. The second most common cause of defaulted installment agreements is filing future tax returns with unpaid balances. Taxpayers need to change their withholding and/or make estimated tax payments to avoid owing taxes that they can’t pay in the future.

6. Taxpayers can miss one payment a year. Most IRS payment plans allow taxpayers to miss one payment per year and not default. It’s best for the taxpayer to notify the IRS in advance if they can’t make a payment.

7. If the taxpayer’s financial situation worsens, get an ability-to-pay plan. Taxpayers can always renegotiate their payment plans if their financial circumstances change. For example, if a taxpayer loses their job, they may not be able to pay the IRS. In these cases, the taxpayer can contact the IRS and provide documentation on their ability to pay. This may mean a lower payment or even payment deferral (called currently not collectible status). Be careful here: If the taxpayer owes more than $10,000 and can’t pay within 72 months, the IRS is likely to file a tax lien.

8. Remember to ask for penalty abatement at the end of the plan. One important action to take at the end of a payment plan is to request abatement of the failure to pay penalty. Taxpayers should consider using first-time abatement or reasonable cause abatement if they qualify.

Each year, more than 3 million taxpayers get into a payment plan with the IRS. With tax reform, we can expect that more taxpayers will need a payment plan in 2019. Taxpayers who owe less than $100,000 should first look at 36-, 72-, or 84-month payment plans with the IRS. Many will also benefit from the help of a qualified tax professional to find the best option.

Need Help with an Installment Payment Plan?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A.  
 

 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243 


 


 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS Needs More $$$ To Close The Tax Gap

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help