Larry's Tax Law

As I have reported in my previous blog posts, the IRS continues to get hit with severe budget cuts.  The result is not pretty: (i) tax collections are on the decline; (ii) the Tax Gap is growing; (iii) taxpayer non-compliance is on the rise; (iii) the availability of taxpayer education has diminished; (iv) the IRS’s customer service continues to worsen (e.g., long waits to speak with service center representatives, elimination of the opportunity for most taxpayers to have an in-person appeal conference, etc.); and (v) the IRS is outsourcing collections.

As previously reported, former U.S. Tax Court judge Diane L. Kroupa and her now estranged husband, Robert E. Fackler, were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing a false tax return, and obstruction of an Internal Revenue Service audit. On September 23, 2016, Mr. Fackler pleaded guilty to attempting to evade more than $400,000 in federal taxes. He also signed a plea agreement wherein he sets out in some detail a long-term scheme, which he proclaims was masterminded by Ms. Kroupa to evade taxes.

Effective October 1, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) changed its approach to conducting appeals conferences. The changes were likely adopted by the government under the guise of efficiency and cost savings. With that said, the changes probably will result in increased negative taxpayer perception of the IRS administrative process, and a significant reduction in prompt and fair resolution of matters at the conference level.

In a nutshell, the major change adopted by the IRS, subject to limited exceptions, is that the government will conduct all appeals conferences by telephone (or a virtual conference, if available). IRM § 8.6.1.4.1. An in-person conference generally will only be allowed if the appeals conferee (i.e., the “Appeals Technical Employee” or “ATE”) and the Appeals Team Manager (“ATM”) concur that it is appropriate and reasonable. As such, they must agree:

As reported in my April 2016 blog post, former U.S. Tax Court judge Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert E. Fackler, were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing a false tax return, and obstruction of an Internal Revenue Service audit. The indictment resulted from an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

Many of our readers have asked me about the likely controversy that will ensue following the death of Prince. In fact, two readers feel, since I have been reporting about some of the controversy surrounding the Estate of Michael Jackson, that I must write about Prince’s estate and the expected controversy surrounding it. So, here we go!

Prince Rogers Nelson, known to his fans as “Prince,” passed away on April 21, 2016 in Carver County, Minnesota at his estate, Paisley Park. He was 57 years old. The media reports that he left no spouse or children, but he is survived by a sister and five half siblings. In addition, the initial accounts are that he died without a Last Will and Testament. What is likely to follow is best summed up by the title to Prince’s 1981 hit song “Controversy.”

Controversy involving the pop star’s estate could arise on many fronts. Potential instigators of controversy include the taxing authorities and persons claiming to be legal heirs of Prince.

In March 2014, I reported on the all-out battle that was ensuing in the U.S. Tax Court between the IRS and the Estate of Michael Jackson over the value of the late pop singer’s estate. It began in 2013, when the estate petitioned the court, alleging that the Service’s assessment, based upon the assertion that the estate underreported its estate tax obligation by more than $500 million, was incorrect. In addition, the estate challenged the IRS’s additional assessment of almost $200 million in penalties. Keep in mind that although these numbers are staggering, they do not include the estate’s potential state of California estate tax obligations.

On November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act (“Act”) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. One of the many provisions of the Act significantly impacts: (i) the manner in which entities taxed as partnerships[1] will be audited by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); and (ii) who is required to pay the tax resulting from any corresponding audit adjustments. These new rules generally are effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. As discussed below, because of the nature of these rules, partnerships need to consider taking action now in anticipation of the new rules.

The Current Landscape

Entities taxed as partnerships generally do not pay income tax. Rather, they compute and report their taxable income and losses on IRS Form 1065. The partnership provides each of its partners with a Schedule K-1, which allows the partners to report to the IRS their share of the partnership’s income or loss on their own tax returns and pay the corresponding tax. Upon audit, pursuant to uniform audit procedures enacted as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”), examinations of partnerships are conducted generally under one of the following scenarios:

• • For partnerships with ten (10) or fewer eligible partners,[2] examinations are conducted by a separate audit of the partnership and then an audit of each of the partners;

• • For partnerships with greater than ten (10) partners and/or partnerships with ineligible partners, examinations are conducted under uniform TEFRA audit procedures, whereby the examination, conducted at the partnership level, is binding on the taxpayers who were partners of the partnership during the year under examination; and

• • For partnerships with 100 or more partners, at the election of the partnership, examinations may be conducted under uniform “Electing Large Partnership” audit procedures, whereby the examination, conducted at the partnership level, is binding on the partners of the partnership existing at the conclusion of the audit.

Lawmakers believed a change in TEFRA audit framework was necessary for the efficient administration of Subchapter K of the Code. If a C corporation is audited, the IRS can assess an additional tax owing against a single taxpayer—the very taxpayer under examination—the C corporation. In the partnership space, however, despite the possible application of the uniform audit procedures, the IRS is required to examine the partnership and then assess and collect tax from multiple taxpayers (i.e., the partners of the partnership). In fact, the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) reported in 2014 that, for tax year 2012, less than one percent (1%) of partnerships with more than $100 million in assets were audited. Whereas, for the same tax year, more than twenty-seven percent (27%) of similarly-sized corporations were audited. The GAO concluded the vast disparity is directly related to the increased administrative burden placed on the IRS under the existing partnership examination rules.

Every year, around the April 15 individual tax return filing deadline, a story appears in the press highlighting the tax woes of famous people.  The Government undoubtedly issues these press releases to encourage taxpayers to comply with their tax filing and tax payment obligations.  The list of famous people who have been the subject of this news over the years is lengthy.  It includes:  Abbott & Costello, Spiro Agnew, Chuck Berry, Richard Pryor, Martha Stewart, Darryl Strawberry, Nicholas Cage, Heidi Fleiss, Pete Rose, Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson.

As reported in my November 2015 blog post, in accordance with Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 280E, taxpayers (for purposes of computing federal taxable income) are prohibited from deducting expenses related to the production, processing or sale of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

A Bit of Welcome Relief?

Measure 91, officially called the Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act, passed by Oregon voters, appears to have alleviated some of the impact of Code Section 280E as it relates to Oregon taxable income. Specifically:

The Department of the Treasury estimates the annual federal “tax gap” (the difference between what taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid on a timely basis) exceeds $450 billion. IR-2012-4 (January 6, 2012).  This figure correlates with a voluntary tax compliance rate of just shy of 86 percent.

Studies conducted by the National Research Program (“NRP”) conclude that the $450 billion “tax gap” is comprised of three components, namely non-filing of tax returns ($28 billion), underreporting of income ($376 billion) and underpayment of taxes ($46 billion).