Penalty Abatement Statements – A Humorous Example

Taxpayers have the right to request relief from penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS sets very specific criteria for the granting of penalty abatements. It can be very difficult to demonstrate that a taxpayer’s circumstances meet the criteria for penalty relief. Most of the time, we will request a written statement from the taxpayer explaining the circumstances that lead to the accrual of their tax liability, and then use that to create our own penalty abatement request that fits to one of the IRS criterion, cites case law, etc.

Most of the time, taxpayer’s have some reason for not paying their taxes that ties back to not having the money to do so. Lack of funds does not meet IRS reasonable cause criteria, but the circumstances behind the lack of funds sometimes can be reasonable cause.

Occasionally, the taxpayer’s explanation for failing to pay their taxes doesn’t leave us with a lot to work with. On rare occasions, we receive an explanation that is quite humorous.

This example is from a taxpayer that elected to continue NOT paying his taxes because it was financially convenient. With a struggling business, a divorce, and alimony and child support to pay, the taxpayer was experiencing financial hardship. He wrote:

I financed [business] shortfalls with credit card advances and soon I had unsupportable credit card debts and many other expenses…

As things started to turn around for the taxpayer, he continues:

In early 2001 I noticed that I somehow had enough money to pay my bills. Later, I discovered that I had inadvertently neglected to call in the 941 payment [for fourth quarter], even though the check had been generated by the accounting program. I was consternated but simply didn’t have the money to make good.

This is a common reason as to why people miss a Federal Tax Deposit, often several in a row. They then try to make it up when they can. However, in this case:

I expected a notice from the IRS daily, but nothing happened and when it was time for the next 941 payment I thought, “This is the kind of tax relief I need right now.” As an expedience, I didn’t pay the 941’s for the next several months and used the respite to get back on my feet financially.

Doing this enabled the taxpayer to get current with his vendors, credit cards, etc. He skipped his payroll tax … Continue reading

Super-secret RCP reduction tip for Offers in Compromise

I know you’d rather hear about marketing, but I have something that could be of benefit to your clients that I want you to know about.

Based on recent conversations with a few tax practitioners, there is apparently a super-secret method for reducing the Reasonable Collection Potential calculated for an Offer in Compromise. I’m calling it “super-secret” because nobody I’ve been talking to about it so far has noticed it. It’s a method that is hiding in broad daylight, because it’s actually printed right on the Form 656.

One of the elements of the Fresh Start changes that the IRS didn’t make a big deal about in the media was that, for the third time in 18 months, they decided to slightly alter the Offer in Compromise payment options. They reverted to the “Lump Sum Cash” and “Periodic Payment” naming conventions that existed a couple years ago, but made the payment terms for the Lump Sum Cash offer much more clear.

You’re probably already aware that the remaining income multiplier was reduced from 48/60 down to 12/24. If the Offer in Compromise will be paid in full within 5 months of acceptance, the multiplier is 12, otherwise it’s 24 months. You’re probably also aware that it’s currently taking about seven months for an Offer Examiner to be assigned, plus another month or two for the Offer to be processed and accepted.

This gives your client nearly 9 months to get their finances straightened out. More than enough time to figure out how to come up with the Offer money and put it aside. In fact, they can have even more time. After acceptance, the Offer doesn’t need to be paid over the course of 5 months, it needs to be fully paid within 5 months, in order to qualify for the 12 month multiplier.

See the difference there?

In reality, from the time of submitting their Offer, your client can reasonably expect to have a whopping 12 to 14 months to come up with the cash. By filing the Offer with a 12 month multiplier, you get the lowest possible RCP calculation. You simply file it as a Lump Sum Cash Offer, include the 20% down, and need to come up with the other 80% a full 5 months after acceptance. In other words, in section 5 of Form 656, you put ONE payment, dated 5 months after acceptance of the Offer.

With … Continue reading

5 Simple Steps To Achieving Mitt Romney’s Tax Rate

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been getting blasted for months about the fact this effective tax rate is so incredibly low. As an Enrolled Agent, I find the discussion surrounding Romney’s tax situation to be particularly interesting, because there isn’t a single taxpayer on the face of the Earth that personally wants to pay more taxes than they have to. If such a strange person does exist, there is no government that won’t happily cash your check (in fact, the U.S. government happily accepts credit cards for donations).

I’d really like to get on the phone with all these reporters and news anchors blasting Romney for his tax reduction strategies. I’d bet $100 that you can’t find one that would, themselves, personally agree to pay more taxes than they need to. Yet, they will happily ridicule somebody else for doing so.

Actually, I need to back up, because there is actually one person I know of that voluntarily pays more taxes than he’s required to. Guess who that is? Mitt Romney.

That’s right. In order to keep a campaign promise earlier this year stating that he has paid at least 13% in taxes each of the past 10 years, Mitt Romney voluntarily failed to claim $1.75 million in charitable contributions on his 2011 Form 1040. In other words, he only deducted $2.25 million of the total $4 million he actually donated to non-profits. If he had claimed the full deduction, his 2011 effective tax rate would only have been 12%.

Mitt Romney’s strategy for only paying an effective tax rate in the low teens is perfectly legal.

The Internal Revenue Code requires every American citizen, at home or abroad, to pay taxes on all income, from whatever source derived, whether that money is made in America, or overseas. The law requires everybody to pay their mandatory tax amount, and not a single penny more. The tax laws are the tax laws, and the law is the same for every citizen. Just because you are rich does not magically change the tax laws (just ask Wesley Snipes, serving three years for tax fraud).

Some people complain that the tax code favors the wealthy. This simply isn’t true. The tax code provides equal opportunity for all. Equal opportunity to minimize, but also equal opportunity to get screwed.

What does this mean, and and how can you take advantage of it?

First of all, realize … Continue reading