Archive for IRS Examination

It has been QUITE a tax season! A Review of IRS Activity

According to the newly released 2012 IRS Data Book, the IRS collected almost $2.5 trillion in federal revenue and processed 237 million returns, of which almost 145 million were filed electronically. Out of the 146 million individual income tax returns filed, almost 81 percent were e-filed. More than 120 million individual income tax return filers received a tax refund, which totaled almost $322.7 billion. On average, the IRS spent 48 cents to collect $100 in tax revenue during the fiscal year, the lowest cost since 2008.

The IRS examined just under one percent of all tax returns filed and about one percent of all individual income tax returns during fiscal year 2012.  Of the 1.5 million individual tax returns examined, nearly 54,000 resulted in additional refunds.

An electronic version of the 2012 IRS Data Book can also be found on the Tax Stats and the following are some highlights worth noting.

In FY 2012, IRS initiated 5,125 criminal investigations.

In FY 2012, the IRS closed 60,793 applications for tax-exempt status and other determinations. Of those, the IRS approved tax-exempt status for 52,615 organizations. In FY 2012, the IRS recognized more than 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations and nonexempt charitable trusts.

In Fiscal Year 2012, General Counsel received 31,295 Tax Court cases involving a taxpayer contesting an IRS determination that he or she owed additional tax.

IRS workforce and the resources that the IRS spends to collect taxes and assist taxpayers. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the IRS collected more than $2.5 trillion, incurring a cost of 48 cents, on average, to collect $100.

IRS’s actual expenditures in FY 2012 was less than $12.1 billion, which was used to meet the requirements of its three core operating appropriation budget activities.

In FY 2012, the IRS employed a total workforce of 97,941, including part-time and seasonal employees.

IRS Targets – Don’t Be One.

In 2013, the IRS will focus the significant majority of their enforcement budget and subsequent activity in my opinion on three specific areas:

1. Abusive transactions and under reported income on partnership returns (IRS Form 1065).

2. Officer compensation as well as losses taken in excess of basis in Sub-chapter S Corporations (IRS Form 1120-S).

3. Under reported income via Automated Under Reporter Inventory Strategy Database (AUR-ISD)

In 2012, the IRS started a business information-matching program and a Form 1099-K matching program. The IRS sent new notices in late 2012 questioning businesses on the accuracy of their returns, based on information statements filed under business employer identification numbers (EINs). The IRS also matched Forms 1099-K to business returns and sent inquiries to taxpayers with potential discrepancies, requesting explanations for possible unreported income.  I have been informed by reliable sources inside the Service that in 2013, the IRS will expand this effort to address small business under reporting vastly beyond its reaches in 2012.

Denver Colorado IRS Stakeholder Meeting Notes

Bessie Castro-Zepeda, Colorado Department of Revenue

Tax Practitioners only helpline; M-F 8am – 430pm (303) 232-2419

Capital Gain Subtraction: For 2012 returns, the department will make every effort to verify required documentation was included in the filing of the return before contacting the taxpayer for more information. That is why it is important the following supporting documents be submitted with the return.

□ A DR 1316 form, “Colorado Source Capital Gain Affidavit” must be completed and included with the return (electronic or paper). With e-filed returns, attaching the form to the electronic return or submitting it as an E-Filer Attachment in Revenue Online is not sufficient. For electronic returns, the information must be data entered on the DR 1316 portion of the return.

□ A copy of the closing statements for both the purchase and sale of the property, or official documentation from the county detailing purchase date and price and sale date and price

□ Copies of the first two pages of the corresponding federal return, Schedule D and any Schedule D attachments

□ If the capital gain was received via a pass-through entity, documentation that the interest in the underlying business satisfies the required five-year holding period

□ If the capital gain is claimed on a 2009 or prior year return and was due to the sale of stock or ownership interest, documentation verifying it was held for at least five years prior to the sale, that the company was a Colorado company for at least five years prior to the sale, and that the stock was acquired after May 9, 1994.

If form DR 1316 is included, and the capital gain subtraction claimed is $100,000 or less, the department will continue its practice of reviewing the capital gain subtraction claim two to three years after the return is originally filed, when the IRS provides federal return information to Colorado’s Discovery Section.

For more information, see publication FYI Income 15.

Kenneth Cooper, IRS Examination

Western Area has a lot of priority projects and initiatives coming up in the future. The work plan has expanded exponentially, yet the resources are getting smaller. With this type of blueprint, there is a sense of urgency to close cases.

Our return preparer visits have decreased. This year we did less than half of what we did last year. The visits were more educational visits than audits. We have completed the return preparer visits for this filing season.

Our high income non-filer program consists of individuals with an income of more than $200,000. There is a high non-response from these types of high income non-filers.

1099K information reporting is up tremendously.

Goretti Lysek and Tamara Hobson, Automated Collection Site (ACS)

There are currently three new changes to ACS.

Individual cases that can be worked in ACS have increased from $100,000-$250,000.

ACS is no longer asking for substantiation on financials unless the account will not be paid within the statute of limitations.

BMF/trust fund accounts have increased from $10,000 to $25,000 and now if a client can pay within 120 days they can be setup on an installment agreement for $999,999, or less than $1 million.

Question: Is there a change of when liens are filed?

Response: Liens are filed and starting at $10,000 and up. If you’re on a direct debit installment agreement the amount increases to $50,000. And of course a lien can be withdrawn if less than $25,000.

Comment: An ACS letter was received two weeks after the date on the letter. Practitioner will send the information to Debbie, who will forward it to Goretti.

Comment: Financial review on partial pay installment agreement letter not received then it is defaulted before we get the paperwork for the financial information.

Comment: Direct debit installment agreement payments coming out two to three days late creates a default on the installment agreement

Response: There were some issues in late June with direct debit installment agreements going to Collection. About 54% were deemed late and now the program is being analyzed.

Comment: There seems to be a disconnect when we contact ACS and speak to three different people and receive three different answers about an installment agreement.

Stephanie Valencia, Taxpayer Advocate

Nina Olson’s report to Congress was released this week.

The alternative minimum tax patch has been fixed permanently.

Taxpayer Advocate office will not accept any return cases until March. Hardship cases will get looked at individually.

An open house will be held in Denver in March or April with case advocates and managers. Debbie Rodgers will receive the information to forward to all practitioners.

Andrea Ventura, Collection

Collection has a new Area Director Tom Mathews who reports to the Western area on January 14.

Trust fund recovery protests – If we receive new information within 60 days we can revisit the claim. The taxpayer uses Form 1153W to reopen the case.

Collection has new Form 433A and 433B Collection Information Statements. Form 433A has more details about wage earner/self-employed individuals. Section 5 includes monthly income and expenses. We can use the old forms until June 1, 2013.

Some issues with direct debit installment agreements are that the revenue officer did not get an original signature on the direct debit application, and the bank information was incorrect.

Question: The new collection information statement forms don’t ask for supporting information, why?

Response: Substantiation is still necessary in most cases.  A priority of the area Director is to reduce defaults on installment agreements.  The Revenue Officer determines what type of supporting documents may be required after making contact with the taxpayer or their representatives.

IRS Restrictions on Contacting Taxpayers

I’ve worked with many good people inside the IRS on a wide variety of cases. So please do not get me wrong I’m not bashing ALL IRS employees. However like any big bloated bureaucracy I’ve also worked with some real shit heads inside the IRS who take their orders to advocate on behalf of the US government a little too seriously. When indeed government bureaucrats should be focused on getting maters resolved some use their vested authority to wreak havoc on good people’s lives using what I refer to as procedural maneuvers.

One such example is when IRS Revenue Officers can negatively impact the ability of taxpayers to obtain appropriate and effective representation during collection investigations.  According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) “IRS employees are required to stop an interview if the taxpayer requests to consult with a representative and may not bypass a representative without supervisory approval.” Evidently this is not happening as provided for by law in that “between October 2010 and September 2011, TIGTA’s Office of Investigations closed 19 direct contact complaints involving IRS employees, of which eight were disciplined or counseled for their actions by IRS management officials.” AKA – a slap on the wrist.

The IRS’s compliance with Internal Revenue Code Sections 7521(b)(2) and (c) is in my opinion woefully inadequate. The audit report I reference goes on to state that “in the sample of 73 cases, TIGTA found that 14 revenue officers deviated from procedures by: 1) contacting the taxpayer directly, instead of the authorized representative, on the initial or subsequent contact in the collection investigation, 2) not sending copies of taxpayer correspondence to the authorized representative, or 3) not allowing enough time for the taxpayer to obtain a representative.” The report in question clearly states “IRS personnel are intentionally disregarding the direct contact provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.”

As such if you are under investigation you need to know your rights. You also need to keep in mind that IRS employees are specifically trained to create the perception that they are ‘helping’ you ‘achieve compliance’ when indeed they are compiling evidence to portray you as a delinquent or even a criminal. Check out the report yourself here ->

http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2012reports/201230089fr.html.

IRS Stakeholder Liaison Meeting Summary

The following are the notes from the most recent IRS Stakeholder Liaison Meeting held in Denver Colorado as prepared by IRS Senior Stakeholder Liaison Deborah Rodgers

Michael Shuler,  Local Taxpayer Advocate

Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate’s (NTA) objectives report was released in June, revealed some issues that will be coming out in the annual report in January. Some of Nina’s concerns were around the difficult filing season. The expiring tax provisions cause chaos for the tax professionals and taxpayers, when Congress waits until the end of the year to address these provisions. The AMT tax, sales tax deduction, mortgage insurance premium deduction, and age 70 1/2 IRA charitable contributions are included in this list and are  usually retroactive when reinstated.

In 2013 ,  the Bush tax cuts sunset. These include the long-term capital gains rate cuts, child tax credit and the adoption credit.

Tax fraud and identity theft are growing. Innocent people are caught in the system to prevent fraud ID theft. The ID theft line is understaffed. One in nine calls were getting through during the filing season.

The Advocate’s office is also concerned about IRS disregarding the Taxpayer Assistance Orders (TAOs). The TAO process is provided by statute. A TAO is effective because it can raise issues to higher levels of management.  Taxpayer Advocate Service  is successful with TAOsevery day, but there are issues with the program raised in the NTA’s Objectives Report, including  there not being any consequences if the TAO is disregarded. The Systemic Advocacy Management System also known as SAMS is another very effective way to raise issues. Every one of these will get a high level contact and some result in systemic advocacy projects.  Sam’s link is:  http://apps.irs.gov/app/samsnet/IssueQualification.jsp

Question: Are you aware of any steps to fix the OVDP program?

Response:  No.  The OVDP program is closed.  The OVDI is the current program.  TAS has raised the issue through TAOs and a TAD about IRS not following their own FAQ #35 which appeared to state that reasonable cause and mitigating factors could be considered in the calculation of the closing  agreements.

Comment: In cases of inadvertent or inherited funds one size does not fit all.

Response: The IRS says that the participants can always withdraw from the voluntary program.  Most people don’t look at withdrawal as a viable option. It should be considered in those types of cases.

Comment: A lot of practitioners are concerned about their advice.  Although we cannot offer comment on what advice to provide to your clients, the National Taxpayer Advocate is continuing to advocate for changes to the program that will address the “one size does not fit all” criticism and provide for a more fair process for those who did not shift assets overseas to avoid tax reporting but inadvertently got caught in a non-disclosure.

Bessie Castro-Zepeda, Colorado Department of Revenue

Q: Why does the CDOR send out tax notices disallowing credits and deductions on e-filed returns PRIOR to reviewing the supporting documentation that is mailed in with form DR 1778 “E-filer Attachment Form”?

A: It is the policy of the Taxpayer Service Division, in the event of a review of a credit or deduction claimed on an e-filed return, to wait 30 days for supporting documentation to be received. If the documentation is not received after the 30 day window, the credits/deductions are denied and a letter is sent requesting the backup documentation.

Q: Why is the CDOR disallowing the Colorado Minimum Tax Credit on line 31 of Form 104CR when the credit is simply a calculation based from information reported on the Federal return?

A: The Colorado Minimum tax credit is being disallowed in cases where Form 104AMT is missing or incomplete. There may have initially been a training issue where the credit was being disallowed incorrectly by an examiner but for the most part, the credit is denied due to missing or incomplete information.

In general, CDOR and, specifically the Income Tax Accounting Section, only denies credits/deductions when there is missing or incomplete documentation. The tax booklet makes it clear what documentation is needed when a credit is claimed. Most of the issues we (Income Tax Accounting Section) run into are missing documentation on amended returns. The taxpayer may have claimed a credit on the original filing and supplied the appropriate documentation, but if the credit is unchanged (or even reduced) on the amended form and there is no supporting documentation we will deny it.

A few tips for filing this year: It is highly encouraged that e-file is used to file returns. Also, we encourage the use of our website, Revenue Online (www.colorado.gov/revenueonline) to file protests and for taxpayers to review their accounts. This is the preferred method to correspond with DOR as the phone system is very difficult to get through on.

The inclusion of forms (104cr, 104pn) and all backup documentation on original AND amended returns needs to be stressed. Even if a credit remains unchanged on an amended filing, it will be denied if the corresponding form is not attached.

To ensure payments are correctly posted to the proper account, ACH debits are recommended – as well as payment through our online portal (this is done through Revenue Online website).

Question: What if it is a carryover from prior year do we still have to resubmit?

Response: We will follow up on this question.

Goretti Lysek and Douglas Wildfong, Automated Collection Site (ACS)

Goretti spoke to the Colorado Society of Enrolled Agents in May about the new provisions of the Fresh Start program. She responded to some questions that came out of that presentation.

Question: When calling into ACS representative asked for Form 2848, then transferred the call and the next assistor asked for the 2848 again, what is happening?

Response: If the taxpayer identification number is input correctly the call will go directly to  ACS, otherwise it will be directed to Accounts  Management first.

Question: Practitioners were set up on an installment agreement and the installment agreement defaulted, no fault of the taxpayer.

Response: The installment agreement needed substantiation. This installment agreement should have been set up as an IA pending, but some assistors did not set IA pending so levies ensued. We reminded assistors about this problem.

Question: Why do federal tax lien withdrawals for direct debit installment agreements take so long?

Response: We need to get the first three months before withdrawal can take place, but it is taking six months and we will look into that.

If an installment agreement request is beyond ACS authority the case will be taken out of queue and sent to the field.

Question: Is the office that processes 433D’s separate from ACS?

Response: Yes, after it leaves ACS and gets manager approval, Compliance Services Collection Operation (CSCO) takes over. We are analyzing where the delays are and hope to improve the timing.

Michael: If there is a hardship bring it to the Taxpayer Advocate’s attention. The Taxpayer Advocate’s Office can withdraw a lien within 4 to 5 days. Taxpayer Advocate can address the issue separately from the direct debit installment agreement if they can’t wait for six months due to the hardship.

Diane Sandoval, Collection

Question: Are there any appeal rights available to third-party if a revenue officer asserts nominee/alter ego liability against him/her/it?  Are there any appeal rights for collection action taken against property held by a purported nominee/alter ego third-party?  In this context, if the Service files a tax lien and/or issues a Final Notice of Intent to Levy to a third-party nominee/alter ego, does that party have standing to request a hearing with Appeals?  What about the taxpayer?  Neither?

Response:  The nominee only has CAP appeal rights (using Form 9423); the nominee would not be granted CDP rights.  The taxpayer does not have an appeal right in regard to the nominee’s lien.  As far as post-appeal rights, they can petition based on the lien to the Federal District Court.

Question:  Historically, a revenue officer would grant an in-business taxpayer owing trust-fund tax an installment agreement, if, among other conditions, the individuals who would potentially be liable for the trust-fund recovery penalties would grant an extension to assess these penalties.  These assessment extensions are no longer requested and/or accepted, and the revenue officer now insists on making the assessments of the trust-fund recovery penalties before granting the in-business installment agreement.  Why did this change and is there any negotiation on this?  In some instances, a business might qualify for an installment agreement, but potentially responsible individuals will not consent to the assessment of the trust-fund recovery penalties, thus creating conflict which would not have previously presented itself.

Response: There is not a one-size-fits-all answer for this question; the answer will depend on the type of installment agreement and the individual taxpayer.

If a Partial Payment Installment Agreement is being considered, the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) will usually be assessed because the underlying liability will not be fully paid.  The only exception to this requirement is in circumstances in which there is no collection potential from the responsible officers.

Before granting In-Business Installment Agreements the TFRP must be considered, the Assessment Statute Expiration Date (ASED) protected, and an assessment determination made on all in-business trust fund cases.  Area management must ensure consideration is given to securing waivers to extend the statutory period for assessment from each responsible individual when the delinquent taxes will not be fully paid prior to the original ASED.  In general, the Revenue Officer will not request the assessment of the TFRP if business taxpayers meet the terms of the installment agreements.  However, TFRPs must be considered on the potentially responsible persons of the business entity based on the following procedures.  If the agreement will not full pay all balances due at least one year prior to the earliest ASED, then the RO will assemble all documentation for completion of the penalty to the point of proposing the assessment, complete interviews of all potentially responsible parties, secure F433-A (Collection Information Statement) from all potentially responsible parties and request signature of F2750 (Waiver Extending Statutory Period for Assessment of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty).  If a potentially responsible officer refuses to extend the ASED, and the TFRP is determined collectible, the RO is to complete and recommend assessment of the TFRP for that responsible person.  If potentially responsible persons have the ability to pay from current assets or income, the Revenue Officer should request payments be made to reduce the trust fund portion of the liability.  If they have the ability to make a significant payment or payments on the trust fund portion of liabilities, but do not make such payments (or do not make plans for payment from personal assets), the Revenue Officer should consider recommending assessment of the TFRP.

If taxpayers are currently ”Repeaters,” the TFRP will normally be assessed.

If accounts qualify for In-Business Trust Fund  Express agreements, the Revenue Officer must ensure that the ASED is protected.

Question:  Closely related to #5, it seems that many (but not all) revenue officers will resolve a business account with trust-fund tax issues and assess the trust-fund recovery penalties where appropriate, but then close out the file without resolving the individual collection cases.  This creates the needless hassle of having to resolve the individual trust-fund recovery penalty cases with the Automated Collection System, even though the revenue officer is generally in the best position to resolve the individual cases.  Is this new policy, or does this approach differ depending upon the area or manager?  In one circumstance, a revenue officer properly assessed the trust-fund recovery penalty, but refused to work the individual collection case and closed it.  When this individual case was eventually assigned to the Automated Collection System, they indicated that it was at too high of a dollar threshold to resolve and sent it back to the field……to the same revenue officer.  Is this an isolated incident?

Response:  It is my expectation in the Denver Territory that related IMF and BMF cases should be worked simultaneously by the same Revenue Officer, as appropriate.   However, if there are no additional assessments on the IMF case and the RO has to wait on the TFRP to be assessed, there would be no case for the RO to hold open or to work until the TFRP assessment has been completed and posts to the account.

Lois Deitrich, Examination

Identity theft is a very hot topic being seen daily in exam, as well as our walk-ins across the country. SB/SE Exam proactively required every employee to take a briefing on identity theft by 12-31-2011.  Unraveling returns erroneously filed is difficult; the first return received by the Service posts (since the Service doesn’t know it is not the “real” return) and when the legitimate taxpayer files their return; that is often the first indication the Service (and the taxpayer) has that their identity has been stolen.

Following link is to identity theft information. http://www.irs.gov/privacy/article/0,,id=186436,00.html

Phishing schemes are still alive and well- phishing@irs.gov  is the link to send your suspicious e-mails to. We close them down as quickly as possible. IRS cannot e-mail you back but we are working on it a way to get a secure “portal” to legitimately answer POAs and taxpayers who email the Service.

We have frequently asked questions for the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) program on www.irs.gov . This program is heavily governed by technical experts. Examiners will discuss the options for taxpayers to ”opt-out” or remove themselves from the program when their participation in the program is not feasible.  In some instances, the penalty on the account exceeds 300% of the account.  Examiners look at what is most sensible and work very hard to work with POAs and taxpayers to achieve a good result for both the taxpayer and the Government.

Examination is not sure how we are going to respond to health care. There are a lot of high level people working on it.

Taxpayers who denounce citizenship because of taxes are usually approached as offering a frivolous argument.  For more information on frivolous arguments, http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

Gary Easley and Linda Alden, Appeals

Gary Easley replaced Jack Estoll as the Appeals Lead Team Manager. Appeals hired Appeals Officer Melodie Farris who is an attorney.

Appeals focus at the Nationwide Tax Forums is the topic of fast-track mediation.

Question: How long is it taking to complete a non-docketed case in Appeals?

Response: Inventory has dropped somewhat, hopefully will be less than a year to work out an agreement.

A fast-track appeal is a way to get resolution to a case more quickly. If it doesn’t work the taxpayer still has appeal rights hearing within 120 days. This process can help move the parties from their hard and fast positions.

Question: Are only certain people allowed to work such cases?

Response: Yes mediation training is required.

Question: Can small (non-Large Business and International) tax cases be heard?

Response: Yes, we have five trained mediators in Denver.  And if necessary, we can bring in other trained mediators if we need to.

Question: What type of cases can go through this program?

Response: See Publication 4167 and associated Revenue Procedures for details.

Lilia Ruiz, Criminal Investigation

Criminal Investigation investigates ID theft issues. We have one employee assigned to ID theft issues, his name is George Warnock at 303-603-4931. Criminal Investigation looks to see if these ID theft issues are tied to other schemes. We continue to investigate unscrupulous tax preparers.

Question: Non foreign voluntary disclosures where do these go?

Response: The Domestic Voluntary Disclosure (DVD) will need to be made to the Philadelphia Lead Development Center.  Attached is a template that POAs and taxpayers can use to disclose information relative to their domestic disclosure.

It was decided that centralization of this process is essential to processing these types of disclosures.  Once the Criminal Investigation Philadelphia Lead Development Center reviews the information they will direct the POA or taxpayer on where to send all other applicable documents.

The website addressing voluntary disclosures has not been updated to reflect this process and it still lists our local agent as a contact.  However, the attached procedures should be followed.

Question: Is there a resurgence of frivolous positions?

Response: No more than normal– just one of the things we investigate.

Question: Will you pursue criminally?

Response: Not necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances. We prefer to go after the promoter.

Question: Any other hot topics?

Response: False 1099s, tax evasion schemes.

Nancy Carver, Counsel

Nancy Carver is the new Area Counsel Associate for the district. She left private practice in New York and has been with the Internal Revenue Service for 12 years, spending most of her time in Washington DC.

Area Counsel does advisory work for other functions. We preview statutory notices, and indirect methods of proof. Tax Court cases include international issues, conservation easement cases, abusive Roth IRAs, identity theft, hobby losses, first-time home buyers, unreported income, cancellation of debt, innocent spouse, and collection due process.

Question: Is there anyone working medical marijuana issues?

Response: One person in the group is working those types of cases.

Tax Court attorneys don’t have settlement authority. They must go through Nancy Carver or Bob Varra.  If more than $1 million it is elevated.

If an attorney gives advice on an Exam case, the same attorney cannot handle the case in Appeals.

Michael Rogers, Governmental Liaison

Governmental Liaison (GL) has scaled down to two areas East and West.

GL is engaged in several data exchange programs with State of Colorado. The state income tax levy program netted IRS 18 million in its first year of state refunds.

Our partnership with the Department of Motor Vehicles includes background checks for car dealers. IRS will perform compliance checks for Department of Motor Vehicles.

Colorado Department of Labor will be participating in the Treasury Offset Program (TOPs).  This will allow them to intercept federal income tax refunds to offset any debt a person may have with the Dept. of Labor.

We are currently in dialogue with the city of Denver to institute licensing compliance checks annually.

Our congressional office visits are centered on the issue of identity theft.

Charles Musso, Supervisory Taxpayer Advocate

Chuck accepted a job with the Safeguards division.  Chuck also mentioned that he interviewed for the Local Taxpayer Advocate position.

Chuck mentioned that the State issued a public announcement declaring the Colorado Wildfire areas disasters.

Kristen Hoiby, Stakeholder Liaison Field

Stakeholder Liaison is still in the business of responding to education requests from practitioner organizations. We are exploring new and innovative ways to educate the practitioner community. We are in the process of obtaining our own webinar system and we also partner with other agencies in using their webinar systems.

One of our major focus areas is the registered tax return preparer’s and enrolled agent CE program.

There are several webcasts that are available to view on IRS.gov. They include ethics and  authorizations and can be found at http://www.irsvideos.gov/Professional/UpcomingWebinars

With all the discussion today, Kristen mentioned a useful chart on IRS.gov which is a  comparison of FATCA vs FBAR requirements.

She also encouraged practitioners to sign up for the electronic FATCA information list.

There are many questions surrounding the RTRP test and why so many individuals have not yet taken the test. We encourage practitioners to take the test as soon as possible.

Service Fee v. Tip – IRS Guidance to Examiners

According to IRS administrative guidelines to its examiners concerning Rev. Rul. 2012-18, published in the 2012-26 Internal Revenue Bulletin, when performing a tip examination (aka audit), IRS examiners must ensure that service fees or charges are properly characterized as wages and not tips. If the payment is not a tip then it is a service charge and reported as wages.

Whether payments should be reported as tips or service charges basically distills down to whether the following factors were present:

(1) The payment was made free from compulsion;
(2) The customer had the unrestricted right to determine amount;
(3) The payment was not be the subject of negotiation or dictated by employer policy; and
(4) The customer determined who receives the payment.

Automatic gratuities (for parties of a certain size for example) should according to this directive to examiners be reported as service charges and not tips in my humble opinion. Comments on the interim guidance may be submitted either electronically at TIP.Program@irs.gov or in writing to:

Internal Revenue Service
National Tip Reporting Compliance
3251 North Evergreen Dr. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49525

Also I learned that the IRS intends to solicit public comments on proposed changes to it’s existing voluntary tip compliance agreements.  Specifically, the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment (TRAC) program and other variations of TRAC agreements.

The principal author of this revenue ruling is Linda L. Conway-Hataloski of the Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt & Government Entities).  For further information regarding this revenue ruling, contact Linda L. Conway-Hataloski at 202-622-0047.

Is Your Activity For Profit Allowing for Business Deductions – Rundlett v. Commissioner

You are allowed deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the course of business under §162, but you must also keep adequate records to substantiate expenses which can at times seem esoteric if not convoluted. Deductible travel expenses for example under §274(d) are based on whether or not the travel relates to a business activity or is for pleasure, while §162(a)(2) specifically states the amounts cannot be lavish or extravagant under the circumstances.

No single factor or set of factors can determine if you are engaged in a business activity for profit, but all facts and circumstances must be taken into account §183-2(b)Three common questions are considered when determining whether or not the activity is for profit or a hobby subject to the hobby loss rules under §183.

• Did you conduct the activity in a manner similar to comparable activities that are profitable?

• Did you maintain complete and accurate books and records for the activity?

• Did you change operating procedures, adopt new techniques or abandon unprofitable methods to ensure profitability of the activity?

According to Douglas Rundlett, et ux. v. Commissioner TC Memo 2011-22, even though you may conducted an activity in a businesslike manner you should also demonstrate that you adopt new techniques or strategies to limit future losses or risk being viewed as being engaged in a not for profit activity or hobby.

Interest Deduction Determined Based on Use of Loan Proceeds – Ellington v. Commissioner

If you incur interest expense on loans you should use the tracing rules of Reg. §1.163-8T to determine whether the interest expense is for:

1. business

2. investment

3. passive activities. or is

4. personal in nature

The regulation focuses on the use of the loan proceeds, not the item or items used as collateral for the loan.

Reg. §1.163-8T(c)(1) even sets forth an example of a taxpayer pledging his corporate stock as security for a car loan. In the example, the conclusion is that the loan interest is personal based on its use to purchase a personal use vehicle. In order to properly deduct the interest, it is essential to determine and document the use of the loan proceeds received as evidenced in James Ellington, et ux. v. Commissioner TC Memo 2011-193.

IRS Document 6209 – 8A Master File Codes

The first thing that I always do when investigating a tax dispute is pull the transcripts from the IRS for review. They can be really hard to read if you don’t understand the Transaction Codes referenced. Transaction Codes are defined in IRS Document 6209Section 8A. This is a valuable resource in understanding how your account has evolved with the IRS.

Employee Tool and Equipment Plans

Tool and Equipment Plans generally require employees to provide their own tools. Some plans purport to receive tax-favored treatment as “accountable plans” under the definition of adjusted gross income in Internal Revenue Code § 62(c). If you are expected to use your own tools and equipment on the job and get reimbursed be very careful in understanding the definition of an “accountable plan” because the Internal Revenue Service has established a compliance team to address significant concerns with certain Employee Tool and Equipment Plans that purport to receive tax-favored treatment as accountable plans. It’s all spelled out in the Alert. Here’s the facts as I understand.

1. According to ILM 201120021 a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement that pays an amount regardless of whether an expense is paid or incurred or reasonably expected to be paid or incurred by the employee in performing services for the employer violates the business connection requirement of an accountable plan under Treas. Reg. § 1.62-2(d)(3)(i). Accordingly, payments made under the arrangement are treated as made under a nonaccountable plan. Amounts treated as paid under a nonaccountable plan must be included in the employee’s gross income for the taxable year, are subject to withholding and payment of employment taxes, and must be reported as wages or other compensation on the employee’s Form W-2.

2. The IRS’ Chief Counsel issued the following Advice – ILM 200745018 concluding that an employer’s tool reimbursement plan does not satisfy the requirements of an accountable plan.

3. IRS Revenue Ruling 2005-52 holds that tool allowances paid to employees are not paid under an accountable plan because the substantiation and return of excess requirements are not met.

4. A Coordinated Issue Paper Revised on July 2,2008 concludes  that Employee Tool and Equipment Plans  under which amounts are paid to employees for the use of their tools and equipment, do not meet the accountable plan requirements.

5. An IRS Private Letter Ruling (200930029) states that an employer’s expense reimbursement plan satisfies the business connection, substantiation, and return of excess requirements of an accountable plan.  Payments made under the Plan were allowed exclusion from the Technician’s income and not considered wages subject to the withholding and payment of employment taxes because the Plan only reimbursed covered costs that the Technician substantiated.

If you are an employer that requires your employees to provide their own tools you may want to review and understand this private letter ruling and only provide reimbursement for tool expense upon written substantiation (aka receipt). It is best practice to understand the nuances of accountable and nonaccountable tool and equipment plans. A blanket payment made to an employee on a regular and consistent basis is usually considered income subject to employment tax regardless of what it is called.