Tuesday, September 30, 2008

reasonable cause under 6664 vs 6694

This blog contrasts the “reasonable case” 6694 regulations with the 6664 regulations. First note the 6664 regulations on reasonable cause. Note the emphasis on reliance on “tax professionals.” Most of the case law on reasonable cause under 6664 deals with issues involving reliance on professionals.


Reasonable cause and good faith exception to section 6662 penalties – the section 6664 regulations -
1.6664-1(a) In general. --No penalty may be imposed under section 6662 with respect to any portion of an underpayment upon a showing by the taxpayer that there was reasonable cause for, and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to, such portion. Rules for determining whether the reasonable cause and good faith exception applies are set forth in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
(b) Facts and circumstances taken into account
(1) In general. --The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all pertinent facts and circumstances. (See paragraph (e) of this section for certain rules relating to a substantial understatement penalty attributable to tax shelter items of corporations.) Generally, the most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess the taxpayer's proper tax liability. Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer. An isolated computational or transcriptional error generally is not inconsistent with reasonable cause and good faith. Reliance on an information return or on the advice of a professional tax advisor or an appraiser does not necessarily demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith. Similarly, reasonable cause and good faith is not necessarily indicated by reliance on facts that, unknown to the taxpayer, are incorrect. Reliance on an information return, professional advice, or other facts, however, constitutes reasonable cause and good faith if, under all the circumstances, such reliance was reasonable and the taxpayer acted in good faith. (See paragraph (c) of this section for certain rules relating to reliance on the advice of others.) For example, reliance on erroneous information (such as an error relating to the cost or adjusted basis of property, the date property was placed in service, or the amount of opening or closing inventory) inadvertently included in data compiled by the various divisions of a multidivisional corporation or in financial books and records prepared by those divisions generally indicates reasonable cause and good faith, provided the corporation employed internal controls and procedures, reasonable under the circumstances, that were designed to identify such factual errors. Reasonable cause and good faith ordinarily is not indicated by the mere fact that there is an appraisal of the value of property. Other factors to consider include the methodology and assumptions underlying the appraisal, the appraised value, the relationship between appraised value and purchase price, the circumstances under which the appraisal was obtained, and the appraiser's relationship to the taxpayer or to the activity in which the property is used. (See paragraph (g) of this section for certain rules relating to appraisals for charitable deduction property.) A taxpayer's reliance on erroneous information reported on a Form W-2, Form 1099, or other information return indicates reasonable cause and good faith, provided the taxpayer did not know or have reason to know that the information was incorrect. Generally, a taxpayer knows, or has reason to know, that the information on an information return is incorrect if such information is inconsistent with other information reported or otherwise furnished to the taxpayer, or with the taxpayer's knowledge of the transaction. This knowledge includes, for example, the taxpayer's knowledge of the terms of his employment relationship or of the rate of return on a payor's obligation.
(2) Examples. --The following examples illustrate this paragraph (b). They do not involve tax shelter items. (See paragraph (e) of this section for certain rules relating to the substantial understatement penalty attributable to the tax shelter items of corporations.)

Example 1. A, an individual calendar year taxpayer, engages B, a professional tax advisor, to give A advice concerning the deductibility of certain state and local taxes. A provides B with full details concerning the taxes at issue. B advises A that the taxes are fully deductible. A, in preparing his own tax return, claims a deduction for the taxes. Absent other facts, and assuming the facts and circumstances surrounding B's advice and A's reliance on such advice satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, A is considered to have demonstrated good faith by seeking the advice of a professional tax advisor, and to have shown reasonable cause for any underpayment attributable to the deduction claimed for the taxes. However, if A had sought advice from someone that A knew, or should have known, lacked knowledge in the relevant aspects of Federal tax law, or if other facts demonstrate that A failed to act reasonably or in good faith, A would not be considered to have shown reasonable cause or to have acted in good faith.

Example 2. C, an individual, sought advice from D, a friend who was not a tax professional, as to how C might reduce his Federal tax obligations. D advised C that, for a nominal investment in Corporation X, D had received certain tax benefits which virtually eliminated D's Federal tax liability. D also named other investors who had received similar benefits. Without further inquiry, C invested in X and claimed the benefits that he had been assured by D were due him. In this case, C did not make any good faith attempt to ascertain the correctness of what D had advised him concerning his tax matters, and is not considered to have reasonable cause for the underpayment attributable to the benefits claimed.

Example 3. E, an individual, worked for Company X doing odd jobs and filling in for other employees when necessary. E worked irregular hours and was paid by the hour. The amount of E's pay check differed from week to week. The Form W-2 furnished to E reflected wages for 1990 in the amount of $29,729. It did not, however, include compensation of $1,467 paid for some hours E worked. Relying on the Form W-2, E filed a return reporting wages of $29,729. E had no reason to know that the amount reported on the Form W-2 was incorrect. Under the circumstances, E is considered to have acted in good faith in relying on the Form W-2 and to have reasonable cause for the underpayment attributable to the unreported wages.

Example 4. H, an individual, did not enjoy preparing his tax returns and procrastinated in doing so until April 15th. On April 15th, H hurriedly gathered together his tax records and materials, prepared a return, and mailed it before midnight. The return contained numerous errors, some of which were in H's favor and some of which were not. The net result of all the adjustments, however, was an underpayment of tax by H. Under these circumstances, H is not considered to have reasonable cause for the underpayment or to have acted in good faith in attempting to file an accurate return.

(c) Reliance on opinion or advice
(1) Facts and circumstances; minimum requirements. --All facts and circumstances must be taken into account in determining whether a taxpayer has reasonably relied in good faith on advice (including the opinion of a professional tax advisor) as to the treatment of the taxpayer (or any entity, plan, or arrangement) under Federal tax law. For example, the taxpayer's education, sophistication and business experience will be relevant in determining whether the taxpayer's reliance on tax advice was reasonable and made in good faith. In no event will a taxpayer be considered to have reasonably relied in good faith on advice (including an opinion) unless the requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) are satisfied. The fact that these requirements are satisfied, however, will not necessarily establish that the taxpayer reasonably relied on the advice (including the opinion of a tax advisor) in good faith. For example, reliance may not be reasonable or in good faith if the taxpayer knew, or reasonably should have known, that the advisor lacked knowledge in the relevant aspects of Federal tax law.
(i) All facts and circumstances considered. --The advice must be based upon all pertinent facts and circumstances and the law as it relates to those facts and circumstances. For example, the advice must take into account the taxpayer's purposes (and the relative weight of such purposes) for entering into a transaction and for structuring a transaction in a particular manner. In addition, the requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) are not satisfied if the taxpayer fails to disclose a fact that it knows, or reasonably should know, to be relevant to the proper tax treatment of an item.

(ii) No unreasonable assumptions. --The advice must not be based on unreasonable factual or legal assumptions (including assumptions as to future events) and must not unreasonably rely on the representations, statements, findings, or agreements of the taxpayer or any other person. For example, the advice must not be based upon a representation or assumption which the taxpayer knows, or has reason to know, is unlikely to be true, such as an inaccurate representation or assumption as to the taxpayer's purposes for entering into a transaction or for structuring a transaction in a particular manner.

(iii) Reliance on the invalidity of a regulation. --A taxpayer may not rely on an opinion or advice that a regulation is invalid to establish that the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and good faith unless the taxpayer adequately disclosed, in accordance with §1.6662-3(c)(2), the position that the regulation in question is invalid.

(2) Advice defined. --Advice is any communication, including the opinion of a professional tax advisor, setting forth the analysis or conclusion of a person, other than the taxpayer, provided to (or for the benefit of) the taxpayer and on which the taxpayer relies, directly or indirectly, with respect to the imposition of the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty. Advice does not have to be in any particular form.

(3) Cross-reference. --For rules applicable to advisors, see e.g., §§1.6694-1 through 1.6694-3 (regarding preparer penalties), 31 CFR 10.22 (regarding diligence as to accuracy), 31 CFR 10.33 (regarding tax shelter opinions), and 31 CFR 10.34 (regarding standards for advising with respect to tax return positions and for preparing or signing returns).

(d) Underpayments attributable to reportable transactions. --If any portion of an underpayment is attributable to a reportable transaction, as defined in §1.6011-4(b) (or §1.6011-4T(b), as applicable), then failure by the taxpayer to disclose the transaction in accordance with §1.6011-4 (or §1.6011-4T, as applicable) is a strong indication that the taxpayer did not act in good faith with respect to the portion of the underpayment attributable to the reportable transaction.

(e) Pass-through items. --The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith with respect to an underpayment that is related to an item reflected on the return of a pass-through entity is made on the basis of all pertinent facts and circumstances, including the taxpayer's own actions, as well as the actions of the pass-through entity.

(f) Special rules for substantial understatement penalty attributable to tax shelter items of corporations

(1) In general; facts and circumstances. --The determination of whether a corporation acted with reasonable cause and in good faith in its treatment of a tax shelter item (as defined in §1.6662-4(g)(3)) is based on all pertinent facts and circumstances. Paragraphs (f)(2), (3), and (4) of this section set forth rules that apply, in the case of a penalty attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax (within the meaning of section 6662(d)), in determining whether a corporation acted with reasonable cause and in good faith with respect to a tax shelter item.

(2) Reasonable cause based on legal justification

(i) Minimum requirements. --A corporation's legal justification (as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section) may be taken into account, as appropriate, in establishing that the corporation acted with reasonable cause and in good faith in its treatment of a tax shelter item only if the authority requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section and the belief requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section are satisfied (the minimum requirements). Thus, a failure to satisfy the minimum requirements will preclude a finding of reasonable cause and good faith based (in whole or in part) on the corporation's legal justification.

(A) Authority requirement. --The authority requirement is satisfied only if there is substantial authority (within the meaning of §1.6662-4(d)) for the tax treatment of the item.

(B) Belief requirement. --The belief requirement is satisfied only if, based on all facts and circumstances, the corporation reasonably believed, at the time the return was filed, that the tax treatment of the item was more likely than not the proper treatment. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a corporation is considered reasonably to believe that the tax treatment of an item is more likely than not the proper-tax treatment if (without taking into account the possibility that a return will not be audited, that an issue will not be raised on audit, or that an issue will be settled) --

(1) The corporation analyzes the pertinent facts and authorities in the manner described in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii), and in reliance upon that analysis, reasonably concludes in good faith that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if challenged by the Internal Revenue Service; or

(2) The corporation reasonably relies in good faith on the opinion of a professional tax advisor, if the opinion is based on the tax advisor's analysis of the pertinent facts and authorities in the manner described in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) and unambiguously states that the tax advisor concludes that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if challenged by the Internal Revenue Service. (For this purpose, the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section must be met with respect to the opinion of a professional tax advisor.)

(ii) Legal justification defined. --For purposes of this paragraph (f), legal justification includes any justification relating to the treatment or characterization under the Federal tax law of the tax shelter item or of the entity, plan, or arrangement that gave rise to the item. Thus, a taxpayer's belief (whether independently formed or based on the advice of others) as to the merits of the taxpayer's underlying position is a legal justification.

(3) Minimum requirements not dispositive. --Satisfaction of the minimum requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section is an important factor to be considered in determining whether a corporate taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith, but is not necessarily dispositive. For example, depending on the circumstances, satisfaction of the minimum requirements may not be dispositive if the taxpayer's participation in the tax shelter lacked significant business purpose, if the taxpayer claimed tax benefits that are unreasonable in comparison to the taxpayer's investment in the tax shelter, or if the taxpayer agreed with the organizer or promoter of the tax shelter that the taxpayer would protect the confidentiality of the tax aspects of the structure of the tax shelter.

(4) Other factors. --Facts and circumstances other than a corporation's legal justification may be taken into account, as appropriate, in determining whether the corporation acted with reasonable cause and in good faith with respect to a tax shelter item regardless of whether the minimum requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section are satisfied.
(g) Transactions between persons described in section 482 and net section 482 transfer price adjustments. --[Reserved]

(h) Valuation misstatements of charitable deduction property

(1) In general. --There may be reasonable cause and good faith with respect to a portion of an underpayment that is attributable to a substantial (or gross) valuation misstatement of charitable deduction property (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) only if --

(i) The claimed value of the property was based on a qualified appraisal (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) by a qualified appraiser (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section); and

(ii) In addition to obtaining a qualified appraisal, the taxpayer made a good faith investigation of the value of the contributed property.

(2) Definitions. --For purposes of this paragraph (h):

Charitable deduction property means any property (other than money or publicly traded securities, as defined in §1.170A-13(c)(7)(xi)) contributed by the taxpayer in a contribution for which a deduction was claimed under section 170.

Qualified appraisal means a qualified appraisal as defined in §1.170A-13(c)(3).

Qualified appraiser means a qualified appraiser as defined in §1.170A-13(c)(5).

(3) Special rules. --The rules of this paragraph (h) apply regardless of whether §1.170A-13 permits a taxpayer to claim a charitable contribution deduction for the property without obtaining a qualified appraisal. The rules of this paragraph (h) apply in addition to the generally applicable rules concerning reasonable cause and good faith. [Reg. §1.6664-4.]

.01 Historical Comment: Proposed 3/4/91. Adopted 12/30/91 by T.D. 8381. Amended 8/31/95 by T.D. 8617, 12/1/98 by T.D. 8790 and 12/29/2003 by T.D. 9109.


THE FOLLOWING ARE THE 6694 REASONABLE CAUSE REGULATIONS, AS PROPOSED.

1.6694-2(d) Exception for reasonable cause and good faith . The penalty under section 6694(a) will not be imposed if, considering all the facts and circumstances, it is determined that the understatement was due to reasonable cause and that the tax return preparer acted in good faith. Factors to consider include:

(1) Nature of the error causing the understatement . The error resulted from a provision that was complex, uncommon, or highly technical and a competent tax return preparer of tax returns or claims for refund of the type at issue reasonably could have made the error. The reasonable cause and good faith exception, however, does not apply to an error that would have been apparent from a general review of the return or claim for refund by the tax return preparer.

(2) Frequency of errors . The understatement was the result of an isolated error (such as an inadvertent mathematical or clerical error) rather than a number of errors. Although the reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies to an isolated error, it does not apply if the isolated error is so obvious, flagrant, or material that it should have been discovered during a review of the return or claim for refund. Furthermore, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund even though any one error, in isolation, would have qualified for the reasonable cause and good faith exception.

(3) Materiality of errors . The understatement was not material in relation to the correct tax liability. The reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies if the understatement is of a relatively immaterial amount. Nevertheless, even an immaterial understatement may not qualify for the reasonable cause and good faith exception if the error or errors creating the understatement are sufficiently obvious or numerous.

(4) Tax return preparer's normal office practice . The tax return preparer's normal office practice, when considered together with other facts and circumstances, such as the knowledge of the tax return preparer, indicates that the error in question would rarely occur and the normal office practice was followed in preparing the return or claim for refund in question. Such a normal office practice must be a system for promoting accuracy and consistency in the preparation of returns or claims for refund and generally would include, in the case of a signing tax return preparer, checklists, methods for obtaining necessary information from the taxpayer, a review of the prior year's return, and review procedures. Notwithstanding these rules, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a flagrant error on a return or claim for refund, a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund, or a repetition of the same or similar errors on numerous returns or claims for refund.

(5) Reliance on advice of others . For purposes of demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith, a tax return preparer may rely without verification upon advice and information furnished by the taxpayer or other party, as provided in §1.6694-1(e). The tax return preparer may reasonably rely in good faith on the advice of, or schedules or other documents prepared by, the taxpayer, another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm), and who the tax return preparer had reason to believe was competent to render the advice or other information. The advice or information may be written or oral, but in either case the burden of establishing that the advice or information was received is on the tax return preparer. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if --

(i) The advice or information is unreasonable on its face;

(ii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known that the other party providing the advice or information was not aware of all relevant facts; or

(iii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the advice or information was no longer reliable due to developments in the law since the time the advice was given.

(6) Reliance on generally accepted administrative or industry practice . The tax return preparer reasonably relied in good faith on generally accepted administrative or industry practice in taking the position that resulted in the understatement. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if the tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the administrative or industry practice was no longer reliable due to developments in the law or IRS administrative practice since the time the practice was developed.

COMMENT:

I see the proposed regulations as a “trap.” On one hand they are liberal by opening up the person who you can rely on to a broader field and it offers “reliance on generally accepted or industry practice” as a new factor. BUT OTHER FACTORS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE IRS BEFORE THEY PERMIT “REASONABLE CAUSE.” As always, “reasonable cause” is a discretionary rule. For those of us with an IRS controversies tax practice, the IRS is currently aggressive on all discretionary rules. This is little IRS oversight. The last time the IRS considered IRS abuses of power and abuses of discretion occurred in 1997 with the famous Senate Hearings at that time. Since then, the IRS has gotten increasingly difficult on discretionary issues. And the proposed 6694 regulations create some new thresholds such are frequency of errors and the, materiality of the error, Are we going to have the IRS look at the return preparers to see how many times they made errors? Once an error is discovered, it can always be argued by the IRS that it should have been discovered with an adequate review of the return before it was filed. Any error can be argued by the IRS as one that should have been discovered. Any error that impacts on a tax liability can be viewed as a “material” error; the penalty would not even apply without an understatement of tax. That “materiality” provision is a huge opening for any IRS examiner to deny a claim for reasonable cause. There is much more predictability under the 6664 regulations that emphasize reliance on a professional. If the return preparer does use a tax professional, the chances of error would be minimized. It appears that the ability to rely on another return preparer who may not have a strong technical background will facilitate error to the detriment of the return preparers.

The other compliance issues on “analysis” of the relevant technical “authority” would be better accomplished by the best available tax expert rather than another preparer and thereby eliminate the understatement of tax that would necessitate the “reasonable cause” exception.

The proposed regulations also reference “reasonable cause” in the 6695 regulations without indicating whether that term will be defined with reference to the 6664 regulations or the 6694 regulations.

Labels:

Monday, September 29, 2008

1.6694-2(c)(iii) disclosure

(iii) Requirements for advice . For purposes of satisfying the disclosure standards of paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, each return position for which there is a reasonable basis but for which the tax return preparer does not have a reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on the merits must be addressed by the tax return preparer. The advice to the taxpayer with respect to each position, therefore, must be particular to the taxpayer and tailored to the taxpayer's facts and circumstances. The tax return preparer is required to contemporaneously document the fact that the advice was provided. There is no general pro forma language or special format required for a tax return preparer to comply with these rules. No form of a general boilerplate disclaimer, however, is sufficient to satisfy these standards. A tax return preparer may choose to comply with the documentation standard in one document covering each position, or in multiple documents covering all of the positions.

The above is a quotation from the proposed regulations dealing with "reasonable basis" disclosures. The return preparer must justify EACH POSITION taken.

IMPORTANT! the return preparer must DOCUMENT advice given and relied upon. Obviously, this means that advice given by a tax attorney or some other tax advisor must be in writing and cite the relevant technical authority as applied to the relevant facts. The legal memorandum must provide an analysis of the authority cited. One cannot just say that they have an oral opinion from a tax expert. The IRS wants to see and evaluate the "document" or memorandum received.

Although this is the only place in the proposed regulations where the word "document" is used, it stands to reason that all positions taken should be document whether or not the position is disclosed and whether or not the tax return preparer relies on the advice of a tax professional.

The documentation of the technical analysis is imortant for another reason other than avoiding the 6694 penalty. The return preparer will also want to supply "substantial authority" to avoid the negligence penalty. Although the "reasonable basis" standard is lower than the "substantial authority" standard, as a matter of wise tax practice, all disclosed positions should meet the "substantial authority" standard to avoid a negligence penalty for a client. This higher standard will also justify the need for your client to pay for the expert technical opinion letter.

It is a strange "trap" for the drafters of the proposed regulations to draft a disclosure rule to avoid the 6694 penalty that is insufficient to negate the client's negligence penalty.

I also read the above quoted language as a message to return preparers to have all disclosed or undisclosed positions supported with a legal memeorandum. Obviously, one would want to do this only for problematical positions or positions that are factually and legally complex. One has to have a sense of the issue and supply written technical support for those issues that could be challanged in an audit examination. For example, we know that the IRS will likely challange home office expenses or travel and entertainment expenses, etc. Those are the positions that should be supported by the statute, regulations, case law, IRM and other authority.
Otherwise, you rund the risk of the section 6694 penalty.

All of the positions taken or discussed in this blog are open for discussion by adding comment to these blogs. Otherwise, you can contact ab@irstaxattorney.com for a discussion of this or any other provision in the proposed regulations.

Please understand that when the 2008 tax returns are filed, you will want to make sure that the tax returns are not selected for audit. Otherwise, you can expect that the disclosed positions will be identfied by the IRS for audit examination. It will be far less expensive for your client to pay for the effort needed to submit a position that is fully documented based on the facts and the law and thereby reduce the risk for audit examination

Labels:

Friday, September 26, 2008

Liability of return preparer firms - 6694 regs

The proposed regulations confirm that the firm employing the tax return preparer is also liable for the 6694 penalty by reference to the fact that section 1.6694-2(a)(2) and section 1.6694-3(a)(2) of the existing regulations still apply. In short, a firm employing a tax return preparer will also be liable for the 6694 penalty in the following circumstances:


(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(a);

(ii) The employer or partnership failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) Such review procedures were disregarded in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.


How many tax preparation firms have no member of prinicpal management or principal officers not involved in reviewing a tax position?

How many tax preparation firms prvide reasonable and appropriate procedures for the preparation of a return? And if there are such procedures, are they "reasonable" and "appropriate?"


The fact is that the prior $250 penalty was so low that there has been close to not attention paid to section 6694 either by the IRS or tax practitioners. I have had numerous tax return preparers involved in civil and criminal examinations and the IRS never raised a 6694 issue. The large size of the penalty will change IRS enforcdement. IRS examiners will not overlook the potential liability of the firm.
Additionally, the word "reckless" in section 6694(b) suggests to me that it should be fairly easy to go after the larger $5,000 penalty because any "negligence" can be viewed as "reckless."

This would be the time for the return preparer professional organizations to write some standards of "review" of a position that industry practice that the industry proposes are "reasonable" and "appropriate" geared to the various size of the return firms. The proposed regulations suggest that the IRS will follow industry practice.

Quite frankly the terms "reasonable" and "appropriate" are so broad that most IRS examiners can charge the "firm" with the negligence penalty.

Labels:

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Section 7206 - return preparer fraud

It is very important to seek the immediate attention of a tax attorney when a return preparer is being investigated by the IRS Criminal Tax Division. The very best time to defend actions taken is before the IRS. It is far more difficult to fashion a defense at the time the case is being considered by the Department of Justice.


Section 7206 fraud by return preparers apply when the preparer willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document.

There was a conviction in the case just published. The tax preparer was sentenced following his conviction for aiding in the preparation and filing of false tax returns. In determining the base offense level under the sentencing guidelines, the tax loss was properly calculated based on the aggregate amount of underpaid income tax determined by an IRS examination of each fraudulent return.

The district court was not required to reduce the government's tax loss from the fraud by any unclaimed worthless investment capital loss deductions to which the preparer's taxpayer clients were legitimately entitled. The investors' offsetting capital losses were unrelated to the tax fraud committed by the preparer, and the losses that he had his clients fraudulently claim were ordinary business losses that were neither related to nor in lieu of the worthless investment losses. Additionally, the unclaimed capital losses were tax benefits available to the investor-taxpayers, not to the tax preparer. Consequently, the tax preparer's fraud did not result in any offsetting tax benefit to the government.
Affirming an unreported DC Mo. decision.



United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leon Travis Blevins, Defendant-Appellant.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit; 07-3298, September 16, 2008.
Affirming an unreported DC Mo. decision.

[ Code Sec. 7206]

Tax crimes: Aiding in preparation and filing of false returns: Conviction and sentence: Sentencing Guidelines: Tax loss calculation. --


LOKEN, Chief Judge: Tax preparer Leon Travis Blevins prepared and filed twenty federal income tax returns for seven taxpayers that falsely claimed Schedule C business losses, Schedule E rental losses, and Form 4797 losses from the sale of business property for the 1999-2002 tax years. At least six of the taxpayers were investors in a foundering business run by Blevins that bought and sold home mortgages and engaged in other real estate activities. Some returns falsely claimed the business's ordinary losses as if they were incurred by the investor-taxpayers. Other claimed losses were wholly fictitious. Blevins pleaded guilty to twenty counts of aiding in the preparation and filing of false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). He appeals his twenty-one month sentence, arguing that the district court 1 erred in determining tax loss under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 because the court failed to take into account the tax effect of investment losses to which his taxpayer clients were entitled. The court released Blevins on his personal recognizance pending resolution of the appeal. Reviewing the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, we affirm. See United States v. Vickers, 528 F.3d 1116, 1120 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review).

For sentencing purposes, the Guidelines provide that the base offense level for the offense of filing fraudulent tax returns is the tax loss level from § 2T4.1, or six if there is no tax loss. U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(a). Tax loss is "the total amount of loss that was the object of the offense ( i.e., the loss that would have resulted had the offense been successfully completed)." § 2T1.1(c)(1). Notes (A)-(C) to § 2T1.1(c)(1) provide that tax loss equals 28% of the underreported income and improperly claimed deductions (34% if the taxpayer is a corporation), plus 100% of any falsely claimed tax credits, "unless a more accurate determination of the tax loss can be made."

At sentencing, the government argued that the tax loss attributable to Blevins's offense conduct was $100,029, the aggregate amount of underpaid income tax determined by an IRS examination of each fraudulent return. 2 This level of loss produced a base offense level of sixteen, see U.S.S.G. § 2T4.1(F), and an advisory guidelines range of 21-27 months in prison. Blevins countered with a letter report from his tax and business valuation expert. Using investment data from the fraud investigation, the expert opined that each taxpayer's investment in Blevins's failed business was "a total loss" and that these losses "appear to be capital losses." Based on the assumption that each investor would use these losses to offset $3,000 of ordinary income each year until the losses were exhausted, the expert calculated that the investors were entitled to capital loss deductions totaling $32,177, "resulting in a net tax loss to the government of $68,074." 3 This lower level of tax loss would produce a base offense level of fourteen, see § 2T4.1(E), resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 15-21 months in prison.

Relying on the expert's calculations and on the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Gordon, 291 F.3d 181, 187 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1114 (2003), Blevins argued to the district court, as he does on appeal, that the determination of tax loss under § 2T1.1(c)(1) must take into account the legitimate, unclaimed capital loss deductions to which his taxpayer clients are entitled on account of their worthless investments. The government disagreed, urging the court instead to follow decisions in other circuits concluding that the definition of tax loss in § 2T1.1(c)(1) --"total amount of loss that was the object of the offense" --does not allow a sentencing court to take into account "other unrelated mistakes on the return such as unclaimed deductions." United States v. Chavin, 316 F.3d 666, 677 (7th Cir. 2002); accord United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468, 472-73 (4th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed, 76 U.S.L.W. 3569 (Apr. 7, 2008); United States v. Phelps, 478 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 436 (2007); United States v. Spencer, 178 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (10th Cir. 1999). The district court agreed with the government.

On appeal, the parties again frame the issue as turning on a conflict between other circuits on the broad question of whether a taxpayer's "unclaimed" deductions or losses may ever be taken into account in determining tax loss for purposes of § 2T1.1(c)(1). The apparent conflict developed after § 2T1.1 was amended in 1993. The prior version defined "tax loss" as "the greater of (1) the total amount of tax that the taxpayer evaded or attempted to evade or (2) 28% of the amount by which the greater of gross income and taxable income was understated;" a comment explained that alternative (2) "should make irrelevant the issue of whether the taxpayer was entitled to offsetting adjustments that he failed to claim." U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 & cmt. n.4 (1992). The 1993 amendment deleted this comment, leading the Second Circuit to suggest in dicta that § 2T1.1 no longer precluded using legitimate unclaimed deductions to offset a tax loss. United States v. Martinez-Rios, 143 F.3d 662, 670-71 (2d Cir. 1998). The Seventh Circuit disagreed, concluding that the comment was deleted "because the new tax-loss definition specifically excludes consideration of unclaimed deductions on its face by defining tax loss as the 'object of the offense.'" Chavin, 316 F.3d at 678. Three other circuits have agreed with the Seventh.

In Gordon, defendant was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report income he received from a company he controlled. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to reduce the tax loss resulting from this unreported income by the tax benefit the company would have received if it had treated the payments as a deductible salary expense. Adopting the reasoning of Martinez-Rios, the Second Circuit agreed in principle but concluded that the error was harmless because Gordon failed to prove that the company would have treated the income he received as a salary expense, as opposed to non-deductible dividends. 291 F.3d at 187.

The theory argued but not proved in Gordon presents the strongest case for allowing unclaimed tax benefits to reduce the government's tax loss because the unclaimed deduction in that case was a tax consequence of the fraud. Taking this type of offsetting tax benefit into account at least arguably comports with the plain language of § 2T1.1(c)(1) --"the loss that would have resulted had the offense been successfully completed." On the other hand, the defendant's failure to claim the offsetting tax benefit in Gordon by taking a corporate salary expense deduction for payments he intended not to report as income helped conceal the fraud. No doubt reflecting this aspect of the issue, the four circuits that have rejected the Second Circuit's reasoning explicitly refuse to interpret § 2T1.1(c)(1) "as giving taxpayers a second opportunity to claim deductions after having been convicted of tax fraud." Spencer, 178 F.3d at 1368, quoted in Chavin, 316 F.3d at 679, in Phelps, 478 F.3d at 682, and in Delfino, 510 F.3d at 473.

In this case, we need not decide whether an unclaimed tax benefit may ever offset tax loss determined by aggregating the offense conduct of underreported income, improper deductions, and false tax credits. First, Gordon is clearly distinguishable. Here, the investors' offsetting capital losses that Blevins is claiming are unrelated to the tax fraud he committed. The Schedule C and Schedule E losses that Blevins had his clients fraudulently claim were ordinary business losses. Such losses presuppose an on-going business, however distressed, not a failed business that has become a worthless investment. Thus, the fraudulently claimed losses were neither related to nor in lieu of worthless investment losses. Indeed, the worthless investment losses were tax benefits that the investors could claim whether or not the fraud was perpetrated. Taking into account unclaimed tax benefits wholly unrelated to the offense of conviction is contrary to the plain meaning of the definition of tax loss in § 2T1.1(c)(1), "the total amount of loss that was the object of the offense ( i.e., the loss that would have resulted had the offense been successfully completed)."

Second, the unclaimed capital losses in this case are tax benefits available to the investor-taxpayers, not to Blevins. So far as this record reveals, those capital losses have not been claimed and remain potentially available to the taxpayers in the future (if they have not already been claimed). Thus, Blevins's fraud did not result in any offsetting tax benefit to the government. Indeed, should the investors properly claim and be entitled to worthless investment capital losses on future returns (or amended past returns), the government will incur a loss of tax revenue in addition to the loss that was the object of Blevins's offense. In these circumstances, the district court properly declined to reduce the government's tax loss from the fraud by the taxpayers' allegedly unclaimed capital loss deductions.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1 The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2 Application of the 28% default rule in the notes to § 2T1.1(c)(1) would have produced a tax loss of $164,326. However, the IRS calculated its losses based on the investor-taxpayers' marginal tax rates, which were less than 28%. The government proposed the lower figure as reflecting a "more accurate determination," as the notes to § 2T1.1(c)(1) envision.

3 The expert's letter report relied on assumptions not supported by the record. First, the expert opined that capital loss treatment of the taxpayers' worthless investments "is consistent with IRC Section 165." But the record contains no evidence that the investments would qualify as "worthless securities" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 165(g)(2). Then, having assumed the investments are worthless and qualify for capital loss deductions, she assumed that each investor-taxpayer would offset his or her loss against $3,000 of ordinary income in each tax year to which any unused portion of the losses could be carried forward under 26 U.S.C. § 1212(b). But an investor must apply such losses to any capital gains before offsetting up to $3,000 in ordinary income. See 26 U.S.C. § 1211(b). Nothing in the record supports the expert's assumption that the investors would have no capital gains in the tax years in question. Like the district court, we need not consider these failures of proof.

United States of America, Appellant v. Talmus R. Taylor, Defendant-Appellee.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit; 06-2216, July 9, 2008.

On remand from the SCt, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,432, Remanding an unreported DC Mass. decision..

[ Code Sec. 7206]


A sentence of probation and time in a halfway house imposed on an individual for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns was remanded for reconsideration. The sentencing court was directed to provide justifications for its sentence in light of the scope and extent of the sentencing court's discretion under the federal sentencing guidelines.


Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, John A. Capin, Paul G. Levenson, Assistant United States Attorneys, for appellant. Bruce T. Macdonald, for defendant-appellee.

Before: Lynch, Chief Judge, and Newman and Torruella, Circuit Judges.

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Newman and Torruella, Circuit Judges. *


ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge: Talmus Taylor was sentenced to one year in a halfway house, five years of probation, and a $10,000 fine, for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7206(2). Following an appeal by the Government, we vacated the sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded to the district court. See United States v. Taylor [ 2007-2 USTC ¶50,653], 499 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2007), vacated, 128 S.Ct. 878 (2008). The case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007).

The Court's decision in Gall, combined with its decisions in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007), and Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007), makes clear that in the post- Booker world, district judges are empowered with considerable discretion in sentencing, as long as the sentence is generally reasonable and the court has followed the proper procedures. In accordance with these decisions, our recent opinions have elaborated on the broad scope of this discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008). Recently, in another sentencing case vacated by Gall, we noted this expanded discretion and concluded that the fairest course of action was to provide the district court the opportunity to reconsider its sentence in view of the Supreme Court's elucidation of sentencing procedures, as well as some of the concerns we had expressed in the prior opinion. See United States v. Tom, No. 07-1074, 2008 WL 1886608 (1st Cir. Apr. 30, 2008) (unpublished). We think that course appropriate under the circumstances here as well.

In so doing, we first reiterate some of the important sentencing principles underscored in all of these recent decisions. As clearly outlined in Gall, we review a district court's sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, which involves both a procedural and a substantive inquiry. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; see also Politano, 522 F.3d at 72. This deference arises from the advantages inherent in the district court's position: "a superior coign of vantage, greater familiarity with the individual case, the opportunity to see and hear the principals and the testimony at first hand, and the cumulative experience garnered through the sheer number of district court sentencing proceedings that take place day by day." Martin, 520 F.3d at 92. Indeed, once the district court has followed the proper procedures, our review of substantive reasonableness is highly discretionary. See id. ("[R]eversal will result if - and only if - the sentencing court's ultimate determination falls outside the expansive boundaries of that universe [of reasonableness].").

Yet, along with this increased discretion to fashion an appropriate sentence goes an accompanying "need for an increased degree of justification commensurate with an increased degree of variance." Martin, 520 F.3d at 91. To be clear, there is no strict formula for determining the bounds of an appropriate sentence, but there is "a certain `sliding scale' effect [that] lurks in the penumbra of modern federal sentencing law; the guidelines are the starting point for the fashioning of an individualized sentence, so a major deviation from them must `be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.' " Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597).

In our prior review of the sentence in this case, we expressed concern that the district court had failed to take all of the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors into account in fashioning the defendant's entirely non-jail sentence for such a serious crime. Our conclusion was not based on any requirement that the justification be "proportional" to the deviation or that the result comply with a mathematic formula defining the outer bounds of reasonableness. Rather, it was that in our view, the court's explanations had failed to justify the overall result.

As in Tom, a ruling on the sentence based on the present record would not fully actualize Gall's effect in "shed[ding] considerable light on the scope and extent of a district court's discretion under the now-advisory federal sentencing guidelines." Martin, 520 F.3d at 88. Given the intervening cases which have further elucidated the district court's discretion in sentencing (as well as underscored the importance of the district court's justifications for that sentence), we think it best to remand to the district court for reconsideration with the benefit of all of these developments, as well as the concerns we expressed in our prior opinion.

So ordered.

* Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
Sentence. --Fraud and False Statements: Sentence

The Court upheld the taxpayer's conviction for wilfully and knowingly subscribing to joint returns which he did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. The taxpayer was not deprived of his constitutional rights by the District Court's denial of his motion to reduce the sentence to merely a fine and not a jail sentence. The sentence was within the maximum penalties provided for violations of Code Sec. 7206(1).

J. Brown, CA-7, 70-2 USTC ¶9521, 428 F2d 1191. Cert. denied, 400 US 941.

There was no error in the refusal of the district court to disclose the contents of a pre-sentence report to the taxpayer's attorney, where there was no constitutional necessity for disclosure and the report contained no adverse information.

J.C. Knupp, CA-4, 71-2 USTC ¶9637, 448 F2d 412.

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing the taxpayer to jail for one year for aiding in the preparation of a false return merely because others convicted of similar offenses in the same district were not incarcerated.

W.M. Metcalf, CA-4, 76-1 USTC ¶9192.

The court held that the sentencing judge improperly conditioned taxpayer's probation for willfully and knowingly filing a false income tax return on the condition that he resign as a member of the bar. The court held that this special condition denied him due process by depriving him of his license to practice law without notice or an appropriate hearing.

V.M. Pastore, CA-2, 76-2 USTC ¶9513, 537 F2d 675.

An accountant's conviction for violating Code Sec. 7206(2), which prohibits willfully aiding or assisting in the preparation of a false or fraudulent tax return, constituted a conviction of a criminal offense under the revenue laws of the United States for which he was validly disbarred from practice before the IRS.

P.C. Washburn, DC, 76-1 USTC ¶9323, 409 FSupp 3.

The defendants were not sentenced unduly severely because of their failure to cooperate with the government. The trial judge did not state that leniency would be conditioned upon cooperation, nor was the trial judge required to explain each sentence imposed.

R.S. Bacheler, CA-3, 79-2 USTC ¶9695, 611 F2d 443.

Because 18 U.S.C. §3651 limits to six months the permissible period of actual confinement when a part of a sentence is suspended upon probation, a suspended sentence that involved thirteen months of incarceration was invalid.

M.H. Cohen, CA-4, 80-1 USTC ¶9288, 617 F2d 56.

The sentence of a taxpayer who was convicted of tax fraud was vacated and remanded for resentencing because no record was available to show why his sentence was increased at a second trial.

F.F. Solomon, Jr., CA-9, 87-2 USTC ¶9482, 825 F2d 1292.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering all of the evidence for sentencing purposes, including conduct of which the taxpayers had been acquitted at trial.

C.W. Lawrence, Jr., CA-7, 91-2 USTC ¶50,522.

A federal district court properly determined the sentence of an individual who was convicted of preparing fraudulent tax returns. The trial record supported enhancement of the base offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines due to the amount of the tax loss, and no evidentiary hearing was necessary.

M.G. Marshall, CA-8, 96-2 USTC ¶50,678, 92 F3d 758.

A tax protestor convicted of various tax crimes under Code Secs. 7206 and 7212 was appropriately sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Instead of the usual tax protestor tactic of ignoring tax administration, the defendant filed income tax forms seeking a refund, setting forth huge and obviously fictitious sums of money as his earnings. Although the IRS never considered making the claimed refunds, and the returns harassed and impeded IRS employees, there was no tax evasion, tax loss or false tax credits involved. Thus, the government did not suffer the actual loss required to impose a longer sentence.

M. Krause, DC N.Y., 92-1 USTC ¶50,193, 786 FSupp 1151.

A defendant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the IRS was upheld because there was no reversible error. The government was permitted to seek enhancement of the defendant's sentence because it proved his intent to accomplish illegal transactions that would cause a tax loss to the government, even though the tax loss would not occur in the year of the transactions.

R.M. Hirschfeld, CA-4, 93-1 USTC ¶50,098.

An individual's conviction and sentence for filing false tax returns were upheld based on sufficient evidence of underreported income. A transaction in which amounts were loaned from a business account of the individual's S corporation to his friend, the loan repayment was deposited into the individual's personal account, and the loan was deducted as a business expense, along with the resulting tax loss to the government, were properly treated as relevant conduct in sentencing the individual under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

T.G. Georges, CA-8, 98-1 USTC ¶50,477.

An individual convicted of aiding and abetting a tax fraud was properly denied a withdrawal of his guilty plea and a continuance to seek assistance of a lawyer at his sentencing. Furthermore, he was correctly adjudged to serve an enhanced sentence in light of the evidence and given his behavior during the proceedings.

R.J. Jagim, CA-8, 93-1 USTC ¶50,093, 978 F2d 1032.

An office manager's conviction for filing a fraudulent return was upheld. However, the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of three years' supervised release because a conviction under Code Sec. 7206(1) is a Class E offense, not a Class D felony. Therefore, a sentence of a one year's supervised release was imposed.

E.A. Pratt Stokes, CA-5, 93-2 USTC ¶50,545, 998 F2d 279.

An unlicensed professional sports agent, who was convicted of aiding in the preparation of false income tax returns and sentenced to a prison term, several years of supervision, and a fine, unsuccessfully appealed his prison sentence, but prevailed in obtaining a reduced period of supervised release. The trial court properly followed the sentencing guidelines for organized tax fraud from which one derives a substantial part of one's income and the guidelines applicable to those in the business of preparing or assisting in the preparation of false returns. However, the trial court improperly classified the nature of the agent's felony.

A.Q. Welch, CA-5, 94-2 USTC ¶50,358.

An individual's sentence following conviction for filing false tax returns was upheld where there was no clear error in the trial court's determination.

J. Swanson, III, CA-4 (unpublished opinion), 97-1 USTC ¶50,398, aff'g, per curiam, an unreported District Court decision.

The trial court erred in failing to determine whether state (California) law prohibited payments for unsolicited client referrals in calculating the base offense level for a former attorney's tax fraud conviction based on his deduction of referral payments. The trial court erroneously used the entire amount that the taxpayer deducted to compute the tax loss for sentencing purposes without considering whether it constituted illegal payments for which deductions were disallowed under Code Sec. 162(c)(2). Since state law did not prohibit payments for unsolicited referrals, the taxpayer was entitled to deduct such payments as business expenses. As a result, payments for unsolicited referrals should not have been included for purposes of computing the tax loss.

R.M. Standard, CA-9, 2000-1 USTC ¶50,319.

The sentence imposed on a taxpayer who was convicted of filing a false return was properly enhanced by the trial court in light of his use of sophisticated means to conceal his offense, his abuse of a position of trust, and his actions in obstructing or impeding the administration of justice during his case.

J.D. Tindall, CA-8 (unpublished opinion), 2000-2 USTC ¶50,585, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

An individual's conviction for aiding another to file a fraudulent tax return and subsequent sentencing were upheld. The sentence requested by the government was reasonable under the sentencing guidelines given the number of violations and the amount of tax involved. The court was also within its discretion to enhance the sentence because of taxpayer's attempts to intimidate government witnesses before trial.

C. Bruno, CA-2 (unpublished opinion), 2001-1 USTC ¶50,112, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

A taxpayer who pled guilty to 12 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns was properly sentenced to a period of 41 months of imprisonment, which was longer than the three-year maximum sentence authorized by statute for each count. The district court had the discretion to run consecutively the sentences for separate counts. However, the court could not sentence him to 41 months for each of his 12 convictions because 41 months exceeded the statutory maximum for any single count.

J. Darden, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 2002-1 USTC ¶50,291, vac'g and rem'g an unreported District Court decision.

Sentencing guidelines imposed with respect to an individual convicted of tax evasion permitted the inclusion of conditions that the taxpayer refrain from consuming alcohol and participate in community service activities. Those conditions were reasonably related to the goals of probation and rehabilitation. Further, amounts previously remitted by the taxpayer were not deducted from the current taxes owing because those funds were paid in connection with a fraudulent offer-in-compromise that was entered into after the crimes were committed.

F.F. Paul, CA-6 (unpublished opinion), 2003-1 USTC ¶50,222, aff'g, per curiam, an unreported District Court decision.

Sentences imposed were upheld.

K.P. Kontny, CA-7, 2001-1 USTC ¶50,197. Cert. denied, 5/14/2001.

K.L. Utecht, CA-7, 2001-1 USTC ¶50,311.

M. Wick, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 2002-1 USTC ¶50,456, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

W.N. Jackson, CA-2 (unpublished opinion), 2003-1 USTC ¶50,478, 65 FedAppx 754, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

The sentence imposed on an individual convicted of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns was affirmed. The individual failed to demonstrate that the court's consideration of the relevant sentencing factors was deficient or that the sentence imposed was unreasonable.

A. Jones, CA-6 (unpublished opinion), 2007-1 USTC ¶50,340, 218 FedAppx 488, aff'g an unreported DC Mich. decision.

A federal district court erred in imposing four consecutive one-year terms of supervised release on an individual who pleaded guilty to tax fraud and agreed to make restitution to the IRS. The federal sentencing guidelines require multiple terms of supervised release to run concurrently.

M.J. Spangler, CA-11 (unpublished opinion), 2007-1USTC ¶50,400, 224 FedAppx 890, aff'g in part, vac'g and rem'g in part an unreported DC Fla. decision.

A federal district court did not miscalculate the tax loss when sentencing an individual convicted for filing a false income tax return and assisting others in the preparation of false returns. The calculation was based on the fraudulent tax returns and the testimony of two IRS agents and the taxpayers for whom the individual had prepared false returns.

J.H. Bell, CA-7 (unpublished opinion), 2007-1 USTC ¶50,407, 226 FedAppx 596, aff'g an unreported DC Ill. decision.

A four-level leadership enhancement to the sentence imposed on a tax return preparer who was convicted for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns was proper. The individual organized a tax fraud scheme that involved a number of taxpayers and caused a large tax loss.

R.E. Reiss, CA-8 (unpublished opinion), 2007-2 USTC ¶50,532, 230 FedAppx, aff'g, per curiam, an unreported DC Minn. decision.

A lawyer and former federal prosecutor's sentence for tax fraud was substantially and procedurally reasonable. Although the individual failed to report as income bribes he received from city vendors while the mayor of Atlanta, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines. The court followed Booker to calculate the sentence; first establishing the base level of the offense by estimating the government's tax loss and then enhancing the base level for use of sophisticated means of concealment and obstruction of justice. The individual failed to show that his public service was so extraordinary as to justify a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The sentence was not excessive because it was less than the maximum allowed by Code Sec. 7206.

W.C. Campbell, CA-11, 2007-2 USTC ¶50,609, 491 F3d 1306.

A federal district court's adoption of the government's tax loss calculation when sentencing an individual convicted for willfully filing false tax returns was reasonable. The court reasonably concluded that, even though he had not reported all of his sales income, the individual had claimed all of his deductible expenses.

V. Roudakov, CA-3 (unpublished opinion), 2007-2 USTC ¶50,700, 239 FedAppx 776, aff'g an unreported DC Pa., decision.

An individual's conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting the filing of fraudulent tax returns was upheld. The trial court properly considered the pre-sentence report, the amount of loss, the severity of the crime, the necessity for deterrence and the defendant's statement, and the sentence imposed was 18 months less than the minimum in the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable.

C. Contreras, CA-2 (unpublished opinion), 2007-2USTC ¶50,712, 247 FedAppx 293, aff'g an unreported DC N.Y. decision.

The sentence imposed on a certified public accountant for aiding and advising the filing of a false income tax return was reasonable. The trial court properly imposed a sentence of a one year's supervised release, as recommended by the sentencing guidelines, since he was convicted of a Class E felony and also sentenced to more than one year imprisonment. Further, the trial court had a reasoned basis for imposing the sentence.

L.P. Bridges, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 2007-2 USTC ¶50,779, aff'g, an unreported DC Wash., decision.

A tax return preparer's sentence for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return was upheld. The trial court did not err in calculating the tax loss attributable to his conduct, and the court was entitled to consider uncharged and acquitted conduct in determining the return preparer's sentence when such conduct was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

A.T. Fokkoun-Ngassa, CA-4 (unpublished opinion), 2007-2 USTC ¶50,794, aff'g, per curiam, an unreported DC Va., decision.

The sentence imposed on an individual for filing false, fictitious and fraudulent income tax returns was reasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a downward departure or variance of the sentence based on exceptional family circumstances because it found that the individual's criminal history and utilization of family members in the commission of his offense constituted as factors weighing against a variance. Moreover, the court considered the properly calculated guidelines range before imposing the sentence and did not treat the sentencing guidelines as mandatory.

V.T. Carter, CA-6, 2008-1 USTC ¶50,124, 510 F3d 593.

The winner of a reality television show failed to establish that he was improperly convicted and sentenced for filing false tax returns. The sentence imposed, which was at the higher end of the sentencing guidelines range, was not unreasonable. The court was entitled to accept the testimony of the government's witness as providing a more accurate determination of the tax loss than would be determined using the sentencing guidelines. A perjury enhancement was also properly applied after the court noted that he lied on the witness stand.

R. Hatch, CA-1, 2008-1 USTC ¶50,166.

Sentence imposed on a tax preparer for willfully preparing false or fraudulent income tax returns was reasonable and within the Sentencing Guidelines range. The court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice or in calculating the tax loss based on IRS interviews with the individual's customers.

G.D. Goosby, CA-6, 2008-1 USTC ¶50,331.

An individual who pleaded guilty to two counts of filing false income tax returns was properly sentenced to the statutory maximum of three years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The court could have imposed the sentences consecutively, its comment comparing the individual's tax offense to drug trafficking crimes was not illegal or improper and the court acted within its discretion by allowing and considering testimony regarding the basis of a pending state charge to address the history and character of the individual.

B. Tockes, CA-7, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,411.

An individual could not appeal the sentence imposed on him following his conviction for conspiracy and aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. The individual had entered a guilty plea and waived his right to appeal.

D. Shields, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 2008-2 USTC ¶50,425, aff'g an unreported DC Calif. decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has summarily vacated and remanded a Court of Appeals ruling that a sentence of probation and time in a halfway house imposed on a part-time income tax preparer for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns was unreasonable. The Court requested the Appeals court reconsider its ruling in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007).

T.R. Taylor, SCt, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,432, vac'g and rem'g, CA-1, 2007-2 USTC ¶50,653.

A sentence of probation and time in a halfway house imposed on an individual for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns was remanded for reconsideration. The sentencing court was directed to provide justifications for its sentence in light of the scope and extent of the sentencing court's discretion under the federal sentencing guidelines.

T.R. Taylor, CA-1, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,436, on rem'd from SCt, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,432.

The sentence imposed on an individual for tax preparer fraud was vacated and remanded a second time for resentencing because the government did not prove the amount of the tax loss by a preponderance of the evidence and did not consider family circumstances as a mitigating circumstance. The court prejudged the amount of tax loss without giving due consideration to the individual's challenges to the amount of tax loss and whether the individual was responsible for the loss, thereby undermining the fairness of the sentencing hearing. Further, the district court did not consider whether the individual's incarceration would impose an extraordinary hardship on his family, thereby constituting a mitigating factor that would justify imposing a below-guidelines sentence.

J.P. Schroeder, CA-7, 2008-2 USTC ¶50,477.


SEC. 7206. FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.
Any person who --

7206(1) DECLARATION UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY. --Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or

7206(2) AID OR ASSISTANCE. --Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; or

7206(3) FRAUDULENT BONDS, PERMITS, AND ENTRIES. --Simulates or falsely or fraudulently executes or signs any bond, permit, entry, or other document required by the provisions of the internal revenue laws, or by any regulation made in pursuance thereof, or procures the same to be falsely or fraudulently executed or advises, aids in, or connives at such execution thereof; or

7206(4) REMOVAL OR CONCEALMENT WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD. --Removes, deposits, or conceals, or is concerned in removing, depositing, or concealing, any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, or any property upon which levy is authorized by section 6331, with intent to evade or defeat the assessment or collection of any tax imposed by this title; or

7206(5) COMPROMISES AND CLOSING AGREEMENTS. --In connection with any compromise under section 7122, or offer of such compromise, or in connection with any closing agreement under section 7121, or offer to enter into any such agreement, willfully --

7206(5)(A) CONCEALMENT OF PROPERTY. --Conceals from any officer or employee of the United States any property belonging to the estate of a taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax, or

7206(5)(B) WITHHOLDING, FALSIFYING, AND DESTROYING RECORDS. --Receives, withholds, destroys, mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, or record, or makes any false statement, relating to the estate or financial condition of the taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax;

shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation) or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

------------------


For more information about tax return preparer fraud or taxpayer fraud, contact ab@irstaxattorney.com 888 712-7690 ex 106

Labels:

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

6694 proposed regs - the "responsible preparer"

The proposed regulations eliminate the "one preparer per firm" rule. A return preparer is the person primarily responsible for the position on the return or claim for refund giving rise to the understatement. Under proposed §1.6694-1(b)(1), only one person within a firm will be considered primarily responsible for each position giving rise to an understatement and subject to the penalty. Proposed §1.6694-1(b)(2) provides that the individual who signs the return or claim for refund as the tax return preparer will generally be considered the person that is primarily responsible for all of the positions on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. The "one preparer per firm" rule, however, is revised by these proposed regulations if it is concluded based upon information received from the signing tax return preparer (or other relevant information from a source other than the signing tax return preparer) that another person within the signing tax return preparer's same firm was primarily responsible for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement. However, the proposed regulations also consider reliance on another professional at the same firm with greater knowledge of, and responsibility for, the accuracy of a position giving rise to the understatement.

With a one penalty per position rule within the tax preparation firm, the IRS could create fights within the firm. Suppose the firm has three persons who look at the return: A, B, and C. Client paid $6,000 for the 1120 return. A signs the return and does most of the data input. B is the reviewer and C is the technical advisor. If the IRS says B should be hit with the penalty, B might be able to argue that C has the "greater knowlede." This scenario is probable because the penaly would be $3,000 and there is a predictable conflict within the tax preparation firm. B and C could each present argument to the IRS that the other person should be hit with the penalty. Given the word "reckless" in 6694(b), I believe that the penalty can be $5,000 in any case that the IRS argues "reckless" conduct. Who could argue that a return preparer is not "reckless" for misapplying a complex tax issue.
"Reckless" conduct is deemed "negligence" in section 6662(c).


Send comment to ab@irstaxattorney.com

Labels:

Substantial Authority Standard change in law

The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, introduced by Rangle, provides for
an amendment to 6694(a) to provide for a "substantial authority" standard in lieu of the "more likely than not" standard. There is little doubt this will become law The same provision is in a Senate Bill that has been controversial because of other legislation that is part of the same bill.

There is no apparent opposition to this amendment which was heavily lobbied by the tax preparer professional organization.

It will reduce the standard of conduct to more than 40% accuracy instead of more than 50%. It does not change the need for the return preparers to support their positions with a technical "analysis" of the relevant "authorities" (i.e., all of the relevant tax law). The standard is still a subjective standard, and the return preparer industry still needs to wake up and understand that the days of taking positions without verifying and supporting the positions taken with a technical analysis are over. Clients have the same "substantial authority" standard to negate the section 6662 penalty.

The Senate action on the same legislative change should be taken before the end of September.

House Ways and Means Committee Release: Chairman Rangel Introduces Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008

September 24, 2008

110th Congress

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel, Chairman



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Contact: Matthew Beck (202) 225-1417



September 23, 2008




Chairman Rangel Introduces Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008





Senate now has an opportunity to pass and help enact energy tax incentives without adding to the deficit


Washington, DC - In response to recent action by the U.S. Senate, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel today introduced H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. This bill would amend Senate-passed legislation to ensure that tax incentives provided to encourage renewable energy and energy conservation fit within the scope of the offsets approved by the Senate.

"Tonight, the U.S. Senate finally approved a package of energy tax provisions and offsets to help establish America's energy independence and reduce our dependency on foreign oil," said Chairman Rangel. "Sadly, they did not live within their means, and their bill would add billions to the national deficit at a time when we can hardly afford it. The House will soon consider, and pass, legislation providing the Senate with an opportunity to help enact these tax incentives, fully offset by the provisions they have already blessed. This vote should be a no-brainer for the Senators already on record supporting these provisions."

A more detailed summary of the provisions is included below. The bill is ready for consideration by the House of Representatives as early as Wednesday, September 24.




H.R. 6049





Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax





Act of 2008





September 23, 2008


Summary: The House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 , will provide approximately $16 billion of tax incentives for investment in renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, energy efficiency and conservation. The bill will also extend $27 billion of expiring temporary tax provisions, including the research and development credit, special rules for active financing income, the State and local sales tax deduction, the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers, and the deduction for qualified tuition expenses. In addition, the bill provides $3 billion of additional tax relief for individuals through an expansion of the refundable child tax credit. The bill would be offset using the same revenue-raising provisions that were included in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6049, which would (1) prevent the understatement of foreign oil and gas extraction income in calculating foreign tax credits; (2) freeze the section 199 deduction for oil and gas companies at 6%; (3) provide for broker reporting of customer's basis in securities; (4) extend the FUTA surtax for one year; (5) extend and increase funding for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and (6) close a tax loophole that allows individuals that work for certain offshore corporations, such as hedge fund managers, to defer tax on their compensation. These revenue-raising provisions passed the Senate today by a vote of 93 to 2.




Energy Tax Incentives




I. Energy Production Incentives




Renewable Energy Incentives


Long-term extension and modification of renewable energy production tax credit. The bill would extend the placed-in-service date for wind facilities for one year (through December 31, 2009). The bill would also extend the placed-in-service date for two and a half years (through June 30, 2011) for certain other qualifying facilities: closed-loop biomass; open-loop biomass; geothermal; small irrigation; hydropower; landfill gas; and waste-to-energy facilities. The bill would also include a new category of qualifying facilities that will benefit from the longer June 30, 2011 placed-in-service date --facilities that generate electricity from marine renewables (e.g., waves and tides). The bill would cap the aggregate amount of tax credits that can be earned for these qualifying facilities placed in service after December 31, 2009 to an amount that has a present value equal to 35% of the facility's cost. The bill would update the definition of an open-loop biomass facility, the definition of a waste-to-energy facility, and the definition of a non-hydroelectric dam. This proposal is estimated to cost $5.983 billion over 10 years.

Long-term extension and modification of solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit. The bill would extend the 30% investment tax credit for solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property and the 10% investment tax credit for microturbines for eight years (through the end of 2016). It also would increase the $500 per half kilowatt of capacity cap for qualified fuel cells to $1,500 per half kilowatt of capacity. The bill would remove an existing limitation that prevents public utilities from claiming the investment tax credit. The bill would also provide a new 10% investment tax credit for combined heat and power systems. The bill would also allow these credits to be used to offset alternative minimum tax (AMT). This proposal is estimated to cost $1.765 billion over 10 years.

Long-term extension and modification of the residential energy-efficient property credit. The bill would extend the credit for residential solar property for eight years (through the end of 2016). The bill would also eliminate the annual credit cap (currently capped at $2,000) for solar electric property. The bill would include residential small wind equipment and geothermal heat pumps as property qualifying for this credit. The bill would also allow the credit to be used to offset alternative minimum tax (AMT). This proposal is estimated to cost approximately $1.316 billion over 10 years.

Sales of electric transmission property. The bill would extend the present-law deferral of gain on sales of transmission property by vertically integrated electric utilities to FERC-approved independent transmission companies. Rather than recognizing the full amount of gain in the year of sale, this provision would allow gain on such sales to be recognized ratably over an 8-year period. The rule applies to sales before January 1, 2010. This proposal is revenue neutral over 10 years.




Carbon Mitigation Provisions


Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects. The bill would provide $1.1 billion of tax credits for the creation of advanced coal electricity projects and certain coal gasification projects that demonstrate the greatest potential for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Of these $1.1 billion of incentives, $950 million would be awarded to advanced coal electricity projects and $150 million would be awarded to certain coal gasification projects. These tax credits would be awarded by Treasury through an application process, with the applicants that demonstrate the greatest carbon capture and sequestration percentage of total CO/2/ emissions receiving the highest priority. Applications would not be considered unless applicants can demonstrate that either their advanced coal electricity project would capture and sequester at least 65% of the facility's carbon dioxide emissions or that their coal gasification project would capture and sequester at least 75% of the facility's carbon dioxide emissions. Once these credits are awarded, recipients that fail to meet these minimum levels of carbon capture and sequestration would forfeit these tax credits. This proposal is estimated to cost $1.044 billion over 10 years.

Refund of certain coal excise taxes unconstitutionally collected from exporters. The Courts have determined that the Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents the imposition of the coal excise tax on exported coal and, therefore, taxes collected on such exported coal are subject to a claim for refund. The bill would create a new procedure under which certain coal producers and exporters may claim a refund of these excise taxes that were imposed on coal exported from the United States. Under this procedure, coal producers or exporters that exported coal during the period beginning on or after October 1, 1990 and ending on or before the date of enactment of the bill, may obtain a refund (plus interest) from the Treasury of excise taxes paid on such exported coal and any interest accrued from the date of overpayment. This proposal is estimated to cost $199 million over 10 years.

Solvency for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The bill would enact the President's proposal to bring the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund out of debt. Under current law, an excise tax is imposed on coal at a rate of $1.10 per ton for coal from underground mines and $0.55 per ton for coal from surface mines (aggregate tax per ton capped at 4.4 percent of the amount sold by the producer). Receipts from this tax are deposited in the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which is used to pay compensation, medical and survivor benefits to eligible miners and their survivors and to cover costs of program administration. The Trust Fund is permitted to borrow from the general fund any amounts necessary to make authorized expenditures if excise tax receipts do not provide sufficient funding. Reduced rates of excise tax apply after the earlier of December 31, 2013 or the date on which the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund has repaid, with interest, all amounts borrowed from the general fund of the Treasury. The President's Budget proposes that the current excise tax rate should continue to apply beyond 2013 until all amounts borrowed from the general fund of the Treasury have been repaid with interest. After repayment (or January 1, 2019, if earlier), the reduced excise tax rates of $0.50 per ton for coal from underground mines and $0.25 per ton for coal from surface mines would apply (and the aggregate tax per ton would be capped at 2 percent of the amount sold by the producer). This proposal is estimated to raise $1.287 billion over 10 years.

Carbon audit of the tax code. The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to request that the National Academy of Sciences undertake a comprehensive review of the tax code to identify the types of specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects. This proposal has no revenue effect.



II. Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security

Expansion of allowance for property to produce cellulosic alcohol. Under current law, taxpayers are allowed to immediately write off 50% of the cost of facilities that produce cellulosic ethanol if such facilities are placed in service before January 1, 2013. Consistent with other provisions in the bill that seek to be technology neutral, the bill would allow this write off to be available for the production of other cellulosic biofuels in addition to cellulosic ethanol. This proposal is estimated to be revenue neutral over 10 years.

Extension of biodiesel production tax credit; extension and modification of renewable diesel tax credit. The bill would extend for one year (through December 31, 2009) the $1.00 per gallon production tax credits for biodiesel and the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon. The bill would also extend for one year (through December 31, 2009) the $1.00 per gallon production tax credit for diesel fuel created from biomass. The bill would eliminate the current-law disparity in credit for biodiesel and agri-biodiesel and eliminates the requirement that renewable diesel fuel must be produced using a thermal depolymerization process. As a result, the credit would be available for any diesel fuel created from biomass without regard to the process used so long as the fuel is usable as home heating oil, as a fuel in vehicles, or as aviation jet fuel. The bill would also clarify that the $1 per gallon production credit for renewable diesel is limited to diesel fuel that is produced solely from biomass. Diesel fuel that is created by co-processing biomass with other feedstocks (e.g., petroleum) would be eligible for the 50 cent per gallon tax credit for alternative fuels. This proposal is estimated to cost $401 million over 10 years.

Plug-in electric drive vehicle credit. The bill establishes a new credit for each qualified plug-in electric drive vehicle placed in service during each taxable year by a taxpayer. The base amount of the credit is $3,000. If the qualified vehicle draws propulsion from a battery with at least 5 kilowatt hours of capacity, the credit amount is increased by $200, plus another $200 for each kilowatt hour of battery capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours up to 15 kilowatt hours. Taxpayers may claim the full amount of the allowable credit up to the end of the first calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer records 60,000 sales. The credit is reduced in following calendar quarters. The credit would be available against the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This proposal is estimated to cost $1.056 billion over 10 years.

Incentives for idling reduction units and advanced insulation for heavy trucks. The bill would provide an exemption from the heavy vehicle excise tax for the cost of idling reduction units, such as auxiliary power units (APUs), which are designed to eliminate the need for truck engine idling (e.g., to provide heating, air conditioning, or electricity) at vehicle rest stops or other temporary parking locations. The bill would also exempt the installation of advanced insulation, which can reduce the need for energy consumption by transportation vehicles carrying refrigerated cargo. Both of these exemptions are intended to reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector. This proposal is estimated to cost $95 million over 10 years.

Restructuring of New York Liberty Zone tax credits. The bill would implement a proposal included in the President's FY 2009 Budget to restructure disaster relief that was provided to the City of New York and the State of New York to rebuild Ground Zero in the wake of the September 11\th/ terrorist attacks on Lower Manhattan. Because these benefits have not served their intended purpose, the President asked Congress to provide the City of New York and the State of New York with tax credits for expenditures made for mass transit projects connecting with the New York Liberty Zone. This proposal is estimated to cost $1.129 billion over 10 years.

Fringe benefit for bicycle commuters. The bill would allow employers to provide employees that commute to work using a bicycle limited fringe benefits to offset the costs of such commuting (e.g., bicycle storage). This proposal is estimated to cost $10 million over 10 years.

Extension and increase of alternative refueling stations tax credit. The bill would increase the 30% alternative refueling property credit for businesses (capped at $30,000) to 50% (capped at $50,000). The credit provides a tax credit to businesses (e.g., gas stations) that install alternative fuel pumps, such as fuel pumps that dispense E85 fuel and natural gas. The bill would also extend this credit through the end of 2010 (through the end of 2014 in the case of natural gas refueling property). In addition, the bill would increase the 30% alternative refueling property credit for individuals (capped at $1,000) to 50% (capped at $2,000) and would extend the availability of this credit for natural gas home refueling pumps through 2017. This proposal is estimated to cost $237 million over 10 years.

Publicly Traded Partnership Income Treatment of Alternative Fuels. Under current law, a publicly traded partnership is taxable as a corporation unless 90% or more of its income is qualifying income. Although income derived from transporting oil and gas through pipelines is qualifying income, income derived from transporting certain alternative fuels, such as ethanol, is not qualifying income. The bill would permit publicly traded partnerships to treat the income derived from the transportation or storage of certain alternative fuels as qualifying income. This proposal is estimated to cost $76 million over 10 years .



III. Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Extension and modification of credit for energy-efficiency improvements to existing homes. The bill would extend the tax credits for improvements to energy-efficient existing homes for 2009 and would include energy-efficient biomass fuel stoves as a new class of energy-efficient property eligible for a consumer tax credit of $300. This proposal is estimated to cost $725 million over 10 years.

Extension of energy-efficient commercial buildings. The bill would extend the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction for five years (through December 31, 2013). This proposal is estimated to cost $891 million over 10 years.

Modification and extension of energy-efficient appliance credit. The bill would modify the existing energy-efficient appliance credit and extend this credit for three years (through the end of 2010). This proposal is estimated to cost $323 million over 10 years.

Accelerated depreciation for smart meters and smart grid systems. The bill would provide accelerated depreciation for smart electric meters and smart electric grid systems. Under current law, taxpayers are generally able to recover the cost of this property over the course of 20 years. The bill would cut the cost recovery time in half by allowing taxpayers to recover the cost of this property over a 10-year period. This proposal is estimated to cost $921 million over 10 years .

Extension and modification of qualified green building and sustainable design project bond. The bill would extend the authority to issue qualified green building and sustainable design project bonds through the end of 2012. Authority to issues these bonds is currently set to expire on September 30, 2009. The bill would also clarify the application of the reserve account rules to multiple bond issuances. This proposal is estimated to cost $45 million over 10 years.




Extension of Temporary Tax Provisions




I. Extenders Primarily Affecting Individuals

Extension of the deduction of State and local general sales taxes. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the election to take an itemized deduction for State and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction permitted for State and local income taxes. This proposal is estimated to cost $1.742 billion over 10 years.

Extension of above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the above-the-line tax deduction for qualified education expenses. For tax year 2007, the maximum deduction was $4,000 for taxpayers with AGI of $65,000 or less ($130,000 for joint returns) or $2,000 for taxpayers with AGI of $80,000 or less ($160,000 for joint returns). This proposal is estimated to cost $1.223 billion over 10 years.

Extension of special rules for regulated investment companies. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the tax treatment of interest-related dividends, short-term capital gain dividends, and other special rules applicable to foreign shareholders that invest in regulated investment companies. This proposal is estimated to cost $81 million over 10 years.

Extension of tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision that permits tax-free charitable contributions from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) of up to $100,000 per taxpayer, per taxable year. This proposal is estimated to cost $465 million over 10 years.

Extension of above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the $250 above-the-line tax deduction for teachers and other school professionals for expenses paid or incurred for books, supplies (other than non-athletic supplies for courses of instruction in health or physical education, computer equipment (including related software and services), other equipment, and supplementary materials used by the educator in the classroom for one year (i.e., to expenses paid or incurred in 2008). This proposal is estimated to cost $190 million over 10 years.



II. Extenders Primarily Affecting Businesses

Extension of R&D credit. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the research credit for one year. This proposal is estimated to cost $8.761 billion over 10 years.

Extension of Indian employment credit. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the business tax credit for employers of qualified employees that work and live on or near an Indian reservation. The credit is for wages and health insurance costs paid to qualified employees (up to $20,000) in the current year over the amount paid in 1993. Wages for which the work opportunity tax credit is available are not qualified wages for the Indian employment tax credit. This proposal is estimated to cost $59 million over 10 years.

Extension of New Markets Tax Credit . The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the new markets tax credit, permitting a $3.5 billion maximum annual amount of qualified equity investments. This proposal is estimated to cost $1.315 billion over 10 years.

Extension of railroad track maintenance credit. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the railroad track maintenance credit. The railroad track maintenance credit provides Class II and Class III railroads (e.g., short-line railroads) with a tax credit equal to 50 percent of gross expenditures for maintaining railroad tracks that they own or lease. This proposal is estimated to cost $165 million over 10 years.

Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the special 15-year cost recovery period for certain leasehold and qualified restaurant improvements. Absent an extension of this provision, the cost recovery period for these facilities would be 39 years. This proposal is estimated to cost $3.250 billion over 10 years.

Extension of 7-year straight-line cost recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the special 7-year cost recovery period for property used for land improvement and support facilities at motorsports entertainment complexes. Absent an extension of this provision, the cost recovery period for these facilities would be 15 years. This proposal is estimated to cost $48 million over 10 years.

Extension of accelerated depreciation for business property on an Indian reservation. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the placed-in-service date for the special depreciation recovery period for qualified Indian reservation property. In general, qualified Indian reservation property is property used predominantly in the active conduct of a trade or business within an Indian reservation, which is not used outside the reservation on a regular basis and was not acquired from a related person. This proposal is estimated to cost $151 million over 10 years.

Extension of expensing of "brownfields" environmental remediation costs The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision that allows for the expensing of costs associated with cleaning up hazardous ("brownfield") sites. This proposal is estimated to cost $178 million over 10 years.

Extension of deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision extending the section 199 domestic production activities deduction to activities in Puerto Rico. This proposal is estimated to cost $116 million over 10 years.

Extension of special tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the special rules for interest, rents, royalties and annuities received by a tax exempt entity from a controlled entity. This proposal is estimated to cost $28 million over 10 years.

Reauthorization of Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs). The bill allows an additional $400,000,000 of QZAB issuing authority to State and local governments, which can be used to finance renovations, equipment purchases, developing course material, and training teachers and personnel at a qualified zone academy. In general, a qualified zone academy is any public school (or academic program within a public school) below college level that is located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community and is designed to cooperate with businesses to enhance the academic curriculum and increase graduation and employment rates. QZABs are a form of tax credit bonds which offer the holder a Federal tax credit instead of interest. This proposal is estimated to cost $201 million over 10 years.

Extension of tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the designation of certain economically depressed census tracts within the District of Columbia as the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone. Businesses and individual residents within this enterprise zone are eligible for special tax incentives. The bill would also for one year (through 2008) extend the $5,000 first-time homebuyer credit for the District of Columbia. This proposal is estimated to cost $129 million over 10 years.

Extension of American Samoa economic development credit. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the American Samoa economic development credit. In general, this credit provides certain domestic corporations operating in American Samoa with a possessions tax credit to offset their U.S. tax liability on income earned in American Samoa from active business operations, sales of assets used in a business, or certain investments in American Samoa. This proposal is estimated to cost $16 million over 10 years.

Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision allowing businesses to claim an enhanced deduction for the contribution of food inventory. This proposal is estimated to cost $42 million over 10 years.

Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventories to public schools. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision allowing C corporations to claim an enhanced deduction for contributions of book inventory to public schools (kindergarten through grade 12). This proposal is estimated to cost $22 million over 10 years.

Extension of enhanced deduction for corporate contributions of computer equipment for educational purposes. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend a provision that encourages businesses to contribute computer equipment and software to elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools by allowing an enhanced deduction for such contributions. This proposal is estimated to cost $252 million over 10 years.

Extension of special rule for S corporations making charitable contributions of property. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision allowing S corporation shareholders to take into account their pro rata share of charitable deductions even if such deductions would exceed such shareholder's adjusted basis in the S corporation. The bill would also make a technical correction clarifying the application of this provision. This proposal is estimated to cost $63 million over 10 years.

Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision that expired in August of 2007 which allowed employers to claim the work opportunity tax credit for hiring employees who were affected by Hurricane Katrina. This proposal is estimated to cost $16 million over 10 years.

Extension of active financing exception. The bill would for one year (through 2009) extend the active financing exception from Subpart F of the tax code. This proposal is estimated to cost $3.970 billion over 10 years.

Extend look-through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations. The bill would for one year (through 2009) extend the current law look-through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations. This proposal is estimated to cost $611 million over 10 years.

Extend special expensing rules for certain film and television productions. The bill would for one year (through 2009) extend the current law special expensing rules for U.S. film and television productions for. This proposal is estimated to cost $11 million over 10 years.



III. Other Extenders

Extension of disclosures of certain tax return information. The bill would permanently extend the current-law terrorist activity disclosure provisions. This proposal estimated to have no revenue effect.

Extension of authority for undercover operations. The bill would permanently extend the authorization for the IRS to engage in certain activities related to undercover operations, such as purchasing property, organizing business entities and use the proceeds from an undercover operation to pay additional expenses incurred in the undercover operation. This proposal is estimated to have a negligible revenue effect.

Extension of temporary increase in limit on cover over of run excise tax revenues to Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands. The bill would for one year (through 2008) extend the provision providing for payment of $13.25 per gallon to cover over a $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax on distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States. This proposal is estimated to cost $96 million over 10 years.




Additional Tax Relief


Change in refundable child credit. The bill would increase the eligibility for the refundable child tax credit in 2008. The child tax credit is refundable to the extent of 15 percent of the taxpayer's earned income in excess of approximately $12,050 as a result of inflation adjustments to the original floor of $10,000. The bill would reduce this floor to $8,500 for 2008. This proposal is estimated to cost $3.129 billion over 10 years.

Provisions related to film and television productions. Under current law, taxpayers have not been able to take full advantage of tax incentives that are intended to encourage film and television companies to produce films here in the United States rather than overseas because of a number of technical issues. The bill would fix these issues. This proposal is estimated to cost $468 million over 10 years.

Exemption of excise tax on certain wooden and fiberglass arrows designed for use by children. Current law imposes an excise tax of 39 cents, adjusted for inflation, on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. The bill would exempt from the excise tax certain wooden and fiberglass arrows designed for use by children. This proposal is estimated to cost $6 million over 10 years.

Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer. The bill would conform the penalty standards for return preparers with the standards for taxpayers. For undisclosed positions, the penalty standard for return preparers is reduced to substantial authority. For disclosed positions, a return preparer generally must have a reasonable basis for the position. For positions involving tax shelters and certain reportable transactions, a return preparer must have a reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on the merits. This proposal is estimated to cost $22 million over 10 years.




Revenue Provisions


Freeze current law section 199 benefits at 6% for oil and natural gas production income. The bill would freeze the domestic production deduction for income of taxpayers that is with respect to oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof at 6% (which is current law). Absent this action, this deduction would increase to 9% in 2010. This is a scaled-back version of the provision proposing outright repeal of section 199 with respect to all oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof that passed the House as part of H.R. 6 (in January 2007) by a vote of 264 to 163 (with 36 House Republicans joining 228 House Democrats in support) and as part of H.R. 2776 (in August 2007) by a vote of 221 to 189 (with 9 House Republicans joining 212 House Democrats in support). This is also a scaled-back version of the provision proposing outright repal of section 199 for the major integrated oil producers (with a 6% freeze for other oil and gas companies) that passed the House as part of H.R. 6 (in December 2007) by a vote of 235 to 181 (with 14 House Republicans joining 221 House Democrats in support), as part of H.R. 5351 (in February 2008) by a vote of 236 to 182 (with 17 House Republicans joining 219 House Democrats in support) and as part of H.R. 6899 (in September 2008) by a vote of 236 to 189 (with 15 House Republicans joining with 221 House Democrats in support). This proposal is estimated to raise $4.906 billion over 10 years.

Labels:

Monday, September 22, 2008

1.6694-2(d) - problems with "reasonable cause"

The Reasonable Cause Solution is a Problematical Solution

There is a solution for return preparers who do not want the responsibility or risk of the minimum $1,000 and $5,000 penalties for each problematical position that has the potential of an understatement of tax, no matter how small of the understatement . There is a reasonable cause exception for the §6694(a) penalty but not for the §6694(b) penalty.

Section 1.6694-2(d) of the proposed regulations provides the specific standards necessary to meet the reasonable cause exception to the 6694(a) penalty if, considering all the facts and circumstances, it is determined that the understatement was due to reasonable cause and that the tax return preparer acted in good faith. Factors to consider include:

(1) Nature of the error causing the understatement. The error resulted from a provision that was complex, uncommon, or highly technical and a competent tax return preparer of tax returns or claims for refund of the type at issue reasonably could have made the error. The reasonable cause and good faith exception, however, does not apply to an error that would have been apparent from a general review of the return or claim for refund by the tax return preparer.

(2) Frequency of errors. The understatement was the result of an isolated error (such as an inadvertent mathematical or clerical error) rather than a number of errors. Although the reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies to an isolated error, it does not apply if the isolated error is so obvious, flagrant, or material that it should have been discovered during a review of the return or claim for refund. Furthermore, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund even though any one error, in isolation, would have qualified for the reasonable cause and good faith exception.

(3) Materiality of errors. The understatement was not material in relation to the correct tax liability. The reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies if the understatement is of a relatively immaterial amount. Nevertheless, even an immaterial understatement may not qualify for the reasonable cause and good faith exception if the error or errors creating the understatement are sufficiently obvious or numerous.

(4) Tax return preparer's normal office practice. The tax return preparer's normal office practice, when considered together with other facts and circumstances, such as the knowledge of the tax return preparer, indicates that the error in question would rarely occur and the normal office practice was followed in preparing the return or claim for refund in question. Such a normal office practice must be a system for promoting accuracy and consistency in the preparation of returns or claims for refund and generally would include, in the case of a signing tax return preparer, checklists, methods for obtaining necessary information from the taxpayer, a review of the prior year's return, and review procedures. Notwithstanding these rules, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a flagrant error on a return or claim for refund, a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund, or a repetition of the same or similar errors on numerous returns or claims for refund.

(5) Reliance on advice of others. For purposes of demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith, a tax return preparer may rely without verification upon advice and information furnished by the taxpayer or other party, as provided in §1.6694-1(e). The tax return preparer may reasonably rely in good faith on the advice of, or schedules or other documents prepared by, the taxpayer, another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm), and who the tax return preparer had reason to believe was competent to render the advice or other information. The advice or information may be written or oral, but in either case the burden of establishing that the advice or information was received is on the tax return preparer. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if --

(i) The advice or information is unreasonable on its face;

(ii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known that the other party providing the advice or information was not aware of all relevant facts; or

(iii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the advice or information was no longer reliable due to developments in the law since the time the advice was given.

(6) Reliance on generally accepted administrative or industry practice. The tax return preparer reasonably relied in good faith on generally accepted administrative or industry practice in taking the position that resulted in the understatement. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if the tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the administrative or industry practice was no longer reliable due to developments in the law or IRS administrative practice since the time the practice was developed.

Unfortunately, the “reasonable cause” exception is not an easy rule if, for example, the return preparer relies on an expert tax attorney for an option on the position taken, whether or not the position taken is disclosed to the IRS. The reasonable cause exception is dependent on multiple concepts that are subject to the discretion of the IRS: 1) complexity of the law using the standard applicable to a competent tax return preparer; 2) whether the error would be apparent from a general review of the return or claim for refund by the tax return preparer; 3) whether the error is flagrant; 4) whether the error is frequent; 5) whether the error is material; 6) whether the error is obvious; 7) consideration of the normal office practice of the return preparer; 8) the competency of an technical advisor; 9) whether the return preparer is in “good faith.” In short, the claim that the reasonable cause exception is available to any tax return preparer is nearly as problematical as the technical requirements for either the “more likely than not” standard or the “reasonable basis” standard.

Labels:

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Section 1.6694-2(b)(3) - "authorities"

The Authority Requirement of §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii)

Section 1.6694-2(b)(3) provides that the authorities considered in determining whether a position satisfies the more likely than not standard are those authorities provided in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (or any successor provision). The return preparers must also take into account the types of authorities cited in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) which references the relevant authorities that return preparers are required to take into account: applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other statutory provisions; proposed, temporary and final regulations construing such statutes; revenue rulings and revenue procedures; tax treaties and regulations, and Treasury Department and other official explanations of such treaties; court cases; congressional intent as reflected in committee reports, joint explanatory statements of managers included in conference committee reports, and floor statements made prior to enactment by one of a bill's managers; General Explanations of tax legislation prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation (the Blue Book); private letter rulings and technical advice memoranda; actions on decisions and general counsel memoranda; Internal Revenue Service information or press releases; and notices, announcements and other administrative pronouncements published by the Service in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Conclusions reached in treatises, legal periodicals, legal opinions or opinions rendered by tax professionals are not authority.

Most tax return preparers do not have the technical resources to research the applicable law and stay current on changes in the tax law. It is my opinion that most of the return preparers, includilng the CPA professionals, do not subscribe to a tax research service because either the firm is too small or because they have found little need to do indepentant tax research. Whether or not positions taken are disclosed to the IRS, it is imparative that tax return preparers get ready to support the complex factual and legal issues taken in tax returns if they want to continue to prepare tax returns for their livelihood.

Labels:

Friday, September 19, 2008

The fundamental 6694 TRAP

Trap for return prepares is the use of the term UNREASONABLE POSITION under the plain language of section 6694(a)(2).

That is the trap. Positions are taken because the return preparer thinks it is correct. If the return preparer thinks it is a "resonable" position, it is likely that the return preparer will not think the position should be disclosed. Wrong! In reality, the substantive test is a technical test on the liklihood that the position taken is justified by the "analysis" of the law and the "authority" on which the position is taken. The test is not wheather you think the position is reasonable, the test is whether you think the IRS could challange the position and reach a different result.

Using the hobby losss test just published by the IRS, and noted below, that is a complex issue because it is both a factual issue and a legal issue that depends on the discretion of the IRS. How can one be sure that the IRS will accept the position taken? My personal opinion is that all of these types of issues should be disclosed to the IRS and for the additional reason that the IRS has gone out of its way to educate the return preparation industry about the issue.



IRS Fact Sheet FS-2008-23, August 20, 2008.

[Code Sec. 183]

Individuals: Hobby loss rule: Trade or business. --The IRS has released a fact sheet to help taxpayers determine whether an activity is engaged in for profit or merely as a hobby. The fact sheet discusses the hobby loss rules and lists several non-inclusive factors to be considered when making this determination. Generally, hobby expense deductions are limited to the amount of income produced by the activity. The limit on hobby expense deductions applies to individuals, partnerships, estates, trusts and S corporations.

The Internal Revenue Service reminds taxpayers to follow appropriate guidelines when determining whether an activity is engaged in for profit, such as a business or investment activity, or is engaged in as a hobby.

Internal Revenue Code Section 183 (Activities Not Engaged in for Profit) limits deductions that can be claimed when an activity is not engaged in for profit. IRC 183 is sometimes referred to as the "hobby loss rule."

Taxpayers may need a clearer understanding of what constitutes an activity engaged in for profit and the tax implications of incorrectly treating hobby activities as activities engaged in for profit. This educational fact sheet provides information for determining if an activity qualifies as an activity engaged in for profit and what limitations apply if the activity was not engaged in for profit.

Is your hobby really an activity engaged in for profit?

In general, taxpayers may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses for conducting a trade or business or for the production of income. Trade or business activities and activities engaged in for the production of income are activities engaged in for profit.

The following factors, although not all inclusive, may help you to determine whether your activity is an activity engaged in for profit or a hobby:


Ÿ Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?



Ÿ Do you depend on income from the activity?



Ÿ If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond your control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?



Ÿ Have you changed methods of operation to improve profitability?



Ÿ Do you have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?



Ÿ Have you made a profit in similar activities in the past?



Ÿ Does the activity make a profit in some years?



Ÿ Do you expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?


An activity is presumed for profit if it makes a profit in at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year (or at least two of the last seven years for activities that consist primarily of breeding, showing, training or racing horses).

If an activity is not for profit, losses from that activity may not be used to offset other income. An activity produces a loss when related expenses exceed income. The limit on not-for-profit losses applies to individuals, partnerships, estates, trusts, and S corporations. It does not apply to corporations other than S corporations.

What are allowable hobby deductions under IRC 183?

If your activity is not carried on for profit, allowable deductions cannot exceed the gross receipts for the activity.

Deductions for hobby activities are claimed as itemized deductions on Schedule A, Form 1040. These deductions must be taken in the following order and only to the extent stated in each of three categories:


Ÿ Deductions that a taxpayer may claim for certain personal expenses, such as home mortgage interest and taxes, may be taken in full.



Ÿ Deductions that don't result in an adjustment to the basis of property, such as advertising, insurance premiums and wages, may be taken next, to the extent gross income for the activity is more than the deductions from the first category.



Ÿ Deductions that reduce the basis of property, such as depreciation and amortization, are taken last, but only to the extent gross income for the activity is more than the deductions taken in the first two categories.


DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF NOT DISCLOSING A POSITION TO THE IRS BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE POSITION IS REASONABLE. THE TERM "UNREASONABLE POSITION" IS PATENTL MISLEADING.

For any question on the above, contact ab@irstaxattorney.com. The IRS is very aggressive on the hobby/loss issues.

Labels:

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

New 6694 conduct standard to be considered

The extender bill proposes a reduction of the "more likely than not" standard of conduct to the "substantial authority" standard now applicable to negate penalties under section 6662. The House already passed that provision. The reduction was lobbield by the ABA, the AICPA, and the Engrolled Agent associations. Even the National Taxpayer Advocate appeared to approve of the legislative change.

I believe it will pass. Will it make any difference? I have worked a lot of penalty abatement issues, and the easiest resolution is based on "reasonable cause." It is near impossible to get a negligence penalty abated based on "substantial authrority" because I resolve those issues within the IRS administratively. I do not see cases with assessed penalties where the IRS has made any serious technical error. I work a lot of trust fund penalty liability cases where I challange the liability and win with the result that the liability goes away along with the applicable negligence penalty.

More importantly, I do not see a noticeable difference in the standards of conduct because they are both subjective. When does one have "substantial authority? Yes, it depends on the quality of the analysis and authority, but one then must convince the IRS that it does represent "substantial authority" (an advocacy issue)? The MLTN standard is defined to be at least 51% and the "substantial authority" is over 40%. There is no human who who can quantify the 10% difference.

For that reason, it is my opinion that each of the proFessional organization who lobbied this issue "goofed" big time. They should have argued the size of the penalty. I have seen effective lobying on the 1099 reporting requirement
by keeping it at $50 instead of $250 in 2008. The IRS will be motivated to nail return preparers with the $1,000 or $5,000 penalties, or the higher percent of the fee BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SIZE OF THE PENALTY. Count on that. Anytime there is a tax liability by an examiner or the service center, they will look at the return preparer penalty.

One of the flaws in the proposed regulations is that it does not fix a de minimus standard on the amount of the undperpayment of tax. Under the proposed regulations, one can have an underpayment of $100, and that would subject the return preparer to the full $1,000 penalty.

I do not count the reduction of the standard of conduct to the "substantial authority" standard as an important win for the industry.

Back on tipic: why would Grassly bring up lthe extender bill and not Baucus? There are obviously some political issues connected with other parts of the extender bill. However, since there is no apparent opposition to the reduction in the standard of conduct, I believe it will survive in the findal extender bill.

I have been receiving some good questions derived from this blog and portal. I can be reached at ab@irstaxattorney.com for those with questions or opposing views.




SFC Release: Baucus, Grassley, Senate Leaders Agree to Move Clean Energy Incentives, Extend Expiring Tax Cuts, Offer Disaster Tax Relief, Protect Millions from Alternative Minimum Tax

September 17, 2008

110th Congress

Committee On Finance



NEWS RELEASE



For Immediate Release



September 16, 2008



Contact: Carol Guthrie (Baucus)/ Jill Gerber (Grassley)


(202) 224-4515





BAUCUS, GRASSLEY, SENATE LEADERS AGREE TO MOVE CLEAN ENERGY INCENTIVES,





EXTEND EXPIRING TAX CUTS, OFFER DISASTER TAX RELIEF,





PROTECT MILLIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX





Deal combines Finance leaders' key energy priorities with top tax issues for 110\th/ Congress


Washington, DC - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today announced an agreement with the Senate's Democratic and Republican leadership to move legislation accomplishing the Finance panel's remaining major objectives for the year: passage of clean energy tax incentives, the protection of millions of Americans from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and extensions of expiring family and business tax cuts. Last week, Baucus and Grassley unveiled a $40 billion package of clean energy tax incentives for Senate consideration this month. Today, the Finance leaders combined key objectives of that legislation with an agreement to update alternative minimum tax rules and continue tax cuts for college tuition, state and local sales taxes, and research and development for U.S. businesses. Senators should vote this week on amendments to replace the current text of H.R. 6049, energy tax legislation approved in the House of Representatives earlier this year.

"This month, the Senate can act to create jobs, break America's dependence on foreign oil, support working families and help businesses thrive. This agreement will lead America toward clean, homegrown energy and the good-paying jobs that come with it. Protecting families from the alternative minimum tax and extending expiring tax cuts will put real money in the pockets of struggling families, and enable entrepreneurs to invest and innovate," said Baucus. "We've also agreed on ways to pay for much of this good policy, and that's a significant achievement. The Senate and the House should take up the elements of this agreement and pass them without delay. Americans are ready now for good-paying jobs, tax relief, economic growth, and a brighter energy future."

"This legislation will be a huge shot in the arm to the economy, and the timing couldn't be better. The legislation will prevent tax increases on students, teachers and families, including 24 million taxpayers who will be protected from having to pay an average of $2,000 of Alternative Minimum Tax on top of what they already owe. It also will extend tax incentives for renewable energy and strengthens America's effort to build a more stable and sustainable energy supply," Grassley said. "The legislation also includes $7 billion in tax relief to help Iowa and other Midwestern states recover from floods and tornadoes that destroyed homes, businesses and communities this summer. The disaster tax relief package that's part of this agreement provides for the Midwest the same kind of tax provisions passed for Katrina victims. This package is a major victory and was worth fighting for in Congress because these provisions have proven their value for disaster recovery efforts, whether it's helping small businesses keep their doors open, communities raise additional dollars to recover, or families trying to rebuild their homes and their lives. The legislation also continues the bipartisan Finance Committee efforts to curtail tax shelters and close loopholes. The agreement includes the proposal to end tax abuse by hedge fund managers with respect to offshore deferred compensation plans. And it adopts my recommendation and eliminates the charitable loophole for these transactions."



The bipartisan Senate agreement includes the following elements:


Ÿ Clean energy tax incentives totaling approximately $17 billion, paid for by freezing the tax deduction for the domestic manufacturing activities of American oil and gas companies, by tightening the rules by which oil and gas companies pay taxes on income earned overseas, by freeing general fund monies with increased payments into the oil spill liability trust fund as new drilling is considered, by a one-year extension of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act surtax at the current level, and by increasing reporting requirements for brokers on sales of stock.



Ÿ An increase in the income threshold at which Americans become subject to the higher alternative minimum tax. This measure would protect approximately 20 million taxpayers from higher taxes at a cost of $64 billion. Baucus and Grassley do not expect the cost of the AMT "patch" to be offset.



Ÿ Extensions of expiring family and business tax cuts and other policies -including badly needed tax relief for victims of natural disasters, an expansion of the child tax credit, and long-awaited legislation providing parity for mental health treatment in the U.S. health care system. Extensions of expiring tax cuts will be partially offset by keeping hedge fund managers from using offshore corporations and other structures to defer taxes on compensation received for providing investment services.


Detailed summary information will be made available shortly.




# # #


Carol Guthrie

Communications Director, Democratic Staff

U.S. Senate Finance Committee

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Labels:

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

6662(c) and 6694(b)

Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment of tax attributable to one or more of the items set forth in section 6662(b) , including negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.
Section 6662© defines “negligence” to include any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of Title 26 and the term “disregard” includes any careless, “reckless,” or intentional disregard. See also 1.6662-3(b)(2). A “disregard is ‘reckless’ if the taxpayer makes little or no effort to determine whether a rule or regulation exists, under circumstances which demonstrate a substantial deviation from the dtandard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.”

Compare 6694(b)(2)(B) which provides the onorous 6694B) $,5000 50% of income penalty for "reckless" conduct.

This is an extention of the prior blog which deals with this issues.

The creates the anamoly that something "negligent" under 6662(c) can set a return preparer up for the 6694(b) penalty.

Labels:

Return preparers 6694 doomsday

What is so striking about the proposed section 6694 regulations is its absolute requirement that the 6694(a) penalty will be assessed unless the return preparer uses the analysis prescribed by section 1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) of the authorities described in section 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) of the regulations. See section1.6694-2(b) of the proposed regulations.

In the real world, most return preparers do not even subscribe to a tax research service. The "authority" requirement references all tax law and the "analysis" requirement goes to the relevancy or competency of the application of the applicable law.

There fundamental requirements would apply even if the "more likely than not" standard is replaced by the "substantial authority" standard of conduct. The former standard represents 51% accuracy and the latteer represents 41% accuracy. Since each standard is subjective and subject to the dicretion of the IRS, I do not see how the lower standard will afford the return preparation industry any rational relief from the threat of the severe 6694 penalty where there ia ANY understatement of income disclosed either by the IRS Service Center or through examination.

Keep in mind that the penalty is $5,000 or 50% of the fee for reckless conduct as prescribed by section 6694(b)(2)(B). I am not sure that I can tell the difference between a negligent error or a reckless error. IRS examiners are generally aggressive and can give you fits over errors they classify as "reckless."

I recently attended a deposition of a CPA who testified that he never appeals any IRS determination to an IRS Office of Appeals because it is a "legal" issue. The CPA was a 50% owner of a 30 person CPA firm. I would take from that experience that a large body of the tax return preparers will not be able to meet the "analysis" and "authority" requirements under the proposed 6694 regulations because they do not have the facility, training, education and/or experience necessary to meet those very technical tax law requirements.

To ease the pain, I recommend that all return preparerers, clever enough to identify a factual or legal issues for which the penalties under 6694 could apply, disclose those positions to get the lesser "reasonable basis" standard. It is also my personal opinion that disclosure will make it nearly impossible for the IRS to apply the 6694(b) penalty, although there is still some risk that the 6694(a) penalty could apply.

The greater risk to the return preparers is that they do not identify an issue that should be or could be disclosed to the IRS. For that reason, return preparer firms should think of maintaining a close relationship with advisors with the resources for resarch and analysis and with solid experience in dealing with tax law issues so that tax issues can more readily be identified and evaluated.

The new penalties and the proposed regulations are "game changers." The return preparation business will never be the same again with these high-threshold requirements to avoid very harsh and severe penalties.

The most concervative and safest route is to 1) identify the problematical issues; 2) disclose those issues to the IRS, even at the risk of examination; 3) and get outside expert opinion that will satisfy the "reasonable cause" exception.

The present "in denial" posture of the return preparation industry can prevail for a few years until the returns filed for 2008 and beyond reach the IRS audit cycle. The resulting penalties will be predictably devistating. I have represented a fair number of return preparers under civil and criminal examination. When a return preparer is examined, the IRS looks at their client list and examines the tax returns of the clients. For that reason, any instance of the imposition of the 6694 penalty will likely be multiplied when other tax returns of clients are examined.

Rather than wait for the 2008 returns to be audited in 2009 or 2010, the 2008 tax year issues should be identified and addressed now - not when the returns are filed in 2009.

Use of the word "doomsday" was to get your attention and to get you to focus on the high risk of getting involved with complex factual or legal issues.

For any questions on the above, contact us at ab@irstaxattorney.com.

Labels:

Monday, September 15, 2008

Ambiguity in 6694 regulations

The issue is whether a filing requirment by a client (a corporation in the 6939 issue below) is the responsibility of the return preparer for purposes of calculating the 6694 penalty.

The proposed regulations, expressly or implicitly, make it clear that that when a tax return is filed, it is the responsibility of the return preparer (for 6694 purposes) to prepare all required schedules.

The next issue is whether the return preparer is also liable for the information returns to be flied by a client. In the proposed 6039 regulations, there is a reporting requirement. Your client also has a 1099 filing requirement. The proposed section 6694 regulations and the 6694 statute are limited to "returns." It is up to the IRS do determine whether an information return will be included in the definition of a "return" as was specified in Notice 2008-13. One can expect that liability in all cases where there is a section 6694(b) penalty and not for 6694(a). The IRS, in its legislative discretion delegated to it under the 6694 statute, can make all reporting requirements the responsibility of the return preparers. To be on the safe side, all return preparers should make sure that all information returns required to be filed by their clients are indeed filed. Treasury is interested in finding ways to close the $345 billion tax gap. I expect the tax policy to require return preparer responsibility for the filing of all client information returns. That due diligence will also be helpful in defending against the 6694(b) penalty and also help justify "reasonable cause.?





Proposed Amendments of Regulations (REG-103146-08) , published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2008.

[ Code Sec. 6039]


Procedure and administration: Information returns: Stock Options. --
Amendments of Reg. § 1.6039-1 and Reg. § 1.6039-2, relating to the return and information statement requirements under section 6039 of the Internal Revenue Code, are proposed. The texts are at ¶35,601C and ¶35,601G.




DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY



Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-103146-08]

RIN 1545-BH69

Information Reporting Requirements Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the return and information statement requirements under section 6039 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations reflect changes to section 6039 made by section 403 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. These proposed regulations affect corporations that issue statutory stock options and provide guidance to assist corporations in complying with the return and information statement requirements under section 6039.

DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by [ INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103146-08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103146-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG-103146-08).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning these proposed regulations, Thomas Scholz at (202) 622-6030 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and/or to request a hearing, Richard Hurst at Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service , Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP; Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by [ INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 2008. Comments are specifically requested concerning:


Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;



The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;



How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;



How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and



Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.


The collection of information in these proposed regulations is in §1.6039-1 and §1.6039-2. Section 6039 requires corporations to file an information return with the IRS and furnish a written statement to each employee, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations, regarding: (i) the corporation's transfer of stock pursuant to the employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b); and (ii) the transfer of stock by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c). The information on the statements required to be provided by the corporation will be used by employees to complete their income tax returns in the year of the disposition of the stock acquired pursuant to the statutory stock option. The likely respondents are for-profit corporations.


Estimated total annual reporting burden: 25,000 hours.



Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 30 minutes.



Estimated number of respondents: 50,000.



Estimated annual frequency of responses: annually.


An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.



Background

Section 403 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Act) amended the information reporting requirements of section 6039. Prior to its amendment, section 6039 required corporations to furnish a written statement to each employee, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations, regarding: (i) the corporation's transfer of stock pursuant to the employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b); and (ii) the transfer of stock by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c). Corporations must furnish employees with the information statements required by section 6039 on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the statement is required. Prior to the amendment of section 6039 made by the Act, the regulations under section 6039 were last updated in 2004. See TD 9144 (69 FR 46401).

As amended by the Act, section 6039 requires corporations to file an information return with the IRS, in addition to providing employees with an information statement, following a stock transfer. The time and manner for filing a return with the IRS, as well as the information to be contained in the return and furnished to employees, is addressed in these proposed regulations. Section 6039, as amended by the Act, applies to stock transfers occurring on or after January 1, 2007. However, in Notice 2008-8, 2008-3 IRB 276 (December 19, 2007) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b)), the IRS waived the obligation to file an information return for 2007 stock transfers governed by section 6039.



Explanation of Provisions

These proposed regulations describe the information that would be required in the return filed with the IRS and the information statement furnished to employees pursuant to section 6039. There are two sections under these proposed regulations: §1.6039-1, Returns required in connection with certain options; and §1.6039-2, Statements to persons with respect to whom information is reported. In crafting these proposed regulations, one principal objective was to require corporations to furnish employees with sufficient information to enable them to calculate their tax obligations upon disposition of the shares acquired by the exercise of a statutory option. Under these proposed regulations, essentially the same information would be reported with respect to the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of an incentive stock option and the transfer of stock acquired pursuant to an employee stock purchase plan.

With respect to a transfer of stock upon the exercise of an incentive stock option, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under §1.6039-1 is sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Therefore, the information that would be required in the information return and the statement furnished to employees under these proposed regulations is generally the same information that is included in the statement furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under §1.6039-1. With respect to an employee's transfer of stock acquired under an employee stock purchase plan, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under §1.6039-1 is not sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Accordingly, these proposed regulations would require that additional information be included in the information return and the statement furnished to employees.

As discussed further in the preamble, the IRS will issue two forms with instructions that corporations must use to satisfy the return and information statement requirements under section 6039.



1. Returns required with respect to incentive stock options

Section 1.6039-1(a) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation that transfers stock pursuant to an employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b) to file a return with respect to each transfer made during a particular year. This return would include the following information:


(i) The name, address, and employer identification number of the corporation transferring the stock;



(ii) If other than the corporation identified in (i), the name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;



(iii) The name, address, and identifying number of the person to whom the share or shares of stock were transferred pursuant to the exercise of the option;



(iv) The date the option was granted to the person;



(v) The exercise price per share;



(vi) The date the option was exercised by the person;



(vii) The fair market value of a share of stock on the date the option was exercised by the person; and



(viii) The number of shares of stock transferred to the person pursuant to the exercise of the option.


The information required to be included on the information return pursuant to these proposed regulations is generally the same information that is required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations. However, while the existing regulations require that the corporation report the total cost of all shares acquired, these proposed regulations would require instead that the corporation report the exercise price per share. The exercise price per share, rather than the total cost of all shares acquired, is more readily useable by the employee in calculating the tax obligation when the employee later disposes of some or all of the shares.

Returns required by §1.6039-1(a) must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return is made. Such returns must be made on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and filed in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. The IRS expects to release Form 3921 later this year.



2. Returns required with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan

Section 1.6039-1(b) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation which records a transfer of the legal title of a share of stock acquired by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c) to file a return with respect to each transfer made during a particular year. This return would include the following information:


(i) The name, address, and identifying number of the transferor;



(ii) The name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;



(iii) The date the option was granted to the transferor;



(iv) The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted;



(v) The exercise price per share;



(vi) The date the option was exercised by the transferor;



(vii) The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was exercised by the transferor;



(viii) The date the legal title of the shares was transferred by the transferor; and



(ix) The number of shares to which legal title was transferred by the transferor.


These proposed regulations would require that all of the information required pursuant to the existing regulations be included on the information statement furnished to employees. However, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations is not sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Accordingly, items (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) in the list in the preceding paragraph would request new information that is not required to be reported under the existing regulations. This additional information, along with the information required under the existing regulations, will enable the employee to determine his or her tax obligations upon the disposition of shares.

Returns required by §1.6039-1(b) must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return is made. Such returns must be made on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and filed in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. The IRS expects to release Form 3922 later this year.



3. Information statements required with respect to incentive stock options

Section 1.6039-2(a) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation filing a return under §1.6039-1(a) to furnish to each employee named in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made to such employee during such year. Each information statement required by §1.6039-2(a) must be furnished to the employee on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under §1.6039-1(a) is made. Such information statements must be furnished to employees on Form 3921 (or its designated successor) and be delivered in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. Rules regarding electronic furnishing of the information statements and furnishing the information statement by mail (items addressed under §1.6039-1(d) and (f) of the existing regulations) will be set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 (or its designated successor).



4. Information statements required with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan

Section 1.6039-2(b) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation filing a return under §1.6039-1(b) to furnish to each employee named in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made by the employee during such year. Each information statement required by §1.6039-2(b) must be furnished to the employee on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under §1.6039-1(b) is made. Such information statements must be furnished to employees on Form 3922 (or its designated successor) and be delivered in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. Rules regarding electronic furnishing of the information statements and furnishing the information statement by mail (items addressed under §1.6039-1(d) and (f) of the existing regulations) will be set forth in the instructions to Form 3922 (or its designated successor).



Proposed Effective Date

These regulations under section 6039 are proposed to apply to any stock transfer occurring on or after January 1, 2007. However, corporations are not required to comply with the return requirements of §1.6039-1(a) and (b) for stock transfers that occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years. Notwithstanding the waiver of the return requirements for 2007 and 2008 stock transfers, corporations must furnish information statements to employees for such 2007 and 2008 stock transfers. For purposes of furnishing information statements for 2007 and 2008 stock transfers, corporations may rely on §1.6039-1 of the 2004 final regulations (TD 9144) or §1.6039-2 of these proposed regulations.



Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the filing of a return with the IRS and the provision of employee statements required under these proposed regulations will impose a minimal administrative burden on small entities. It is estimated that it will take approximately 30 minutes to prepare and provide the information required by these regulations. Further, the information to be provided is readily available. Therefore, an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.



Comments and Request for Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are timely submitted to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written or electronic comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register .



Drafting Information

The principal author of these proposed regulations is Thomas Scholz, Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.



List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:



PART 1 --INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805

Par. 2. Section 1.6039-1 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6039-1 Returns required in connection with certain options.

(a) Requirement of return with respect to incentive stock options under section 6039(a)(1). (1) Every corporation which in any calendar year transfers to any person a share of stock pursuant to such person's exercise of an incentive stock option shall, for such calendar year, file a return with respect each transfer made during such year. This return must include the following information --(i) The name, address, and employer identification number of the corporation transferring the stock;

(ii) If other than the corporation identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;

(iii) The name, address, and identifying number of the person to whom the share or shares of stock were transferred pursuant to the exercise of the option;

(iv) The date the option was granted to the person;

(v) The exercise price per share;

(vi) The date the option was exercised by the person;

(vii) The fair market value of a share of stock on the date the option was exercised by the person; and

(viii) The number of shares of stock transferred to the person pursuant to the exercise of the option.

(2) Each return required by this paragraph (a) shall be made on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and shall be filed in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.

(b) Requirement of return with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan under section 6039(a)(2). (1) Every corporation which in any calendar year records, or has by its agent recorded, a transfer of the legal title of a share of stock acquired by the transferor pursuant to the transferor's exercise of an option granted under an employee stock purchase plan and described in section 423(c) (relating to the special rule where the option price is between 85 percent and 100 percent of value of the stock), shall, for such calendar year, file a return with respect each transfer made during such year. This return must include the following information --(i) The name, address, and identifying number of the transferor;

(ii) The name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;

(iii) The date the option was granted to the transferor;

(iv) The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted;

(v) The exercise price per share;

(vi) The date the option was exercised by the transferor;

(vii) The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was exercised by the transferor;

(viii) The date the legal title of the shares was transferred by the transferor; and

(ix) The number of shares to which legal title was transferred by the transferor.

(2) Each return required by this paragraph (b) shall be made on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and shall be filed in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.

(3) A return is required by reason of a transfer described in section 6039(a)(2) of a share only with respect to the first transfer of such share by the person who exercised the option. Thus, for example, if the owner has record title to a share or shares of stock transferred to a recognized broker or financial institution and the stock is subsequently sold by such broker or institution (on behalf of the owner), the corporation is only required to file a return relating to the transfer of record title to the broker or financial institution. Similarly, a return is required when a share of stock is transferred by the optionee to himself and another person (or persons) as joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or tenants in common. However, when stock is originally issued to the optionee and another person (or persons) as joint tenants, or as tenants by the entirety, the return required by this paragraph shall be filed with respect to the first transfer of the title to such stock by the optionee.

(4) Every corporation which transfers any share of stock pursuant to the exercise of an option described in this paragraph shall identify such stock in a manner sufficient to enable the accurate reporting of the transfer of record title to such shares. Such identification may be accomplished by assigning to the certificates of stock issued pursuant to the exercise of such options a special serial number or color.

(c) Time for filing returns --(1) In general. Each return required by this section for a calendar year must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the return is required.

(2) Extension of time. An extension of time to file returns required by this section may be granted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 and Form 3922.

(d) Penalty. For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to file a return under this section, see section 6721.

(e) Effective/applicability date --(1) In general. Upon the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the rules of this section as a final regulation in the Federal Register , these rules will apply as of January 1, 2007.

(2) Transition period. Taxpayers are not required to comply with the return requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for stock transfers that occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years.



Par. 3. A new §1.6039-2 is added to read as follows:



§1.6039-2 Statements to persons with respect to whom information is reported.

(a) Requirement of statement with respect to incentive stock options under section 6039(b). (1) Every corporation filing a return under §1.6039-1(a) shall furnish to each person whose name is set forth in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made to such person during such year. This statement must include the information described in §1.6039-1(a)(1).

(2) Each statement required by this paragraph (a) to be furnished to any person must be furnished to such person on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and be delivered at such time and in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.

(b) Requirement of statement with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan under section 6039(a)(2). (1) Every corporation filing a return under §1.6039-1(b) shall furnish to each person whose name is set forth in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made by such person during such year. This statement must include the information described in §1.6039-1(b)(1).

(2) Each statement required by this paragraph (b) to be furnished to any person must be furnished to such person on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and be delivered at such time and in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.

(3) If the statement required by this paragraph is made by the authorized transfer agent of the corporation, it is deemed to have been made by the corporation. The term transfer agent, as used in this section, means any designee authorized to keep the stock ownership records of a corporation and to record a transfer of title of the stock of such corporation on behalf of such corporation.

(c) Time for furnishing statements --(1) In general. Each statement required by this section to be furnished to any person for a calendar year must be furnished to such person on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the statement is required.

(2) Extension of time. An extension of time to furnish statements required by this section may be granted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 and Form 3922.

(d) Penalty. For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to furnish a statement under this section, see section 6722.

(e) Effective/applicability date --(1) In general. Upon the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the rules of this section as a final regulation in the Federal Register , these rules will apply as of January 1, 2007.

(2) Reliance and transition period. For stock transfers that are subject to the return requirements under §1.6039-1(a) and (b), and occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years, taxpayers may comply with §1.6039-1 of the 2004 final regulations (69 FR 46401) or this section.

/s/ Linda E. Stiff

Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement

Sunday, September 14, 2008

The liability for the 6694 penalty by the "firm"

§1.6694-2(a)(2) provides, as follows:

(a) (2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms. A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(a) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(a);

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) Such review procedures were disregarded by the corporation, partnership, or other firm entity through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

§1.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct.

(a) (2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms. A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(b) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(b);

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) Such review procedures were disregarded by the corporation, partnership, or other firm entity through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

* * * * *
COMMENT:

1. None of the "principal management" knew of the position. Who is a "principal manager?" A reviewer? Since a reviewer "manages" another person, it would appear that any return preparation firm with a "reviewer" makes the return preparation firm liabile for the 6694 penalty. This would be an absurd result. The "principal manager" could be an equity owner or key management. My personal opinion is that the term reaches the same type of person would would be a "responsible person" within the meaning of the section 6672 statute. The final regulations should address this ambiguity. But the term is so braod that most of the return preparation firms should be concerned that the firm will be vulnerable to the 6694 penalty if any employee is subject to the penalty. To minimize this risk, all questionable positions should be reported to the IRS in order to take advantage of the lesser "reasonable basis" standard. There is a massive risk to "firms" for the undisclosed positions.


2. The reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position are ambiguous terms and they are subjective terms. Even if a firm has a perceive adequate review process by a comptent reviewer, that review process can always be challanged as insufficient and inappropriate. Moreover, this terminology does not permit any mistakes. Here again, it would be very easy for the IRS examiner to find the firm liabile for the penalty if any other employee is liable for the penalty.

To play it safe, all questionalble positions can be sent to an outside tax consultant or tax attorney. Both the employee and the firm could get the benefit of the "reasonable cause" exception. I would advise all key employees dealing with the issue and the firm request advice from the outside tax advisor in the same document so that all of the parties dealing with the return are given the safe haven of "reasonable cause."

If you have any questions on this matter, contact ab@irstaxattorney.com

Labels:

Friday, September 12, 2008

TIGTA Report on Unenrolled Preparers

The TIGTA report, below, may be the prelude to congressional action to require all tax return peparers to have minimum specified training, testing, and or licensing. There has been some legisilation introduced to improve the quality of the return preparers. The IRS does have software that targets the error rate of return preparers and they begin civil and criminal examinations when they see high error rates and identified abuses. The 6694 penalties are one way to get rid of unqualified or abusive tax return preparers. The proposed regulations do require relevant "analysis" of the "authorities" that support disclosed and undisclosed positions. Any return preparer, including CPAs, who do not have technical support for their positions will be confronted with the very punitive 6694 penalties. Although the lower "reasonable basis" standard for disclosed positions may appear to be a low threshold, it is still a subjective standard and, for that reason and to avoid having a tax return selected for examination, disclosed positions need full and comprehensive technical justification. Contact ab@irstaxattorney.com if you have any questions on that point. I find it strange that the return preparation industry is slow to understand the daunting new technical requirements required by the 6694 proposed regulations. There is little doubt that the technical requirements and standards will be part of the final regulations. For that reason the technical issues ongoing in 2008 should be addressed now before the 2008 returns are filed because there is little or no time to address the issues during the tax filing season.



Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Report: Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors (Reference Number: 2008-40-171)

September 12, 2008

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report : Tax return preparers : Unenrolled preparers : Errors .




TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION





Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors


September 3, 2008

Reference Number: 2008-40-171

This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.

Phone Number | 202-622-6500

Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov

Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov




DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY





WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220




TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

September 3, 2008

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED DIVISION

FROM: (for) Michael R. Phillips Deputy Inspector General for Audit

SUBJECT: Final Audit Report --Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors


(Audit #200840009)


This report presents the results of our review to determine whether taxpayers receive accurate preparation of their income tax returns when using unenrolled paid preparers. This audit was conducted as part of our Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Audit Plan.



Impact on the Taxpayer

Although taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the information reported on their tax returns, millions of taxpayers rely on preparers to prepare correct returns. Currently, there are no national standards that preparers are required to satisfy before selling tax preparation services to the public. Because more than one-half of all taxpayers use preparers to file their tax returns, preparers have a significant effect on taxpayer compliance. In a limited sample of unenrolled preparers, we found that most made significant errors when preparing tax returns.



Synopsis

In Calendar Year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed approximately 83 million individual Federal income tax returns prepared by paid preparers. This is up more than 2 percent from the nearly 81 million tax returns prepared by paid preparers that the IRS processed in Calendar Year 2006. Anyone-regardless of training, experience, skill, or knowledge-is allowed to prepare Federal income tax returns for others for a fee.




Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors


In February and March 2008, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration auditors posed as taxpayers in a large metropolitan area and paid to have 28 tax returns prepared at 12 commercial chain and 16 small, independently owned tax return preparation offices. Auditors paid commercial chains approximately $2,800, averaging $234 per tax return, and independently owned offices approximately $2,100, averaging $132 per tax return.

The preparers were unlicensed and unenrolled. That is, they were not practitioners (attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, or enrolled actuaries). Preparers often made substantial errors when completing tax returns and correctly prepared only 11 (39 percent) of the 28 tax returns (i.e., the tax returns showed the correct amount of taxes owed or refunds due). However, 17 tax returns (61 percent) were prepared incorrectly.


Ÿ 11 (65 percent) of the 17 contained mistakes and omissions we considered to have been caused by human error and/or misinterpretation of the tax laws.



Ÿ 6 (35 percent) of the 17 contained misstatements and omissions we considered to have been willful or reckless.


If these incorrect tax returns had been filed, the net effect to the Federal Government would have been $12,828 in understated taxes (this is the net effect-there were instances in which tax liabilities and tax refunds were both overstated and understated). We discussed these issues with IRS officials, who stated that had these problems been discovered on real tax returns, the preparers could have been subject to penalties for such things as willful or reckless disregard of tax rules. We have referred matters that we encountered to the IRS, so that any appropriate followup actions can be taken.

The Internal Revenue Code includes requirements 1 that all preparers be diligent in determining taxpayer eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, sign the tax return, furnish their identification number on the tax return, 2 and not improperly or recklessly disclose tax return information. However, none of the seven preparers required to exercise due diligence when determining whether auditors were eligible to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit did so. In addition, two preparers did not furnish the required identification numbers on the completed tax returns.

The IRS does not have one list or database that collects information on preparers such as the preparer's name, associated identifying numbers, or whether the preparer is a practitioner or unenrolled preparer. The IRS acknowledges that it does not know how many paid preparers exist and cannot determine the full extent of noncompliance and incompetence among practitioners. This hinders the IRS' efforts to expand its outreach and education initiatives and to identify potentially problematic preparers and all the tax returns they prepared.

In Fiscal Year 2007, the IRS, including the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Director, Office of Professional Responsibility, participated in a Return Preparer Summit, which was claimed to be a first step toward creating an agency-wide preparer strategy. The Summit's goal was to have an organized, agency-wide strategy that would assist in making the most of IRS resources by focusing compliance and outreach efforts with tax professionals where it is most needed. Pursuing abusive preparers is part of the IRS' strategy to reduce the tax gap, which researchers estimate to be $290 billion based on 2001 data. 3 In February 2007 testimony before Congress, the IRS Commissioner stated that 68 percent of the tax gap is attributed to underreported taxes for individuals. Eleven (65 percent) of the 17 incorrect tax returns prepared for our auditors fell into this category.

Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the information reported on their tax returns. However, taxpayers rely on preparers to prepare correct returns. In Fiscal Year 2007, legislation was introduced in Congress to regulate paid preparers. 4 A unique identification number would enable the IRS to use its current databases to identify and evaluate preparers' compliance. Being able to identify all preparers would allow the IRS to better pursue abusive or incompetent tax preparers in its stepped-up campaign against tax fraud and other forms of noncompliance.



Recommendation

We recommended that the Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, develop and require a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers.



Response

IRS management agreed to study this issue. The Director, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, will commission a cross-functional team to study the feasibility and methodology associated with requiring a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers. Management will evaluate the results of the study to consider if it is feasible to implement. Management's complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VII.

Copies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report recommendation. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Michael E. McKenney, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income Programs), at (202) 622-5916.




Table of Contents




Background



Results of Review


Preparers Often Made Substantial Errors When Completing Tax Returns



Improved Data Are Needed to Enable the Internal Revenue Service to Control and Monitor Paid Preparers



Recommendation 1 :




Appendices


Appendix I --Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology



Appendix II --Report Distribution List



Appendix III --Comparison of Taxpayers Who Used a Preparer to Taxpayers Who Did Not Use a Preparer for Calendar Year 2008



Appendix IV --Internal Revenue Code Preparer Penalties



Appendix V --Explanations of Tax Law Topics



Appendix VI --Accuracy Results of 28 Anonymous Visits



Appendix VII --Management's Response to the Draft Report





Abbreviations





IRS Internal Revenue Service







Background


Every year, more than one-half of all taxpayers pay someone else to prepare their income tax returns. During Calendar Year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed approximately 83 million individual Federal income tax returns prepared by paid preparers. This is up more than 2 percent from the nearly 81 million processed in Calendar Year 2006. Currently, there are no national standards that a preparer is required to satisfy before selling tax preparation services to the public. Anyone-regardless of training, experience, skill, or knowledge-is allowed to prepare Federal income tax returns for others for a fee.

Paid preparers can be self-employed or work for accounting firms, large tax preparation services, or law firms. They include the following:


Ÿ Licensed professionals, such as attorneys and certified public accountants. These licensed professionals are regulated by the State licensing authority and related associations such as the American Bar Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.



Ÿ Enrolled agents. These professionals pass an IRS examination or present evidence of qualifying experience as a former IRS employee and have been issued an enrollment card. Enrolled agents are the only taxpayer representatives who receive their right to practice from the Federal Government.



Ÿ Unenrolled or unlicensed preparers. These individuals range from those who might receive extensive training to those with little or no training. Currently, only two States, California and Oregon, have requirements for unenrolled paid preparers. In these States, unenrolled paid preparers must register with State agencies and meet continuing education requirements.


State regulation of paid preparers focuses on licensed practitioners, and, with the exception of California and Oregon, most States allow anyone to be a paid preparer regardless of education, training, or licensure. Unenrolled paid preparers are not required to demonstrate a minimum competency in tax law, nor are they required to satisfy any continuing education requirements in order to prepare Federal tax returns.

Paid preparers authorized to represent taxpayers in matters before the IRS are called practitioners and include attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, and enrolled actuaries. Practitioners can legally represent taxpayers. Therefore, they can serve as a conduit to the IRS on account-related matters. Examples include preparing and filing documents, communicating with the IRS, and representing taxpayers at meetings.

All paid preparers are subject to Internal Revenue Code penalties-both civil and criminal. 1 For example, civil penalties apply if paid preparers do not sign the tax returns they prepare, do not provide the taxpayers with copies of the tax returns, or deliberately understate a taxpayer's tax liability. Criminal penalties apply when a paid preparer willfully prepares or makes a false statement regarding a false or fraudulent tax return or knowingly provides fraudulent tax returns to the IRS.

However, other regulations depend on whether the preparer is an attorney, a certified public Accountant, an enrolled agent, or an unenrolled preparer. For example:


Ÿ Attorneys, certified public accountants, and enrolled agents are regulated by the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury Department Circular 230, 2 and the individual States in which they practice. These authorities have established requirements, penalties, and disciplinary actions for noncompliance and/or issue licenses and require continuing education to maintain them.



Ÿ Unenrolled preparers are regulated by the Internal Revenue Code. However, neither Circular 230 nor individual State requirements, with the exception of the States of California and Oregon, 3 apply to them.


The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility regulates attorneys, certified public accountants, and enrolled agents who practice before the IRS. Practice is defined broadly in Treasury Department Circular 230 as comprehending all matters connected with a presentation to the IRS relating to a taxpayer's rights, privileges, or liabilities under laws or regulations administered by the IRS.

The IRS has additional regulations for any paid preparers who are authorized to file tax returns electronically. Applicants to the Electronic Filing Program must pass certain IRS checks, including background and credit history checks. Participants are also monitored.



Auditors posed as taxpayers to have tax returns prepared

In February and March 2008, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration auditors posed as taxpayers in a large metropolitan area and paid to have 28 tax returns prepared at 12 commercial chain and 16 small, independently owned tax return preparation offices. The preparers were unlicensed and unenrolled (i.e., they were not attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, or actuaries).

Auditors developed 5 scenarios with income ranging from $16,000 to $85,000. The filing statuses were Single, Married Filing Jointly, or Head of Household. The issues included the following tax law topics: 4




Additional Child Tax Credit Education Credits

Business Income and Expenses Filing Status

Capital Gains Income from Wages

Individual Retirement Account
Charitable Contributions Distribution

Child and Dependent Care Credit Interest Income

Child Tax Credit Mortgage Interest Paid

Dependency Exemptions Saver's Credit 5

Earned Income Tax Credit Self-Employment Tax and Deduction

5 5 The Credit was formerly known as the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit.




The tax returns we had prepared by unenrolled preparers were not filed. Auditors explained that they would file the tax returns themselves. The five scenarios were not considered complex, and the tax topics were specific, straightforward, and not dependent on interpretation.

Scenario #1: Single divorced parent with one child under age 17 who lived with the taxpayer the entire year. The taxpayer is a wage earner, has a small amount of interest income, receives child support, and pays child care expenses for the child to enable him or her to work.

Scenario #2: Single parent with two children under age 17. The taxpayer's children lived with the taxpayer during school vacations (a total of 4 months). The taxpayer is a wage earner with a part-time job, attends college part time, and lives in a relative's home.

Scenario #3: Single parent who lives with a friend. The taxpayer and friend each have one child under age 17 who lived with them the entire year. The taxpayer is a wage earner, attends college part time, and took an early distribution from an Individual Retirement Account.

Scenario #4: Single parent with one child under age 17 who lived with the taxpayer the entire year. The taxpayer is a wage earner, owns a home, and made charitable contributions. The taxpayer took an early distribution from an Individual Retirement Account.

Scenario #5: Married parents with two children, one child under age 17 and one child over age 18 who is in college. One spouse is a wage earner, and one is self-employed. The taxpayers had capital gains from the sale of stock.

Scenarios #1 and #2 were used in the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's filing season review of the IRS' Volunteer Program and required preparers to determine the taxpayer's eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit. 6

This review was performed in a large metropolitan city 7 and discussions were held with IRS officials in Washington, D.C., during the period January through May 2008. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. This audit was limited to 1) analyzing data from various IRS computer systems to identify paid preparers and selected characteristics of taxpayers who pay them to prepare their tax returns, 2) reviewing laws and regulations that apply to preparers, and 3) having tax returns prepared by preparers. Because we selected a non-representative sample of preparers from one large metropolitan city for this review, it is not possible to generalize the results of our work and draw conclusions about all preparers. Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I.



Results of Review



Preparers Often Made Substantial Errors When Completing Tax Returns

Taxpayers who use unenrolled preparers might not always receive accurately prepared tax returns. Most tax returns prepared for auditors during this review contained errors that affected both the expected tax refunds and liabilities. In addition, some actions taken by preparers were considered willful or reckless.

During this audit, preparers correctly prepared 11 (39 percent) of the 28 tax returns (i.e., the tax returns showed the correct amount of taxes owed or refunds due). However, 17 tax returns (61 percent) were prepared incorrectly.


Preparers correctly prepared 11 of 28 tax returns. However, 17 tax returns (61 percent) were prepared incorrectly.


Of the 17 tax returns prepared incorrectly, 11 (65 percent) contained mistakes and omissions we considered to have been caused by human error and/or misinterpretation of the tax laws. However, 6 (35 percent) of the 17 returns contained misstatements and omissions we considered to have been willful or reckless. If these tax returns had been filed, the net effect to the Federal Government would have been $12,828 in understated taxes (this is the net effect-there were instances in which tax liabilities and tax refunds were both overstated and understated). Although 5 (29 percent) of the 17 tax returns prepared incorrectly had small errors (less than $200), the other 12 (71 percent) had errors that ranged from approximately $340 to almost $6,000.

Preparers did not prepare any of the business income and expense tax returns correctly. All preparers used commercial tax preparation software to prepare the tax returns. Figure 1 provides the breakdown of the effect that the 11 incorrectly prepared tax returns, containing mistakes and omissions, would have had on tax administration had they been filed. 8




Figure 1: Errors on 11 Tax Returns Caused by Mistakes and Omissions

____________________________________________________________________________________
# of
Tax
Condition Returns Effect

____________________________________________________________________________________
Tax Liability Understated 5 -$9,860

Refund Overstated 1 -164


_________________
Total Understated Tax -$10,024

Additional Tax Owed 5 6,843


_________________
Total Effect 11 -$3,181

____________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Tax returns prepared for our auditors by preparers.




Figure 2 provides the breakdown of the effect that the six incorrectly prepared tax returns considered to have been prepared with willful or reckless conduct would have had on tax administration had they been filed.




Figure 2: Six Tax Returns Considered to Have Been Prepared With Willful or Reckless
Conduct

____________________________________________________________________________________
# of
Tax
Condition Returns Effect

____________________________________________________________________________________
Tax Liability Understated 1 -$4,160

Refund Overstated 4 -6,442


_________________
Total Understated Tax -$10,602


_________________
Additional Tax Owed 1 955


_________________
Total Effect 6 -$9,647

____________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Tax returns prepared for our auditors by preparers.




All preparers correctly reported income from savings account interest, wages, and self-employment. However, none of them correctly calculated the expenses relating to self-employment income. Figure 3 shows the number of tax topics per tax return and how often the tax law was applied correctly.




Figure 3: Results by Tax Law Topic

___________________________________________________________________________________
Percentage
Topic Correct Incorrect Correct

___________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Child Tax Credit (28 tax returns) 24 4 86%

Business Income (6 tax returns) 6 0 100%

Business Expenses (6 tax returns) 0 6 0%

Capital Gains (6 tax returns) 5 1 83%

Child and Dependent Care Credit (12 tax returns) 10 2 83%

Child Tax Credit (28 tax returns) 22 6 79%

Dependency Exemptions (28 tax returns) 26 2 93%

Earned Income Tax Credit (12 tax returns) 10 2 83%

Education Credits (12 tax returns) 6 6 50%

Filing Status (28 tax returns) 27 1 96%

Income - Wages (28 tax returns) 28 0 100%

Individual Retirement Account Distribution (17 tax
returns) 15 2 88%

Interest Income (28 tax returns) 28 0 100%

Itemized Deductions (5 tax returns) 9 3 2 60%

Saver's Credit (23 tax returns) 18 5 78%

Self-Employment Tax and Deduction (12 tax returns) 1 11 8%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Tax returns prepared for our auditors by preparers.

9 Itemized Deductions tax law topics include mortgage interest paid and charitable
contributions.




The following text provides examples of mistakes and omissions made by paid preparers during our anonymous visits.



Earned Income Tax Credit and Dependency Exemptions

In one instance, an auditor provided the preparer with a Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, 10 Insurance Contracts, etc. (Form 1099-R) that showed a large early distribution from an Individual Retirement Account. The preparer failed to include the distribution as income. Because the distribution was not included as income, the auditor was qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The preparer also did not allow a dependency exemption and miscalculated the Child Tax Credit. This error qualified the auditor for the Additional Child Tax Credit. The net effect was a refund of more than $4,600 when the tax return should have resulted in a balance due of approximately $500.



Education Credits

For 6 of the 12 tax returns with the Education Credits, auditors received the incorrect amount for the Education Credits. Preparers were not always sure how to treat Education Credits. In some instances, our auditors received a deduction from income for education expenses, and sometimes they received a credit that decreased their taxes. In every situation, the Education Credits should have been a reduction in taxes, not income.



Saver's Credit

Auditors on two separate occasions failed to receive the Saver's Credit to which they were entitled. The preparers did not prepare the Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions (Form 8880) to calculate the Credit. The net effect was a reduced refund of more than $100 for both tax returns.



Business Income, Expenses, and Self-Employment Tax

Auditors did not receive correct tax returns for any of the six tax returns with business expenses. Preparers either duplicated or omitted allowable business expenses that resulted in the understatement of self-employment tax (three tax returns) and overstatement of income tax (three tax returns). For all six returns, there were also other tax law errors, including not allowing depreciation for equipment, failing to use the selling price from the sale of stock to calculate capital gains, and not allowing the Saver's Credit. The net effect on tax administration ranged from understating auditors' tax liabilities by more than $600 to overstating them by approximately $5,000.



Some preparers' actions could be considered willful or reckless

Six preparers acted willfully or recklessly during the preparation of each of the five scenarios. These preparers added or increased deductions without the auditors' permission and in some situations after the auditors had questioned whether they were entitled to receive the deductions. Although our auditors knew when preparers were behaving recklessly, they were careful to remain independent in order to document their experiences. These efforts also ensured that auditors did not compromise their anonymity during the visits. Examples of paid preparers' conduct exhibited during anonymous visits included:


Ÿ An auditor explained to the preparer that he or she had babysitter expenses for a child. The preparer asked if the auditor paid the babysitter in cash, and the auditor replied yes. The preparer then increased the child care expenses. In addition, the preparer instructed the auditor to tell the babysitter to file a Profit or Loss From Business (Schedule C) and deduct expenses for operating a home business equal to the increased child care expenses. The preparer also offered to change the expenses back to the original amount if the babysitter did not agree to change his or her records. The preparer's actions increased the auditor's refund by more than $325.



Ÿ An auditor completed an information worksheet showing children living in the home less than one-half of the year. The preparer stated that he or she was going to show on the tax return that the children lived in the home with the auditor for 12 months so the auditor could receive all that he or she was entitled to. The decision erroneously changed the auditor's filing status from Single to Head of Household, increased the dependency exemptions, and qualified the auditor for the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. The net effect on tax administration from the preparer's actions increased the refund from $100 to approximately $6,000.



Ÿ An auditor received a deduction for charitable contributions to which he or she was not entitled. The preparer asked the auditor if he or she had charitable contributions and the auditor replied that there were no contributions. The preparer added the contributions and did not inform the auditor that they were being added. The preparer also added a deduction for property tax for a car without the auditor's assertion or documentation. The effect was a refund of more than $200, when the refund should have been less than $140.


According to IRS records, as of April 19, 2008, these 6 preparers had prepared 973 tax returns during the 2008 Filing Season. One of the 6 preparers prepared 733 (75 percent) of the 973 tax returns. We discussed these issues with IRS officials. They stated that if these problems had been discovered on real tax returns, the preparers could have been subject to penalties for such things as willful or reckless disregard of tax rules. We have referred matters that we encountered to the IRS so that any appropriate followup actions can be taken.


The 6 preparers whose actions were considered willful or reckless prepared almost 1,000 tax returns during the 2008 Filing Season.




Preparers used several methods to obtain information to prepare tax returns

Generally, most of the 28 preparers asked probing questions before and while preparing the tax returns. When probing questions were not asked, preparers tended to make assumptions or rely upon the tax return preparation software to determine eligibility determinations. For example, during one visit, a preparer did not ask any probing questions but prepared a correct tax return using the commercial software. Observations from the 28 visits showed:


Ÿ For 16 (57 percent) of the 28 visits, the preparers asked the auditors to complete an information worksheet 11 to prepare the tax returns. However, only 5 (31 percent) of the 16 instances when information worksheets were completed resulted in correctly prepared tax returns.



Ÿ For 11 (39 percent) of the 28 visits, the preparers asked for identification such as a driver's license or the auditors' and dependents' Social Security Administration cards.




Some preparers' actions did not comply with Internal Revenue Code requirements

Internal Revenue Code requirements 12 include that all preparers be diligent in determining taxpayer eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, sign the tax return, furnish their identification number on the tax return, 13 and not improperly or recklessly disclose tax return information. The penalties for violation of the Code requirements range from $50 per failure to up to $1,000, or up to 1 year of imprisonment, or both and the cost of prosecution. Observations from the 28 visits showed:


Preparers must be diligent in determining taxpayer eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, sign the tax return, furnish their identification number on the tax return, and not improperly or recklessly disclose tax return information.



Ÿ None of seven preparers exercised due diligence when determining whether the auditors were eligible to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. All seven prepared the required Paid Preparer's Earned Income Credit Checklist (Form 8867) but did not ask any or all of the probing questions on the Form. One preparer complained that the tax return preparation software prompts slowed down the preparation process.



Ÿ 2 (7 percent) of the 28 preparers did not furnish their identification numbers on the completed tax returns.



Ÿ 3 (11 percent) of the 28 preparers did not adequately protect auditors' tax information or other clients' personal identification tax information. For example, preparers repeated auditors' Social Security Numbers aloud and disclosed the auditors' tax return information on the computer screen and the desk when others were present in the office. In two instances, preparers made visible other clients' tax information to the auditors.



Ÿ 5 (18 percent) of the 28 preparers did not sign the tax returns with a computer or original signature.




Tax return preparation fees varied significantly for the same situation

Tax return preparation can be costly. Auditors visited 12 commercial tax return preparation chains and were charged approximately $2,800, an average of $234 per tax return. The 16 independently owned offices charged approximately $2,100, an average of $132 per tax return. Figure 4 presents the tax return preparation fees the auditors were charged to prepare the returns.




Figure 4: Tax Return Preparation Fees by Scenario

__________________________________________________________________________________
Scenario # Fees Charged

__________________________________________________________________________________
Scenario #1 $74 * $150 * $123 $200 $230 $271 *

Scenario #2 $72 * $107 * $114 * $161 * $248

Scenario #3 $60 * $93 $169 $200 $200 $252 *

Scenario #4 $106 $144 $180 * $211 $238 *

Scenario #5 $100 $130 $150 $155 $371 $402

__________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Anonymous visits performed by our auditors. Figures designated by an * =
Correct tax returns. Figures underscored = Tax returns considered to have been
prepared willfully or recklessly.






Improved Data Are Needed to Enable the Internal Revenue Service to Control and Monitor Paid Preparers

In most States, anyone can be a paid preparer regardless of education, training, or licensure. In some States, hairdressers and home inspectors must be licensed before they perform their services, but there is no such requirement for tax return preparers. In Fiscal Year 2007, the IRS, including the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Director, Office of Professional Responsibility, participated in a Return Preparer Summit, which was claimed to be a first step toward creating an agency-wide preparer strategy. The Summit's goal was to have an organized, agency-wide strategy that would assist in making the most of IRS resources by focusing compliance and outreach efforts with tax professionals where it is most needed. As of April 25, 2008, the strategy was still awaiting approval from the Department of the Treasury before being finalized.

In 2004, the National Taxpayer Advocate's Annual Report to Congress listed Oversight of Unenrolled Return Preparers as one of the most serious problems encountered by taxpayers. The National Taxpayer Advocate further cautioned the IRS that if it did not police the tax return preparation profession, taxpayers would be more likely to have bad experiences with unscrupulous or incompetent preparers that without question would taint their impressions of the system. The National Taxpayer Advocate recommended a Federal Government program to regulate unenrolled tax preparers.

The IRS responded to the recommendation with concerns about the cost of such a program. Instead of developing a Federal Government program, the IRS developed an agency-wide strategy, which included joint visitations and reviews of the Return Preparer Program activities, quarterly meetings, and development of a Preparer/Practitioner Database. The visitations provided some information, and the database never moved beyond the concept stage.



The IRS has insufficient information on paid preparers

Although paid preparers file the majority of income tax returns, 14 the IRS has limited information on them and insufficient means by which to track or monitor them. Preparers identify themselves on income tax returns they prepare by entering their Social Security Number, Employer Identification Number, or Practitioner Tax Identification Number. A Practitioner Tax Identification Number is used by a preparer who does not want to disclose his or her Social Security Number on tax returns he or she prepares. It is a nine-character alpha/numeric with the first character being "P" followed by eight numbers. An Employer Identification Number is a unique nine-digit number used to identify a taxpayer's business account on IRS records.

Preparers use three different types of numbers to identify themselves on income tax returns they prepare:


Ÿ Social Security Numbers



Ÿ Employer Identification Numbers



Ÿ Practitioner Tax Identification Numbers


Figure 5 provides an excerpt of paid preparer identifier requirements on the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040).




The IRS does not have one list or database that collects information on preparers. For example, it does not have a list or database that shows the preparer's name, associated identifying numbers, or whether the preparer is a practitioner or unenrolled preparer and/or an Electronic Return Originator. 15 Preparers could be self-employed and use their personal Employer Identification Number or employed and preparing tax returns as part of a tax preparation company. In the latter instance, the preparer could use the Employer Identification Number associated with the tax preparation company and his or her personal Social Security Number or Practitioner Tax Identification Number.

According to the Government Accountability Office, many preparers do not sign tax returns with the required identifying number or numbers. 16 This occurred during two of our visits. Because processing tax returns is a priority for the IRS, it accepts tax returns even if preparers' information is not provided or is inaccurate on tax returns. For example, limited tests showed that more than 9,000 preparers used their Employer Identification Numbers as Social Security Numbers to prepare more than 500,000 tax returns filed in Calendar Year 2008, thus creating additional challenges. These variables make it difficult not only to identify the number of preparers but also to identify all the tax returns they prepared.

The IRS maintains a database 17 of individuals authorized to represent taxpayers before the IRS. This database contains the name, complete address, and telephone number(s) of the individual and an assigned Centralized Authorization File number, 18 if one is assigned. In Fiscal Year 2003, the IRS attempted to use this database to determine the paid preparer population. The IRS resorted to using the names of preparers from the database to match with third-party data external to the IRS to identify Social Security Numbers to conduct matches against its internal databases. As a result, the IRS had to qualify the use of the data. Currently, when reporting the population of unregulated preparers, the IRS uses ranges.

The IRS does maintain another database of preparers who have applied and been approved to be an enrolled agent. The applicants are requested to provide their Practitioner Tax Identification Number, Social Security Number, or Centralized Authorization File number to be included in the database. During this audit, we faced challenges in using this database to match the preparers' identifying numbers to IRS internal databases containing tax return data because preparers are required to use only one of the three identifying numbers when applying to become an enrolled agent-and may use any of the three. Due to the use of multiple identifying numbers in IRS databases, we were unable to identify the total population of unenrolled paid preparers.


During this audit, auditors were unable to identify the total population of unenrolled paid preparers.


In addition, in a March 2006 audit, 19 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration recommended that the IRS coordinate and develop a method to uniquely identify taxpayer representatives in the Centralized Authorization File to track paid preparers' noncompliance with their own tax obligations because the IRS could not systematically identify whether a delinquent taxpayer was also a licensed tax practitioner. The IRS agreed to the recommendation.

An integral component of any management information system is application controls to help ensure the validity, completeness, and accuracy of data. Moreover, the application controls will enable management to effectively monitor performance measures and could be useful to identify preparers for enforcement actions.

In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office also recommended that the IRS develop a plan to require a single identification number for paid preparers to track their performance. 20 It reminded the IRS of past documented problems with paid preparers filing accurate returns and recommended that the IRS conduct research to determine the extent of the problems. The IRS recently responded that it recognizes the operational enhancements a unique number would provide. However, it is considering other solutions and does not believe that requiring a unique number is the optimal solution.



Identifying the number of preparers will play a key role in IRS strategies to improve voluntary compliance, reduce taxpayer burden, and address the tax gap 21

Because approximately 83 million tax returns processed by the IRS in Calendar Year 2007 were prepared by paid preparers, tax returns preparers have a significant effect on taxpayer compliance. The IRS acknowledges that it does not know how many paid preparers exist and cannot determine the full extent of noncompliance and incompetence within the tax practitioner community. This hinders the IRS' efforts to expand its outreach and education initiatives and to identify potentially problematic preparers.

Pursuing abusive preparers is part of the IRS' strategy to reduce the tax gap, which researchers estimate to be $290 billion based on 2001 data. 22 In the February 2007 testimony before Congress, the IRS Commissioner stated that 68 percent of the tax gap is attributed to underreported taxes for individuals. 23 Eleven (65 percent) of the 17 incorrect tax returns prepared for our auditors fell into this category.

Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the information reported on their tax returns. However, approximately 83 million taxpayers rely on preparers to prepare correct returns. In Fiscal Year 2007, legislation was introduced in Congress to regulate paid preparers. 24 The legislation includes requiring the IRS to license paid preparers who are not under a regulatory body and ensure that they obtain continuing education to maintain their licenses.

A unique identification number would enable the IRS to better use its current databases to identify and evaluate preparers' compliance. In addition, these actions will assist the IRS in making the most use of its resources. Being able to identify all preparers would allow the IRS to better pursue abusive or incompetent tax preparers in its stepped-up campaign against tax fraud and other forms of noncompliance.



Recommendation

Recommendation 1: The Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, should develop and require a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers.


Management's Response: IRS management agreed to study this issue. The Director, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, will commission a cross-functional team to study the feasibility and methodology associated with requiring a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers. Management will evaluate the results of the study to consider if it is feasible to implement.




Appendix I




Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology


The overall objective was to determine whether taxpayers receive accurate preparation of their income tax returns when using unenrolled paid preparers. To accomplish our objective, we:


I. Determined what oversight the IRS provides to paid preparers and what data the Office of Professional Responsibility maintains on paid preparers. We also contacted the Office of Professional Responsibility and discussed oversight and strategies.



II. Determined whether the IRS had an effective and efficient process to identify the number of unenrolled paid preparers who prepare and file individual tax returns by attempting to match the preparer identifying numbers from the IRS Enrolled Practitioner Program System to other IRS internal databases with tax return data.



III. Determined whether unenrolled paid preparers accurately prepared tax returns.




A. Judgmentally selected 30 unenrolled preparers in a metropolitan city based on whether they were a large commercial chain or a small, independently owned tax preparation service. The IRS does not have reliable data to identify the number of unenrolled preparers. Therefore, we could not determine the total population of unenrolled preparers and could not select a statistical sample. We selected the 30 locations (40 percent large commercial chains and 60 percent small, independently owned tax preparation services) by using the Internet, using the telephone book, and driving in and around the metropolitan city.



B. Using 5 scenarios, anonymously visited 30 selected unenrolled paid preparers in a selected city to have tax returns prepared.



C. Calculated the accuracy rate of the tax returns prepared by the 28 1 selected unenrolled preparers, including trending and quantifying the individual errors.



IV. Identified the demographics of taxpayers who used paid preparers to prepare tax returns during Calendar Year 2008 through analyses of taxpayer account data on the Individual Return Transaction File. 2




A. Using the Individual Return Transaction File, identified taxpayers who used a preparer to file a tax return and analyzed the data for taxpayer demographics. We selected taxpayer accounts and verified the accuracy of the Individual Return Transaction File tax accounts by researching the IRS Integrated Data Retrieval System.



B. Reviewed fields required for the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) review. We reviewed a sample at the beginning of the year and performed run-to-run balancing3 by comparing record counts in all logs showing that data were extracted from the IRS files to the location of data stored at the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Data Center Warehouse. We reviewed fields in each cycle and checked Log Analysis and Reporting Systems on the IRS mainframe for reruns.



C. Validated the data extracted to fill our electronic data processing requests. We conducted run-to-run balancing and ensured that the entire file was used with no gaps in the access or extraction of the data.



V. Determined what activities are currently underway to provide oversight for all paid preparers and researched the status of the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 20074 and/or other legislation on the regulation of paid preparers. 3 Run-to-run balancing is an audit control system. It consists of programs, procedures, and files whose primary function is to account for the number of records passed between applications programs. 4 S. 1219, Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session (2007).




Appendix II




Report Distribution List


Commissioner C

Office of the Commissioner - Attn: Chief of Staff C

Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE

Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W

Deputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S

Deputy Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W

Director, Customer Assistance, Relationships, and Education, Wage and Investment Division

SE:W:CAR

Director, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:E

Director, Strategy and Finance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S

Chief, Performance Improvement, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S:PI

Director, Examination Policy, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:E:EP

Chief Counsel CC

National Taxpayer Advocate TA

Director, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA

Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O

Office of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC

Audit Liaison: Senior Operations Advisor, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S




Appendix III

Comparison of Taxpayers Who Used a Preparer to Taxpayers Who Did Not Use a
Preparer for Calendar Year 2008 1 1 Source of information in these tables is based
on our analysis of IRS data files.

___________________________________________________________________________________
All Taxpayers All Taxpayers
Using Not Using
Preparers Percentage Preparers Percentage

___________________________________________________________________________________
Age Segmentation

___________________________________________________________________________________
Under 25 Years 8,634,418 16% 10,688,724 25%

25-34 Years 11,669,759 21% 8,035,892 19%

35-44 Years 11,046,375 20% 7,398,658 18%

45-54 Years 9,797,824 18% 6,747,030 16%

55-64 Years 6,652,914 12% 4,559,716 11%

65 Years or Older 7,134,947 13% 4,491,439 11%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 54,936,237 100% 41,921,459 100%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Filing Status Segmentation

___________________________________________________________________________________
Single 21,321,541 39% 22,949,511 55%

Head of Household 12,563,125 23% 5,232,246 12%

Married Filing Jointly 20,268,808 37% 13,061,323 31%

Married Filing
Separately 747,489 1% 659,031 2%

Widow(er) With Dependent
Child 35,274 <1% 19,348 < 1%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 54,936,237 100% 41,921,459 100%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Income Segmentation

___________________________________________________________________________________
No Income 2 756,243 1% 1,721,552 4%

$1 to $4,999 3,944,441 7% 4,486,945 11%

$5,000 to $14,999 10,379,640 19% 7,288,203 17%

$15,000 to $24,999 9,716,300 18% 6,053,506 14%

$25,000 to $39,783 9,876,984 18% 7,012,268 17%

$39,784 to $54,999 6,350,841 12% 4,705,352 11%

$55,000 to $74,999 5,488,347 10% 4,026,246 10%

$75,000 to $99,999 4,067,969 7% 3,220,752 8%

$100,000 and over 4,355,472 8% 3,406,635 8%

___________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 54,936,237 100% 41,921,459 100%

___________________________________________________________________________________
2 These data represent taxpayers with no income because of business and investment
losses and nontaxable sources of income.







Appendix IV

Internal Revenue Code Preparer Penalties

____________________________________________________________________________________
Code
Section Description Penalty

____________________________________________________________________________________
6694(a) Understatement of taxpayer's liability due to an Greater of
unreasonable position $1,000 per tax
return or 50
percent of the
income derived

____________________________________________________________________________________
6694(b) Understatement of taxpayer's liability due to willful or Greater of
reckless conduct $5,000 per tax
return or 50
percent of the
income derived

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(a) Failure to provide copy of return to taxpayer $50 per failure
up to a maximum
of $25,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(b) Failure to sign return $50 per failure
up to a maximum
of $25,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(c) Failure to furnish identifying number $50 per failure
up to a maximum
of $25,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(d) Failure to retain a copy or list of returns filed $50 per failure
up to a maximum
of $25,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(e) Failure of employers to file correct information on each $50 per failure
tax preparer employed up to a maximum
of $25,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(f) Negotiation of taxpayer's refund check $500 per check

____________________________________________________________________________________
6695(g) Failure to be diligent in determining Earned Income Tax $100 per failure
Credit eligibility

____________________________________________________________________________________
6701 Aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability $1,000 per
person per
period

____________________________________________________________________________________
6713 Improper disclosure or use of return information $250 per
disclosure or
use up to a
maximum of
$10,000

____________________________________________________________________________________
7206 Willful preparation of or making a false statement Up to $100,000,
regarding a false or fraudulent return or other document or up to 3
years'
imprisonment, or
both, together
with the costs
of prosecution

____________________________________________________________________________________
7207 Knowingly providing fraudulent returns or other documents Up to $10,000,
to the IRS or up to 1 year
of imprisonment,
or both

____________________________________________________________________________________
7216 Knowingly or recklessly disclosing or using return Up to $1,000, or
information up to 1 year of
imprisonment, or
both, together
with the costs
of prosecution

____________________________________________________________________________________
7407 Authority to enjoin income tax preparers Civil action may
be taken;
preparer could
lose the right
to prepare tax
returns

____________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Internal Revenue Code.







Appendix V

Explanations of Tax Law Topics

____________________________________________________________________________________
Topic Explanations

____________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Child Tax Credit A credit for certain individuals who get
less than the full amount allowed for the
Child Tax Credit. The Additional Child
Tax Credit may result in a refund even if
no tax is owed.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Business Income Income from operating a small business
reported on a Profit or Loss from
Business (Schedule C) that accompanies
the Form 1040. 1

____________________________________________________________________________________
Business Expenses Expenses from operating a small business
reported on a Schedule C that accompanies
the Form 1040.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Capital Gains Purchased assets sold or traded and
reported on a Capital Gains and Losses
(Schedule D) that accompanies the Form
1040.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Child and Dependent Care Credit A percentage of the amount of
work-related child and dependent care
expenses paid to a childcare provider.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Child Tax Credit A credit that reduces the Federal income
tax owed up to $1,000 for each qualifying
child under age 17.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Dependency Exemption A deduction from income for each
qualifying person such as a son,
daughter, or parent claimed as a
dependent.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Earned Income Tax Credit A refundable credit for lower income
workers based on earned income and other
requirements such as filing status and
qualifying dependents.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Education Credits Tax credits such as Hope and Lifetime
that help offset the costs of higher
education by reducing the amount of
income tax.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Filing Status A requirement that indicates a taxpayer's
marital or family situation for filing a
Form 1040.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Income from Wages A payment to an individual usually of
money for labor or services performed. It
is reported on the Form 1040.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Individual Retirement Account Distributions from a trust or custodial
Distributions and Penalty account set up to benefit an individual
and his or her beneficiaries. Withdrawals
from the account before age 591/2 are
considered taxable income and could be
subject to a 10 percent penalty.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Interest Income Earnings on investments such as savings
accounts, certificates of deposit, and
seller-financed mortgages.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Itemized Deductions Deductions from income for certain
expenses such as mortgage interest and
charitable contributions listed on an
Itemized Deductions (Schedule A) that
accompanies a Form 1040.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Saver's Credit 2 A credit for contributions made to an
employer-sponsored retirement plan or an
Individual Retirement Account that is
based on an individual's adjusted gross
income.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Self-Employment Tax and Deduction A tax on net earnings of $400 or more
from self-employment shown on a
Self-Employment Tax (Schedule SE) that
accompanies a Form 1040. The deduction is
one-half of total self-employment tax and
is an adjustment to gross income.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Explanations for tax law topics are from IRS publications.




1 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040).




2 Formerly the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit.







Appendix VI

Accuracy Results of 28 Anonymous Visits

_________________________________________________________________________________
Computed
ScenarioAccurately Preparation Refund/Balance Effect on
Visit Prepared Correct Refund/ Tax
# # Tax Return Fee Balance Due (-) Due (-) Administration

_________________________________________________________________________________
2 1 No $200.00 $2,218.00 $2,561.00 - $343.00

1 1 Yes $271.00 $2,218.00 $2,218.00 $0.00

19 1 No $230.00 $2,218.00 $2,093.00 $125.00

16 1 Yes $74.00 $2,218.00 $2,218.00 $0.00

23 1 Yes $150.00 $2,218.00 $2,218.00 $0.00

14 1 No $123.00 $2,218.00 $2,093.00 $125.00




11 2 No $248.00 $98.00 $6,061.00 - $5,963.00

3 2 Yes $114.00 $98.00 $98.00 $0.00

10 2 Yes $107.00 $98.00 $98.00 $0.00

24 2 Yes $161.00 $98.00 $98.00 $0.00

15 2 Yes $72.00 $98.00 $98.00 $0.00




4 3 No $200.00 ($543.00) $3,617.00 - $4,160.00

18 3 Yes $252.00 ($543.00) ($543.00) $0.00

21 3 No $200.00 ($543.00) $4,675.00 - $5,218.00

17 3 No $93.00 ($543.00) $1,511.00 - $2,054.00

5 3 No $169.00 ($543.00) $369.00 - $912.00

26 3 Yes $60.00 ($543.00) ($543.00) $0.00




28 4 No $211.00 $132.00 $170.00 - $38.00

7 4 No $106.00 $132.00 $230.00 - $98.00

8 4 Yes $238.00 $132.00 $132.00 $0.00

6 4 No $144.00 $132.00 $296.00 - $164.00

25 4 Yes $180.00 $132.00 $132.00 $0.00




12 5 No $371.00 ($1,771.00) ($2,726.00) $955.00

22 5 No $402.00 ($1,771.00) ($747.00) -$1,024.00

9 5 No $150.00 ($1,771.00) ($1,119.00) -$652.00

27 5 No $130.00 ($1,771.00) ($2,418.00) $647.00

20 5 No $100.00 ($1,771.00) ($2,814.00) $1,043.00

13 5 No $155.00 ($1,771.00) ($6,674.00) $4,903.00

_________________________________________________________________________________
28 11 -$12,828

_________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Tax returns prepared for our auditors by preparers. Those underscored =
the tax returns we considered prepared willfully or recklessly.






Appendix VII




Management's Response to the Draft Report


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

August 18, 2008



MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT

FROM: Christopher Wagner Acting Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division

SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report - Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors (Audit 200840009)

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report titled "Most Tax Returns Prepared by a Limited Sample of Unenrolled Preparers Contained Significant Errors. "

The report recommends the development of and requirement for a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers. We agree to study the feasibility, effect, and potential benefits of implementing this type of identification number and will evaluate the results.

Attached is a detailed response outlining our corrective action. If you have questions or concerns, please contact me at (202) 622-0600 or Monica Baker, Director, Examination at (202) 283-2659.

Attachment



Attachment



RECOMMENDATION 1:

The Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, should develop and require a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers.



CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:

We agree to study this issue. The Director, Examination (SB/SE Division) will commission a cross functional team to study the feasibility and methodology associated with requiring a single identification number to control and monitor all paid preparers. We will evaluate the results of the study to consider if it is feasible to implement.



IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

June 15, 2010



RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:

Director, Examination Policy (SB/SE Division)



CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) MONITORING PLAN:

The Director, Exam Policy will monitor the status and advise the Director, Examination of any delays in completing the corrective action.





1 See Appendix IV for a list of Internal Revenue Code penalties applicable to paid preparers.

2 Paid preparers must provide their Social Security Number, Practitioner Tax Identification Number, and/or Employer Identification Number on tax returns.

3 IRS, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Reducing the Federal Tax Gap: A Report on Improving Voluntary Compliance (Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2007); The 2007 Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint Phase 2 (Washington, D.C.: 2007).

4 S. 1219, Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session (2007).

1 See Appendix IV for a list of Internal Revenue Code penalties applicable to paid preparers.

2 Regulations Governing the Practice of Attorneys, Certified Public Accountants, Enrolled Agents, Enrolled Actuaries, Enrolled Retirement Plan Agents, and Appraisers before the Internal Revenue Service (Treasury Department Circular No. 230, (revised 4-2008)).

3 California requires that paid preparers pass a 60-hour approved course and obtain a tax preparer bond to become registered. California also requires 20 hours of continuing education annually. Oregon requires that tax preparers be at least 18 years old, have a high school degree or equivalent, complete 80 hours of income tax law education, and pass a tax preparer examination. Oregon also requires 30 hours of continuing education annually. While Oregon requires enrolled agents to register, enrolled agents must meet far fewer registration requirements than unenrolled preparers must meet.

4 See Appendix V for definitions of each of the tax law topics.

6 Accuracy of Volunteer Tax Returns Continues to Improve, but Better Controls Are Needed to Ensure Consistent Application of Procedures and Processes (draft report issued July 21, 2008).

7 The name of the city is not disclosed to support the anonymity of the auditors and the paid preparers visited.

8 Appendix VI provides a detailed list of the accuracy of all 28 visits.

10 IRA - Individual Retirement Account.

11 An information worksheet is a document used to gather information such as the names, Social Security Numbers, and length of time children who could be claimed as dependents lived in the home. Also, the worksheet asked the client to circle all sources of income received or earned.

12 See Appendix IV for a list of Internal Revenue Code penalties applicable to paid preparers.

13 Paid preparers must provide their Social Security Number or Practitioner Tax Identification Number and/or Employer Identification Number on tax returns.

14 See Appendix III for the demographic profile of taxpayers who used a paid preparer during the 2008 Filing Season.

15 Electronic Return Originators originate the electronic submission of income tax returns to the IRS. An Electronic Return Originator electronically submits income tax returns that are either prepared by the Electronic Return Originator's firm or collected from a taxpayer.

16 Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and Interim Performance Results of IRS's 2008 Tax Filing Season (GAO-08-567, dated March 2008).

17 This database contains information regarding the type(s) of authorization that taxpayers have given representatives for their various tax accounts.

18 This number is assigned to a practitioner when a Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative (Form 2848) or Tax Information Authorization (Form 8821) is submitted to the IRS. The number is maintained in a file that contains information regarding the type(s) of authorization that taxpayers have given representatives to represent them in matters before the IRS for the various tax years within their accounts.

19 The Office of Professional Responsibility Can Do More to Effectively Identify and Act Against Incompetent and Disreputable Tax Practitioners (Reference Number 2006-10-066, dated March 2006).

20 Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and Interim Performance Results of IRS's 2008 Tax Filing Season (GAO-08-567, dated March 2008).

21 The IRS defines the gross tax gap as the difference between the estimated amount taxpayers owe and the amount they pay voluntarily and in a timely manner for a tax year.

22 IRS, U.S. Department of the Treasury , Reducing the Federal Tax Gap: A Report on Improving Voluntary Compliance (Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2007).

23 Oral Testimony of Commissioner of Internal Revenue Mark W. Everson Before the Senate Budget Committee on the FY 2008 IRS Budget and the Tax Gap . Washington, D.C., February 14, 2007.

24 S. 1219, Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session (2007).

1 We selected 30 preparers. However, two were eliminated because they were practitioners subject to a regulatory body.

2 The Individual Return Transaction File is an IRS database containing personal, tax account, and other information that has been transcribed from tax returns and most related schedules filed by individual taxpayers.

Labels:

Thursday, September 11, 2008

6694 and 6111 reportable transactions

Failure to meet the reporting requirements under 6111 will predictably trigger the penalies under section 6694(a) and 6694(b). The penalties under section 6707A are severe.


IRS Issues Penalty Regulations for Failure to Adequately Report Reportable Transaction Information (T.D. 9425; NPRM REG-160868-04)


The IRS issued identical temporary and proposed regulations regarding the imposition of penalties under Code Sec. 6707A for a failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under Code Sec. 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction. The temporary regulations apply to disclosure statements that are due after September 11, 2008, and they are set to expire on or before September 9, 2011. Written or electronic comments on the proposed regulations and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 10, 2008. Notice 2005-11, 2005-1 CB 493, which provided interim guidance, is superseded.

Under Code Sec. 6011 and its regulations, a taxpayer must file a disclosure statement on Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, for each reportable transaction in which the taxpayer participated. The taxpayer also must send a copy to the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA) at the same time. Under Code Sec. 6707A, the IRS can impose a penalty for failure to comply with these requirements. The penalty is $10,000 for an individual, and $50,000 in any other case. These amounts are increased to $100,000 and $200,000 if the failure relates to a listed transaction. In Rev. Proc. 2007-21, 2007-1 CB 613, the IRS provided a procedure under which a taxpayer can seek to have the IRS rescind a Code Sec. 6707A penalty.

Separate Penalty for Each Failure
As under the interim guidance, Temporary Reg. §301.6707A-1T(c) and Proposed Reg. §301.6707A-1(c) provide that a taxpayer incurs a separate penalty with respect to each reportable transaction that the taxpayer was required, but failed, to disclose within the time and in the form and manner required. A taxpayer who is required to disclose a reportable transaction on a Form 8886 filed with a return, amended return or application for tentative refund and who also is required to disclose the transaction on a Form 8886 with OTSA, is subject to only a single penalty for failure to make either one or both of those disclosures.

Rescinding the Penalty
As under the interim guidance, Temporary Reg. §301.6707A-1T(d) and Proposed Reg. §301.6707A-1(d) provide that the IRS may rescind the penalty if: (i) the violation relates to a reportable transaction that is not a listed transaction, and (ii) rescinding the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of the IRC and effective tax administration. The regulations adopt the factors listed in Rev. Proc. 2007-21 that the IRS will consider in deciding to rescind. The factors include the following:

(1) The taxpayer, upon becoming aware that it failed to disclose a reportable transaction properly, filed a complete and proper, although untimely, Form 8886.

(2) The failure arose from events beyond the taxpayer's control.

(3) The taxpayer cooperates with the IRS by providing timely information with respect to the transaction at issue.

(4) The failure was due to an unintentional mistake of fact that existed despite the taxpayer's reasonable attempts to ascertain the correct facts with respect to the transaction.

(5) The taxpayer has an established history of properly disclosing other reportable transactions and complying with other tax laws.

(6) The penalty weighs against equity and good conscience, including whether the penalty is disproportionate to the tax benefit and whether the taxpayer demonstrates reasonable cause (such as that the taxpayer informed the individual who prepared its tax returns that the taxpayer participated in the reportable transactions).

SEC Reporting
Temporary Reg. §301.6707A-1T(e) and Proposed Reg. §301.6707A-1(e) provide that a taxpayer who is required to file periodic reports under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (or is required to file consolidated reports with another person) must disclose in periodic reports filed with the SEC the requirement to pay certain penalties in a manner to be prescribed by the IRS. The IRS has done so in Rev. Proc. 2005-51, 2005-2 CB 296, amplified by Rev. Proc. 2007-25, 2007-12 I.R.B. 761.
T.D. 9425 , filed with the Federal Register on September 10, 2008.

[ Code Sec. 6707A]


Reportable transactions: Failure to comply with reporting requirements: Penalties. --
Temporary Reg. §301.6707A-1T, regarding the imposition of penalties under section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code for the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction, is adopted. Back reference: ¶40,092.

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Temporary regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains temporary regulations regarding the imposition of penalties under section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

DATES: Effective Date : These regulations are effective on September 11, 2008.

Applicability Date : For dates of applicability, see §301.6707A-1T(f).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Cooper, (202) 622-4940 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Background

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 6707A of the Code. Section 6707A was added to the Code by section 811 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418) (AJCA), enacted on October 22, 2004. Section 6707A provides a monetary penalty for the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction. The penalty applies to returns and statements the due date for which is after October 22, 2004, and which were not filed before that date.

The amount of the section 6707A penalty for failure to include information required under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction, other than a listed transaction, is $10,000 in the case of an individual, and $50,000 in any other case. If the failure is with respect to a listed transaction, the penalty is increased to $100,000 in the case of an individual, and $200,000 in any other case.

Section 6707A(d)(1) grants the Commissioner authority to rescind all or a portion of any penalty imposed under section 6707A if (1) the violation relates to a reportable transaction that is not a listed transaction and (2) rescission of the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of the Code and effective tax administration. Section 6707A(d)(2) provides that the Commissioner's determination whether to rescind the penalty may not be reviewed in any judicial proceeding. Rev. Proc. 2007-21, 2007-1 CB 613, provides the procedures to follow to request rescission of all or any portion of a penalty assessed under section 6707A with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction.

Section 6707A(e) requires a person that is required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or consolidated reports with another person, to disclose in those reports for the periods specified by the Secretary, the requirement to pay the penalties set forth in section 6707A(e)(2) (for example, certain penalties under section 6662(h) and penalties under sections 6662A(c), 6707A(b)(2)), or 6707A(e)). Rev. Proc. 2005-51, 2005-2 CB 296, which was amplified by Rev. Proc. 2007-25, 2007-1 CB 761, describes the reports on which the disclosures must be made, the information that must be disclosed, and the deadlines by which persons must make the disclosures on the reports to avoid additional penalties under section 6707A(e). If the person fails to disclose the requirement to pay the penalties, then section 6707A(e) requires that the failure be treated as a failure to disclose a listed transaction to which an additional section 6707A penalty applies. Because a penalty imposed under section 6707A(e) is treated as a penalty imposed with respect to a listed transaction, the penalty is not subject to rescission.

To implement the pertinent provisions of the AJCA, the Treasury Department and the IRS proposed amendments to the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions by taxpayers under section 6011 (see Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.6011-4, 2006-49 IRB 1049) and finalized those proposed regulations in TD 9350 (72 FR 43146) published on August 3, 2007.

Sections 1.6011-4(a) and (d) generally require that a taxpayer file a disclosure statement on Form 8886, "Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement" (or successor form) for each reportable transaction in which the taxpayer participated. Section 1.6011-4(e)(1) provides that a disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's tax return for each taxable year for which a taxpayer participates in a reportable transaction. In addition, a disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to each amended return that reflects a taxpayer's participation in a reportable transaction. The taxpayer also must send a copy of the disclosure statement to the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA) at the same time that any disclosure statement pertaining to a particular reportable transaction is first filed. If a reportable transaction results in a loss that is carried back to a prior year, the disclosure statement for the reportable transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's application for tentative refund or amended tax return for that prior year. If a taxpayer who is a partner in a partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of a trust receives a timely Schedule K-1, "Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.," less than 10 calendar days before the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions) and, based on receipt of the timely Schedule K-1, the taxpayer determines that the taxpayer participated in a reportable transaction, the disclosure statement will not be considered late if the taxpayer discloses the reportable transaction by filing a disclosure statement with OTSA within 60 calendar days after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions).

For transactions entered into after August 2, 2007, §1.6011-4(e)(2)(i) provides that if a transaction becomes a listed transaction or a transaction of interest after the filing of a taxpayer's tax return (including an amended return) reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction or transaction of interest and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction or transaction of interest, then a disclosure statement must be filed with OTSA within 90 calendar days after the date on which the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest, regardless of whether the taxpayer participated in the transaction in the year the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest.

Published guidance identifying listed transactions or transactions of interest involving estate, gift, employment, and certain excise taxes will specify the manner in which taxpayers must disclose those transactions. See §§20.6011-4; 25.6011-4; 31.6011-4; 53.6011-4; 54.6011-4; and 56.6011-4.

The Treasury Department and IRS issued Notice 2005-11, 2005-1 CB 493, providing interim guidance regarding the imposition and rescission of penalties under section 6707A (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b)). Specifically, the notice stated that the IRS will impose a penalty under section 6707A with respect to each failure to disclose a reportable transaction within the time and in the form and manner provided by section 6011 and the regulations thereunder. Accordingly, a taxpayer would be subject to a penalty under section 6707A for: (1) the failure to attach an appropriate reportable transaction disclosure statement to an original or amended return; or (2) the failure to provide a copy of an appropriate disclosure statement to OTSA, if required, within the time and in the form and manner provided by section 6011 and the regulations thereunder. A taxpayer that failed to attach a reportable transaction disclosure statement to an original or amended return and failed to provide a copy of a required disclosure statement to OTSA would be subject to a single penalty under section 6707A.

Notice 2005-11 requested comments regarding the rules and standards relating to section 6707A, including the factors that should be considered in exercising the rescission authority under section 6707A(d) and how voluntary, but untimely disclosures (for example, if a taxpayer failed to make a required disclosure upon filing a return, but subsequently submits the required disclosure statement) should be treated in applying the section 6707A penalty. Since then, many have observed that there is little incentive for remedial action if a complete but delinquent disclosure statement is penalized as harshly as a complete failure to submit a disclosure statement. The Treasury Department and the IRS are currently considering whether it would be appropriate to publish a rule that would treat as timely a Form 8886 voluntarily filed prior to the date the IRS first contacts the taxpayer concerning a tax examination for the taxable period in which the taxpayer participated in the reportable transaction. Other appropriate dates by which filings must be made to qualify for relief would be considered as well. Comments are specifically requested on the necessity and appropriateness of publishing guidance addressing this issue.



Explanation of Provisions

These temporary regulations provide rules reflecting the AJCA enactment of the section 6707A penalty for the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction.

These temporary regulations provide that a taxpayer may incur a separate penalty under section 6707A with respect to each reportable transaction that the taxpayer was required, but failed, to disclose within the time and in the form and manner required under §1.6011-4(d) and (e) or as stated in other published guidance. A taxpayer who is required to disclose a reportable transaction on a Form 8886 (or successor form) filed with a return, amended return, or application for tentative refund and who also is required to disclose the transaction on a Form 8886 (or successor form) with OTSA, is subject to only a single section 6707A penalty for failure to make either one or both of those disclosures. Additionally, these temporary regulations define "reportable transaction" and "listed transaction" by reference to the regulations under section 6011.

These temporary regulations restate the existing authority of the Secretary to prescribe the procedures to request rescission of a section 6707A penalty with respect to a nonlisted reportable transaction by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Rev. Proc. 2007-21 describes the procedures for requesting rescission of a penalty assessed under section 6707A, including the deadline by which a person must request rescission; the information the person must provide in the rescission request; the factors that weigh in favor of and against granting rescission; where the person must submit the rescission request; and the rules governing requests for additional information from the person requesting rescission.

These temporary regulations adopt factors mentioned in the legislative history to section 6707A that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) should take into account during the determination whether to rescind all or a portion of any penalty imposed under section 6707A. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 755, 108 th Cong., 2d Sess. at 599 (2004). Factors that these regulations identify as weighing in favor of rescission reflect circumstances that suggest that sustaining assessment of the penalty is against equity and good conscience.

These temporary regulations generally adopt the list of factors stated in Rev. Proc. 2007-21. One additional factor these regulations identify as weighing in favor of granting rescission is whether the penalty assessed is disproportionately larger than the tax benefit received. The factors identified in these temporary regulations do not represent an exclusive list, and no single factor will be determinative of whether to grant rescission in any particular case. Rather, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will consider and weigh all relevant factors, regardless of whether the factor is included in this list.

Because it is the policy of the IRS to administer penalties in a manner that promotes voluntary compliance with the tax laws, it will weigh heavily in favor of rescission if a taxpayer voluntarily files the form required under section 6011: (i) prior to the date the IRS first contacts the taxpayer (including contacts by the IRS with any partnership in which the taxpayer is a partner, any S corporation in which the taxpayer is a shareholder, or any trust in which the taxpayer is a beneficiary) concerning a tax examination for the tax period in which the taxpayer participated in the reportable transaction; and (ii) other circumstances suggest that the taxpayer did not delay filing an untimely but properly completed Form 8886 until after the IRS had taken steps to identify the taxpayer's participation in the reportable transaction in question. See IRS Policy Statement 20-1 (June 29, 2004).

The temporary regulations mirror Rev. Proc. 2007-21 in providing that a rescission request is not the appropriate forum to contest whether the elements necessary to support a penalty under section 6707A exist. That question is for the examining agent, the IRS Appeals Division, and the courts. A rescission determination is based on the premise that a violation of section 6707A exists but, nonetheless, the penalty should be rescinded (or abated). Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not consider whether the taxpayer in fact failed to comply with section 6011. Furthermore, the temporary regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not take into consideration doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalties in determining whether to rescind the penalty.

Additionally, these temporary regulations restate the existing authority of the Secretary to prescribe by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin the manner in which taxpayers must disclose the requirement to pay certain penalties on reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rev. Procs. 2005-51 and 2007-25 are the current published guidance items that provide these disclosure rules and remain effective until further guidance is issued in the form of regulations or other guidance that explicitly supersedes these two documents.



Effect on other Documents

The temporary regulations supersede Notice 2005-11.



Special Analyses

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. The temporary regulations are necessary to promote taxpayers' immediate compliance with the regulations recently finalized under section 6011 and to provide for regulatory relief in appropriate circumstances, including the additional taxpayer favorable factor of whether the penalty assessed is disproportionately larger than the tax benefit received. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.



Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Matthew Cooper of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).



List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 301 is amended as follows:



PART 301 - - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.6707A-1T is added to read as follows:

§301.6707A-1T Failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction.

(a) In general. Any person who fails to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction may be subject to a monetary penalty. The penalty for failure to include information with respect to a reportable transaction, other than a listed transaction, is $10,000 in the case of a natural person, and $50,000 in any other case. The penalty for failure to include information with respect to a listed transaction is $100,000 in the case of a natural person, and $200,000 in any other case. The section 6707A penalty is in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed.

(b) Definitions --(1) Reportable transaction. The term "reportable transaction" is defined in §1.6011-4(b)(1) of this chapter.

(2) Listed transaction. The term "listed transaction" is defined in section 6707A(c) of the Code and §1.6011-4(b)(2) of this chapter.

(c) Assessment of the penalty --(1) In general. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may assess a penalty under section 6707A with respect to each failure to disclose a reportable transaction within the time and in the form and manner provided by §1.6011-4(d) and (e) of this chapter or pursuant to the time, form, and manner stated in other published guidance. A taxpayer who is required to disclose a reportable transaction with a return, amended return, or application for tentative refund and who also is required to disclose the transaction on a Form 8886, "Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement" (or successor form), filed with the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA), is subject to only a single section 6707A penalty for failure to make either one or both of those disclosures. If section 6011 and the regulations thereunder require a disclosure statement to be filed at the time that a return is filed, the disclosure statement is considered to be timely filed if it is filed at the same time as the return, even if the return is filed untimely after its due date.

(2) Examples. The rules of paragraph (c)(1) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1. Taxpayer T is required to attach a Form 8886 to its return for the 2007 taxable year and to send a copy of the Form 8886 to OTSA at the time it files its return. Taxpayer T fails to attach the Form 8886 to its return and fails to send a copy of the Form 8886 to OTSA. Taxpayer T is subject to a single penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose because Taxpayer T failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of section 6011. A penalty under section 6707A also would apply if Taxpayer T had failed to comply with only one of the two requirements.

Example 2. Same as Example 1, except that Taxpayer T also subsequently files an amended return for 2007 that reflects Taxpayer T's participation in the reportable transaction. Taxpayer T fails to attach a Form 8886 to the amended return as required by §1.6011-4(e)(1) of this chapter. Taxpayer T is subject to an additional penalty under section 6707A for failing to disclose a reportable transaction.

Example 3. In November 2009, Taxpayer U participates in a reportable transaction resulting in a loss that is carried back to 2008. Taxpayer U fails to attach a Form 8886 to its 2008 amended return claiming the loss carryback. Section 1.6011-4(e)(1) of this chapter requires Taxpayer U to attach a Form 8886 to its amended return for the 2008 taxable year. Taxpayer U is subject to a penalty under section 6707A.

Example 4. Taxpayer P participates in a non-listed reportable transaction and is required to attach a Form 8886 to its return for the 2008 taxable year that is due on March 16, 2009. Taxpayer P timely files its return but fails to attach the Form 8886 to its return. After the due date of Taxpayer P's return and without an extension of time to file, Taxpayer P files an amended return relating to the 2008 taxable year to which Taxpayer P attaches the Form 8886. Taxpayer P is subject to a penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose because Taxpayer P failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of section 6011 by not attaching a Form 8886 to its return for the 2008 taxable year that was timely filed on or before the due date of March 16, 2009. A penalty under section 6707A also would apply if Taxpayer P had failed to attach a Form 8886 to its amended return. Taxpayer P, nevertheless, may file a complete and proper Form 8886 and request in writing rescission of the penalties assessed within 30 days after the date the IRS sends notice and demand for payment of the penalties in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2007-21. The filing of the untimely Form 8886 will weigh heavily in favor of rescission provided that Taxpayer P files the Form 8886 prior to the date the IRS first contacts the taxpayer concerning a tax examination for the 2008 taxable year and there are no other circumstances that suggest that Taxpayer P delayed filing the Form 8886 until after the IRS had taken steps to identify Taxpayer P's participation in the reportable transaction in question.

Example 5. Shareholder V, a shareholder in an S Corporation, receives a timely Schedule K-1 "Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.," on April 10, 2009, and determines that she is required to attach a Form 8886 to her individual income tax return for the 2008 taxable year. Shareholder V fails to attach the Form 8886 to her 2008 individual income tax return but files a proper and complete Form 8886 with OTSA on June 12, 2009. Section 1.6011-4(e)(1) of this chapter provides that if a taxpayer who is a partner in a partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of a trust receives a timely Schedule K-1 less than 10 calendar days before the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions) and, based on receipt of the timely Schedule K-1, the taxpayer determines that the taxpayer participated in a reportable transaction, the disclosure statement will not be considered late if the taxpayer discloses the reportable transaction by filing a disclosure statement with OTSA within 60 calendar days after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions). Accordingly, Shareholder V is not subject to a penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose.

Example 6. In July 2008, Taxpayer W participates in Transaction Z, a transaction that is not reportable as of April 15, 2009, the date Taxpayer W files his individual income tax return for 2008. On July 15, 2009, Transaction Z is identified as a transaction of interest. Section 1.6011-4(e)(2)(i) of this chapter provides that if a transaction that is not otherwise a reportable transaction becomes a listed transaction or a transaction of interest after the taxpayer has filed a tax return (including an amended return) reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction or transaction of interest and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction or transaction of interest, then a disclosure statement must be filed with OTSA within 90 calendar days after the date on which the transaction became a listed transaction or transaction of interest, regardless of whether the taxpayer participated in the transaction in the year the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest. Taxpayer W fails to file a Form 8886 with OTSA by October 13, 2009, 90 calendar days after the date that the transaction was identified as a transaction of interest. Accordingly, Taxpayer W is subject to a penalty under section 6707A.

Example 7. Taxpayer X is required to attach a Form 8886 to its return for the 2008 taxable year with respect to participation in a listed transaction. Taxpayer X attaches the Form 8886 to its return in a timely manner. The Form 8886, however, does not describe any of the potential tax benefits expected to result from this transaction and states that information will be provided upon request. Because the Form 8886 does not describe any of the potential tax benefits expected to result from the transaction and merely provides that the information will be provided upon request, the Form 8886 filed by Taxpayer X is incomplete and does not satisfy the requirements set forth in §1.6011-4(d) of this chapter. Taxpayer X is subject to a penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose in the appropriate manner.

(d) Rescission authority --(1) In general. The Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) may rescind the section 6707A penalty if --

(i) The violation relates to a reportable transaction that is not a listed transaction, and

(ii) Rescinding the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of the Code and effective tax administration.

(2) Requesting rescission. The Secretary may prescribe the procedures for a taxpayer to request rescission of a section 6707A penalty with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction by publishing a revenue procedure or other guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(3) Factors that weigh in favor of granting rescission. In determining whether rescission would promote compliance with the requirements of the Code and effective tax administration, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will take into account the following list of factors that weigh in favor of granting rescission. This is not an exclusive list and no single factor will be determinative of whether to grant rescission in any particular case. Rather, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will consider and weigh all relevant factors, regardless of whether the factor is included in this list.

(i) The taxpayer, upon becoming aware that it failed to disclose a reportable transaction properly, filed a complete and proper, albeit untimely, Form 8886 (or successor form). This factor will weigh heavily in favor of rescission provided that --

(A) the taxpayer files the Form 8886 prior to the date the IRS first contacts the taxpayer (including contacts by the IRS with any partnership in which the taxpayer is a partner, any S corporation in which the taxpayer is a shareholder, or any trust in which the taxpayer is a beneficiary) concerning a tax examination for the tax period in which the taxpayer participated in the reportable transaction; and

(B) other circumstances suggest that the taxpayer did not delay filing an untimely but properly completed Form 8886 until after the IRS had taken steps to identify the taxpayer's participation in the reportable transaction in question.

(ii) The failure to disclose properly was due to an unintentional mistake of fact that existed despite the taxpayer's reasonable attempts to ascertain the correct facts with respect to the transaction.

(iii) The taxpayer has an established history of properly disclosing other reportable transactions and complying with other tax laws.

(iv) The taxpayer demonstrates that the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 arose from events beyond the taxpayer's control.

(v) The taxpayer cooperates with the IRS by providing timely information with respect to the transaction at issue that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) may request in consideration of the rescission request. In considering whether a taxpayer cooperates with the IRS, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will take into account whether the taxpayer meets the deadlines described in Rev. Proc. 2007-21 (or successor document) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter) for complying with requests for additional information.

(vi) Assessment of the penalty weighs against equity and good conscience, including whether the penalty is disproportionate to the tax benefit received and whether the taxpayer demonstrates that there was reasonable cause for, and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to, the failure to timely file or to include on any return any information required to be disclosed under section 6011. An important factor in determining reasonable cause and good faith is the extent of the taxpayer's efforts to ensure that persons who prepared the taxpayer's return were informed of the taxpayer's participation in the reportable transactions. The presence of reasonable cause, however, will not necessarily be determinative of whether to grant rescission.

(4) Absence of favorable factors weighs against rescission. The absence of facts establishing the factors described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section weighs against granting rescission. The absence of any one of these factors, however, will not necessarily be determinative of whether to grant rescission.

(5) Factors not considered. In determining whether to grant rescission, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not consider doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalties.

(e) Reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) --(1) In general. Under section 6707A(e), a taxpayer who is required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (or is required to file consolidated reports with another person) must disclose in periodic reports filed with the SEC the requirement to pay each of the following penalties:

(i) The penalty imposed by section 6707A(a) in the amount of $200,000 for failure to disclose a listed transaction.

(ii) The accuracy-related penalty imposed by section 6662A(a) at the 30-percent rate determined under section 6662A(c) for a reportable transaction understatement with respect to which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment of the reportable transaction were not adequately disclosed in accordance with regulations prescribed under section 6011.

(iii) The accuracy-related penalty imposed by section 6662(a) at the 40-percent rate determined under section 6662(h) for a gross valuation misstatement, if the taxpayer (but for the exclusionary rule of section 6662A(e)(2)(C)(ii)) would have been subject to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662A(a) at the 30-percent rate determined under section 6662A(c).

(iv) The penalty described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section for failure to disclose in periodic reports filed with the SEC the requirement to pay any of the penalties described in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) or (e)(3) of this section.

(2) Manner and content of disclosure. The Secretary may prescribe the manner in which disclosure of the requirement to pay the penalties identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must be made on reports filed with the SEC, including identification of the specific SEC form and section thereof in which the taxpayer must make the disclosure as well as specification of the timing and contents of the disclosure, by publishing a revenue procedure or other guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(3) Penalty for failure to disclose in SEC filings. Any taxpayer who is required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (or is required to file consolidated reports with another person) may be subject to a penalty in the amount of $200,000 for each failure to disclose the requirement to pay a penalty identified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) of this section in the manner specified by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The taxpayer also may be subject to an additional penalty in the amount of $200,000 for each failure to disclose a penalty arising under this section in the manner specified by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The penalty provided by this paragraph is not subject to rescission as described in paragraph (d) of this section.

(f) Effective/applicability date --(1) The rules of this section apply to disclosure statements that are due after September 11, 2008.

(2) The applicability of this section expires on or before September 9, 2011.

L. E. Stiff

Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

Approved: September 5, 2008

Eric Solomon

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).



¶47,055 T.D. 9350 August 1, 2007
Code Sec. 6011
Reportable transactions: Disclosure requirements: Material advisors.



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY



Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 20, 25, 31, 53, 54, and 56

[ TD 9350]

RIN 1545-BE24

AJCA Modifications to the Section 6011 Regulations

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations under section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code that modify the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions under section 6011. These regulations affect taxpayers participating in reportable transactions under section 6011, material advisors responsible for disclosing reportable transactions under section 6111, and material advisors responsible for keeping lists under section 6112.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective August 3, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Wien, Michael H. Beker, or Tolsun N. Waddle, 202-622-3070 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Background

This document contains final regulations that amend 26 CFR part 1 by modifying and clarifying the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions under section 6011. This document also contains final regulations that amend 26 CFR parts 20, 25, 31, 53, 54, and 56 by modifying the rules for purposes of estate, gift, employment, and pension and exempt organizations excise taxes that require the disclosure of listed transactions by certain taxpayers on their Federal tax returns under section 6011.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, (118 Stat. 1418), (AJCA) was enacted on October 22, 2004. The AJCA revised sections 6111 and 6112, thereby necessitating changes to the rules under section 6011. On November 1, 2006, the IRS and Treasury Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and temporary and final regulations under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 (REG-103038-05, REG-103039-05, REG-103043-05, TD 9295) (the November 2006 regulations). The November 2006 regulations were published in the Federal Register (71 FR 64488, 71 FR 64496, 71 FR 64501, 71 FR 64458) on November 2, 2006.

The IRS and Treasury Department received written public comments responding to the proposed regulations and held a public hearing regarding the proposed rules on March 20, 2007. After consideration of the comments received and the comments made at the hearing, the proposed regulations are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision. These final regulations generally retain the provisions of the proposed regulations but include some modifications based on the recommendations made in the public comments.



Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions

Nine written comments were received in response to the NPRM. All comments were considered and are available for public inspection upon request.



Transactions of Interest

The proposed regulations identified transactions of interest as a new reportable transaction category. As stated in the preamble to the proposed regulations, a transaction of interest is a transaction that the IRS and Treasury Department believe has a potential for tax avoidance or evasion, but for which the IRS and Treasury Department lack enough information to determine whether the transaction should be identified specifically as a tax avoidance transaction. These final regulations adopt the language in the proposed regulations regarding transactions of interest without modification. This language provides that a transaction of interest is a transaction that is the same as or substantially similar to one of the types of transactions that the IRS has identified by notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance as a transaction of interest. These final regulations also retain the language in the proposed regulations that provide that a taxpayer's participation in a transaction of interest will be determined in the published guidance which identifies the transaction of interest.

Several commentators requested more specificity and guidance on the definition of what constitutes a transaction of interest. Specifically, the commentators recommended that the term "participation," for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer participated in a transaction of interest, be defined in the regulations rather than in the published guidance identifying the transaction of interest. The commentators also requested that the published guidance describing a transaction of interest be crafted in a clear and specific manner, thereby enabling taxpayers to determine whether they participated in a transaction of interest. One commentator also recommended providing a list of factors in the regulations that the IRS would consider when identifying a transaction of interest. Further, several commentators requested that the IRS and Treasury Department provide notice to taxpayers that the IRS and Treasury Department are considering designating a particular transaction as a transaction of interest and requesting comments prior to publishing guidance identifying a transaction as a transaction of interest.

The IRS and Treasury Department believe that providing a specific definition for the transactions of interest category in the regulations would unduly limit the IRS and Treasury Department's ability to identify transactions that have the potential for tax avoidance or evasion. In order to maintain flexibility in identifying a transaction of interest, the description of a transaction of interest will be provided in the published guidance that identifies the transaction of interest. The published guidance identifying a transaction of interest will provide taxpayers with the information necessary to determine whether a particular transaction is the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in the published guidance and to determine who participated in the transaction.

The IRS and Treasury Department do not believe that the regulations should be amended to include language requiring the IRS and Treasury Department to provide advance notice for transactions of interest as suggested by the commentators. However, the IRS and Treasury Department may choose to publish advance notice and request comments in certain circumstances. The determination of whether to provide advance notice and a request for comments will be made on a transaction by transaction basis.

The proposed regulations also provide that upon publication of the final regulations, the transactions of interest category of reportable transaction will apply to transactions entered into on or after November 2, 2006. These final regulations adopt the effective date stated in the proposed regulations.

The preamble to the proposed regulations provides that when the IRS and Treasury Department have gathered enough information to make an informed decision as to whether a particular transaction of interest is a tax avoidance type of transaction, the IRS and Treasury Department may take one or more actions, including removing the transaction from the transaction of interest category in published guidance, designating the transaction as a listed transaction, or providing a new category of reportable transaction. Several commentators recommended that the period during which a transaction may be considered a transaction of interest be limited to twenty-four months, unless the IRS and Treasury Department affirmatively act to extend the designation for an additional twenty-four months with no limit on the number of permissible extensions. One commentator suggested that the length of the period be limited to twenty-four months, with no extensions.

The IRS and Treasury Department believe that limiting the length of time a transaction may be designated a transaction of interest would be contrary to the purpose of the transactions of interest category of reportable transaction and would hinder the ability of the IRS and Treasury Department to efficiently and effectively gather the necessary information to determine whether a particular transaction is a tax avoidance type of transaction. Accordingly, these final regulations do not adopt these suggestions.



Disclosure of Reportable Transactions by Owners of a Pass-through Entity



I. Timing of disclosures

The proposed regulations provide that if a taxpayer who is a partner in a partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of a trust receives a timely Schedule K-1 less than 10 calendar days before the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions) and, based on receipt of the timely Schedule K-1, the taxpayer determines that the taxpayer participated in a reportable transaction, the disclosure statement will not be considered late if the taxpayer discloses the reportable transaction by filing a disclosure statement with the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA) within 45 calendar days after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions). Several commentators requested that the proposed regulations not limit relief to taxpayers who receive a timely Schedule K-1 before the due date of their return. Others believed the 45 day disclosure period was too short. One commentator recommended that the provision apply to late disclosures that were inadvertent or non-abusive. One commentator recommended that the 10 day period be extended to 30 days and the 45 day disclosure period be extended to 90 days. With respect to the date the disclosure period begins, two commentators commented that the disclosure period should begin on the date the taxpayer receives the timely Schedule K-1.

The IRS and Treasury Department agree that the 45 day disclosure period should be extended. These final regulations extend the disclosure period to 60 calendar days. The IRS and Treasury Department believe that this additional period will provide taxpayers with ample time to review the entity's return and comply with any administrative and regulatory requirements before filing their disclosure statement. It should be noted that if a taxpayer receives a timely Schedule K-1 after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions), the taxpayer will have received the timely Schedule K-1 less than 10 calendar days before the due date of the return and will have 60 calendar days after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions) to file the disclosure statement.



II. Pass-through owners

Several commentators have suggested that the disclosure obligations of owners of a pass-through entity that participates in a reportable transaction be amended to provide that only certain owners of the pass-through entity are required to disclose their participation in the reportable transaction. One commentator suggested that an owner of a pass-through entity should be removed from this disclosure obligation when (1) the owner did not know and should not have known that the pass-through entity engaged in the reportable transaction; and (2) the pass-through entity failed to disclose timely its participation in the reportable transaction on its return to OTSA. The commentator also recommends that if the owner knew or reasonably should have known of the pass-through entity's participation in the reportable transaction, the owner should be required to file a disclosure statement even if the pass-through entity did not disclose the transaction to the owner. A different commentator suggested that an owner of a pass-through entity not be required to disclose the owner's participation in a reportable transaction, even if the owner knew or should have known of the pass-through entity's participation in the reportable transaction.

Several commentators also suggested adopting a de minimis ownership rule exempting taxpayers owning less than a certain percentage of the pass-through entity from the disclosure requirements. One commentator suggested exempting owners of 5 percent or less of the outstanding interests in the pass-through entity that participates in a reportable transaction.

The IRS and Treasury Department are aware that certain partners, shareholders, and beneficiaries may file income tax returns that reflect the tax consequences, tax benefits, or tax strategy of a reportable transaction even though the taxpayer is unaware that the pass-through entity engaged in the reportable transaction. The IRS and Treasury Department recognize the concerns of the commentators. In light of the potential monetary penalties for failing to disclose participation in a reportable transaction and in order to maintain flexibility in determining who should be subject to the disclosure requirements for a particular transaction, these final regulations amend the proposed regulations to add language providing flexibility to the IRS and Treasury Department to issue other provisions for disclosure under §1.6011-4 in published guidance.



Time Period for Disclosing Participation in a Listed Transaction and Transaction of Interest

Under the proposed regulations if a transaction becomes a listed transaction or a transaction of interest after the filing of a taxpayer's tax return (including an amended return) reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction or transaction of interest and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction or transaction of interest, then a disclosure statement must be filed, regardless of whether the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction or transaction of interest in the year the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest, with OTSA within 60 calendar days after the date on which the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest. The proposed regulations also provide that the Commissioner may determine the time for disclosure of listed transactions and transactions of interest in the published guidance identifying the transaction.

Many commentators suggested that the current rule, which requires the disclosure of subsequently identified listed transactions on the taxpayer's next filed tax return be retained in light of the potential monetary penalties and potential administrative burden due to the shortened disclosure period. One commentator recommended that the taxpayer be required to file the disclosure statement by the later of the taxpayer's next filed tax return or within 60 calendar days after the date on which the transaction becomes a listed transaction or transaction of interest.

A critical factor in the ability to analyze a particular transaction is the ability to have the necessary information available in a timely manner. Thus, requiring taxpayers to file a disclosure statement with OTSA in a timely manner is essential. Because the IRS and Treasury Department recognize that compliance within 60 calendar days may be burdensome in certain circumstances, the proposed regulations are amended to provide that taxpayers have 90 calendar days to disclose their participation in a subsequently identified listed transaction or transaction of interest.



Brief Asset Holding Period Reportable Transaction Category

Due to changes in section 901 and based on comments received, the IRS and Treasury Department have determined that the brief asset holding period reportable transaction category is no longer necessary. These final regulations therefore remove this category as a reportable transaction category.



Form 8271

Before the enactment of the AJCA, section 6111 provided that tax shelter organizers were required to provide investors in tax shelters the registration number for the tax shelter. Section 301.6111-1T, Q&A 55, requires investors to report the registration number of the tax shelter to the IRS on Form 8271, "Investor Reporting of Tax Shelter Registration Number", and attach the Form 8271 to any return on which any deduction, loss, credit, or other tax benefit attributable to the tax shelter is claimed. Because only a few investors must still file Form 8271 for pre-AJCA section 6111 tax shelters and because the IRS already is aware of these transactions, the IRS and Treasury Department have decided that investors are no longer required to file Forms 8271 otherwise due on or after August 3, 2007. The Form 8271 will be obsoleted. Taxpayers required to file Form 8886, "Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement", pursuant to §1.6011-4(d), and Form 8271 with respect to the same transaction only need to report the registration number on Form 8886.



Special Analyses

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 35) do not apply. The disclosure statement referenced in these regulations has been made available for public comment and any update to the disclosure statement will be made available for public comment in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.



Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Charles D. Wien, Michael H. Beker, and Tolsun N. Waddle, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.



List of Subjects



26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 20

Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 25

Gift taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 31

Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.



26 CFR Part 53

Excise taxes, Foundations, Investments, Lobbying, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 54

Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 56

Excise taxes, Lobbying, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 20, 25, 31, 53, 54, and 56 are amended as follows:



PART 1 --INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. Every taxpayer that has participated, as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, in a reportable transaction within the meaning of paragraph (b) of this section and who is required to file a tax return must file within the time prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section a disclosure statement in the form prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section. The fact that a transaction is a reportable transaction shall not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer's treatment of the transaction is proper.

(b) Reportable transactions --(1) In general. A reportable transaction is a transaction described in any of the paragraphs (b)(2) through (7) of this section. The term transaction includes all of the factual elements relevant to the expected tax treatment of any investment, entity, plan, or arrangement, and includes any series of steps carried out as part of a plan.

(2) Listed transactions. A listed transaction is a transaction that is the same as or substantially similar to one of the types of transactions that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction and identified by notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance as a listed transaction.

(3) Confidential transactions --(i) In general. A confidential transaction is a transaction that is offered to a taxpayer under conditions of confidentiality and for which the taxpayer has paid an advisor a minimum fee.

(ii) Conditions of confidentiality. A transaction is considered to be offered to a taxpayer under conditions of confidentiality if the advisor who is paid the minimum fee places a limitation on disclosure by the taxpayer of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction and the limitation on disclosure protects the confidentiality of that advisor's tax strategies. A transaction is treated as confidential even if the conditions of confidentiality are not legally binding on the taxpayer. A claim that a transaction is proprietary or exclusive is not treated as a limitation on disclosure if the advisor confirms to the taxpayer that there is no limitation on disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction.

(iii) Minimum fee. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), the minimum fee is --

(A) $250,000 for a transaction if the taxpayer is a corporation;

(B) $50,000 for all other transactions unless the taxpayer is a partnership or trust, all of the owners or beneficiaries of which are corporations (looking through any partners or beneficiaries that are themselves partnerships or trusts), in which case the minimum fee is $250,000.

(iv) Determination of minimum fee. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), in determining the minimum fee, all fees for a tax strategy or for services for advice (whether or not tax advice) or for the implementation of a transaction are taken into account. Fees include consideration in whatever form paid, whether in cash or in kind, for services to analyze the transaction (whether or not related to the tax consequences of the transaction), for services to implement the transaction, for services to document the transaction, and for services to prepare tax returns to the extent return preparation fees are unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), a taxpayer also is treated as paying fees to an advisor if the taxpayer knows or should know that the amount it pays will be paid indirectly to the advisor, such as through a referral fee or fee-sharing arrangement. A fee does not include amounts paid to a person, including an advisor, in that person's capacity as a party to the transaction. For example, a fee does not include reasonable charges for the use of capital or the sale or use of property. The IRS will scrutinize carefully all of the facts and circumstances in determining whether consideration received in connection with a confidential transaction constitutes fees.

(v) Related parties. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), persons who bear a relationship to each other as described in section 267(b) or 707(b) will be treated as the same person.

(4) Transactions with contractual protection --(i) In general. A transaction with contractual protection is a transaction for which the taxpayer or a related party (as described in section 267(b) or 707(b)) has the right to a full or partial refund of fees (as described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section) if all or part of the intended tax consequences from the transaction are not sustained. A transaction with contractual protection also is a transaction for which fees (as described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section) are contingent on the taxpayer's realization of tax benefits from the transaction. All the facts and circumstances relating to the transaction will be considered when determining whether a fee is refundable or contingent, including the right to reimbursements of amounts that the parties to the transaction have not designated as fees or any agreement to provide services without reasonable compensation.

(ii) Fees. Paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section only applies with respect to fees paid by or on behalf of the taxpayer or a related party to any person who makes or provides a statement, oral or written, to the taxpayer or related party (or for whose benefit a statement is made or provided to the taxpayer or related party) as to the potential tax consequences that may result from the transaction.

(iii) Exceptions --(A) Termination of transaction. A transaction is not considered to have contractual protection solely because a party to the transaction has the right to terminate the transaction upon the happening of an event affecting the taxation of one or more parties to the transaction.

(B) Previously reported transaction. If a person makes or provides a statement to a taxpayer as to the potential tax consequences that may result from a transaction only after the taxpayer has entered into the transaction and reported the consequences of the transaction on a filed tax return, and the person has not previously received fees from the taxpayer relating to the transaction, then any refundable or contingent fees are not taken into account in determining whether the transaction has contractual protection. This paragraph (b)(4) does not provide any substantive rules regarding when a person may charge refundable or contingent fees with respect to a transaction. See Circular 230, 31 CFR Part 10, for the regulations governing practice before the IRS.

(5) Loss transactions --(i) In general. A loss transaction is any transaction resulting in the taxpayer claiming a loss under section 165 of at least --

(A) $10 million in any single taxable year or $20 million in any combination of taxable years for corporations;

(B) $10 million in any single taxable year or $20 million in any combination of taxable years for partnerships that have only corporations as partners (looking through any partners that are themselves partnerships), whether or not any losses flow through to one or more partners; or

(C) $2 million in any single taxable year or $4 million in any combination of taxable years for all other partnerships, whether or not any losses flow through to one or more partners;

(D) $2 million in any single taxable year or $4 million in any combination of taxable years for individuals, S corporations, or trusts, whether or not any losses flow through to one or more shareholders or beneficiaries; or

(E) $50,000 in any single taxable year for individuals or trusts, whether or not the loss flows through from an S corporation or partnership, if the loss arises with respect to a section 988 transaction (as defined in section 988(c)(1) relating to foreign currency transactions).

(ii) Cumulative losses. In determining whether a transaction results in a taxpayer claiming a loss that meets the threshold amounts over a combination of taxable years as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, only losses claimed in the taxable year that the transaction is entered into and the five succeeding taxable years are combined.

(iii) Section 165 loss --(A) For purposes of this section, in determining the thresholds in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, the amount of a section 165 loss is adjusted for any salvage value and for any insurance or other compensation received. See §1.165-1(c)(4). However, a section 165 loss does not take into account offsetting gains, or other income or limitations. For example, a section 165 loss does not take into account the limitation in section 165(d) (relating to wagering losses) or the limitations in sections 165(f), 1211, and 1212 (relating to capital losses). The full amount of a section 165 loss is taken into account for the year in which the loss is sustained, regardless of whether all or part of the loss enters into the computation of a net operating loss under section 172 or a net capital loss under section 1212 that is a carryback or carryover to another year. A section 165 loss does not include any portion of a loss, attributable to a capital loss carryback or carryover from another year, that is treated as a deemed capital loss under section 1212.

(B) For purposes of this section, a section 165 loss includes an amount deductible pursuant to a provision that treats a transaction as a sale or other disposition, or otherwise results in a deduction under section 165. A section 165 loss includes, for example, a loss resulting from a sale or exchange of a partnership interest under section 741 and a loss resulting from a section 988 transaction.

(6) Transactions of interest. A transaction of interest is a transaction that is the same as or substantially similar to one of the types of transactions that the IRS has identified by notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance as a transaction of interest.

(7) [ Reserved].

(8) Exceptions --(i) In general. A transaction will not be considered a reportable transaction, or will be excluded from any individual category of reportable transaction under paragraphs (b)(3) through (7) of this section, if the Commissioner makes a determination by published guidance that the transaction is not subject to the reporting requirements of this section. The Commissioner may make a determination by individual letter ruling under paragraph (f) of this section that an individual letter ruling request on a specific transaction satisfies the reporting requirements of this section with regard to that transaction for the taxpayer who requests the individual letter ruling.

(ii) Special rule for RICs. For purposes of this section, a regulated investment company (RIC) as defined in section 851 or an investment vehicle that is owned 95 percent or more by one or more RICs at all times during the course of the transaction is not required to disclose a transaction that is described in any of paragraphs (b)(3) through (5) and (b)(7) of this section unless the transaction is also a listed transaction or a transaction of interest.

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Taxpayer . The term taxpayer means any person described in section 7701(a)(1), including S corporations. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, the term taxpayer also includes an affiliated group of corporations that joins in the filing of a consolidated return under section 1501.

(2) Corporation. When used specifically in this section, the term corporation means an entity that is required to file a return for a taxable year on any 1120 series form, or successor form, excluding S corporations.

(3) Participation --(i) In general --(A) Listed transactions. A taxpayer has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the published guidance that lists the transaction under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. A taxpayer also has participated in a listed transaction if the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the taxpayer's tax benefits are derived directly or indirectly from tax consequences or a tax strategy described in published guidance that lists a transaction under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Published guidance may identify other types or classes of persons that will be treated as participants in a listed transaction. Published guidance also may identify types or classes of persons that will not be treated as participants in a listed transaction.

(B) Confidential transactions. A taxpayer has participated in a confidential transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects a tax benefit from the transaction and the taxpayer's disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction is limited in the manner described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. If a partnership's, S corporation's or trust's disclosure is limited, and the partner's, shareholder's, or beneficiary's disclosure is not limited, then the partnership, S corporation, or trust, and not the partner, shareholder, or beneficiary, has participated in the confidential transaction.

(C) Transactions with contractual protection. A taxpayer has participated in a transaction with contractual protection if the taxpayer's tax return reflects a tax benefit from the transaction and, as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the taxpayer has the right to the full or partial refund of fees or the fees are contingent. If a partnership, S corporation, or trust has the right to a full or partial refund of fees or has a contingent fee arrangement, and the partner, shareholder, or beneficiary does not individually have the right to the refund of fees or a contingent fee arrangement, then the partnership, S corporation, or trust, and not the partner, shareholder, or beneficiary, has participated in the transaction with contractual protection.

(D) Loss transactions. A taxpayer has participated in a loss transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects a section 165 loss and the amount of the section 165 loss equals or exceeds the threshold amount applicable to the taxpayer as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. If a taxpayer is a partner in a partnership, shareholder in an S corporation, or beneficiary of a trust and a section 165 loss as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section flows through the entity to the taxpayer (disregarding netting at the entity level), the taxpayer has participated in a loss transaction if the taxpayer's tax return reflects a section 165 loss and the amount of the section 165 loss that flows through to the taxpayer equals or exceeds the threshold amounts applicable to the taxpayer as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. For this purpose, a tax return is deemed to reflect the full amount of a section 165 loss described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section allocable to the taxpayer under this paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D), regardless of whether all or part of the loss enters into the computation of a net operating loss under section 172 or net capital loss under section 1212 that the taxpayer may carry back or carry over to another year.

(E) Transactions of interest. A taxpayer has participated in a transaction of interest if the taxpayer is one of the types or classes of persons identified as participants in the transaction in the published guidance describing the transaction of interest.

(F) [ Reserved].

(G) Shareholders of foreign corporations --( 1) In general. A reporting shareholder of a foreign corporation participates in a transaction described in paragraphs (b)(2) through (5) and (b)(7) of this section if the foreign corporation would be considered to participate in the transaction under the rules of this paragraph (c)(3) if it were a domestic corporation filing a tax return that reflects the items from the transaction. A reporting shareholder of a foreign corporation participates in a transaction described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section only if the published guidance identifying the transaction includes the reporting shareholder among the types or classes of persons identified as participants. A reporting shareholder (and any successor in interest) is considered to participate in a transaction under this paragraph (c)(3)(i)(G) only for its first taxable year with or within which ends the first taxable year of the foreign corporation in which the foreign corporation participates in the transaction, and for the reporting shareholder's five succeeding taxable years.

( 2) Reporting shareholder. The term reporting shareholder means a United States shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) in a controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957) or a 10 percent shareholder (by vote or value) of a qualified electing fund (as defined in section 1295).

(ii) Examples. The following examples illustrate the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section:

Example 1. Notice 2003-55 (2003-2 CB 395), which modified and superseded Notice 95-53 (1995-2 CB 334) (see §601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), describes a lease stripping transaction in which one party (the transferor) assigns the right to receive future payments under a lease of tangible property and treats the amount realized from the assignment as its current income. The transferor later transfers the property subject to the lease in a transaction intended to qualify as a transferred basis transaction, for example, a transaction described in section 351. The transferee corporation claims the deductions associated with the high basis property subject to the lease. The transferor's and transferee corporation's tax returns reflect tax positions described in Notice 2003-55. Therefore, the transferor and transferee corporation have participated in the listed transaction. In the section 351 transaction, the transferor will have received stock with low value and high basis from the transferee corporation. If the transferor subsequently transfers the high basis/low value stock to a taxpayer in another transaction intended to qualify as a transferred basis transaction and the taxpayer uses the stock to generate a loss, and if the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the tax loss claimed was derived indirectly from the lease stripping transaction, then the taxpayer has participated in the listed transaction. Accordingly, the taxpayer must disclose the transaction and the manner of the taxpayer's participation in the transaction under the rules of this section. For purposes of this example, if a bank lends money to the transferor, transferee corporation, or taxpayer for use in their transactions, the bank has not participated in the listed transaction because the bank's tax return does not reflect tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the listing notice (nor does the bank's tax return reflect a tax benefit derived from tax consequences or a tax strategy described in the listing notice) nor is the bank described as a participant in the listing notice.

Example 2. XYZ is a limited liability company treated as a partnership for tax purposes. X, Y, and Z are members of XYZ. X is an individual, Y is an S corporation, and Z is a partnership. XYZ enters into a confidential transaction under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. XYZ and X are bound by the confidentiality agreement, but Y and Z are not bound by the agreement. As a result of the transaction, XYZ, X, Y, and Z all reflect a tax benefit on their tax returns. Because XYZ's and X's disclosure of the tax treatment and tax structure are limited in the manner described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and their tax returns reflect a tax benefit from the transaction, both XYZ and X have participated in the confidential transaction. Neither Y nor Z has participated in the confidential transaction because they are not subject to the confidentiality agreement.

Example 3. P, a corporation, has an 80% partnership interest in PS, and S, an individual, has a 20% partnership interest in PS. P, S, and PS are calendar year taxpayers. In 2006, PS enters into a transaction and incurs a section 165 loss (that does not meet any of the exceptions to a section 165 loss identified in published guidance) of $12 million and offsetting gain of $3 million. On PS' 2006 tax return, PS includes the section 165 loss and the corresponding gain. PS must disclose the transaction under this section because PS' section 165 loss of $12 million is equal to or greater than $2 million. P is allocated $9.6 million of the section 165 loss and $2.4 million of the offsetting gain. P does not have to disclose the transaction under this section because P's section 165 loss of $9.6 million is not equal to or greater than $10 million. S is allocated $2.4 million of the section 165 loss and $600,000 of the offsetting gain. S must disclose the transaction under this section because S's section 165 loss of $2.4 million is equal to or greater than $2 million.

(4) Substantially similar. The term substantially similar includes any transaction that is expected to obtain the same or similar types of tax consequences and that is either factually similar or based on the same or similar tax strategy. Receipt of an opinion regarding the tax consequences of the transaction is not relevant to the determination of whether the transaction is the same as or substantially similar to another transaction. Further, the term substantially similar must be broadly construed in favor of disclosure. For example, a transaction may be substantially similar to a listed transaction even though it involves different entities or uses different Internal Revenue Code provisions. (See for example, Notice 2003-54 (2003-2 CB 363), describing a transaction substantially similar to the transactions in Notice 2002-50 (2002-2 CB 98), and Notice 2002-65 (2002-2 CB 690).) The following examples illustrate situations where a transaction is the same as or substantially similar to a listed transaction under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (Such transactions may also be reportable transactions under paragraphs (b)(3) through (7) of this section.) See §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter. The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (c)(4):

Example 1. Notice 2000-44 (2000-2 CB 255) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), sets forth a listed transaction involving offsetting options transferred to a partnership where the taxpayer claims basis in the partnership for the cost of the purchased options but does not adjust basis under section 752 as a result of the partnership's assumption of the taxpayer's obligation with respect to the options. Transactions using short sales, futures, derivatives or any other type of offsetting obligations to inflate basis in a partnership interest would be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2000-44. Moreover, use of the inflated basis in the partnership interest to diminish gain that would otherwise be recognized on the transfer of a partnership asset would also be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2000-44. See §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).

Example 2. Notice 2001-16 (2001-1 CB 730) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), sets forth a listed transaction involving a seller (X) who desires to sell stock of a corporation (T), an intermediary corporation (M), and a buyer (Y) who desires to purchase the assets (and not the stock) of T. M agrees to facilitate the sale to prevent the recognition of the gain that T would otherwise report. Notice 2001-16 describes M as a member of a consolidated group that has a loss within the group or as a party not subject to tax. Transactions utilizing different intermediaries to prevent the recognition of gain would be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2001-16. An example is a transaction in which M is a corporation that does not file a consolidated return but which buys T stock, liquidates T, sells assets of T to Y, and offsets the gain on the sale of those assets with currently generated losses. See §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b).

(5) Tax. The term tax means Federal income tax.

(6) Tax benefit. A tax benefit includes deductions, exclusions from gross income, nonrecognition of gain, tax credits, adjustments (or the absence of adjustments) to the basis of property, status as an entity exempt from Federal income taxation, and any other tax consequences that may reduce a taxpayer's Federal income tax liability by affecting the amount, timing, character, or source of any item of income, gain, expense, loss, or credit.

(7) Tax return. The term tax return means a Federal income tax return and a Federal information return.

(8) Tax treatment. The tax treatment of a transaction is the purported or claimed Federal income tax treatment of the transaction.

(9) Tax structure. The tax structure of a transaction is any fact that may be relevant to understanding the purported or claimed Federal income tax treatment of the transaction.

(d) Form and content of disclosure statement. A taxpayer required to file a disclosure statement under this section must file a completed Form 8886, "Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement" (or a successor form), in accordance with this paragraph (d) and the instructions to the form. The Form 8886 (or a successor form) is the disclosure statement required under this section. The form must be attached to the appropriate tax return(s) as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. If a copy of a disclosure statement is required to be sent to the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA) under paragraph (e) of this section, it must be sent in accordance with the instructions to the form. To be considered complete, the information provided on the form must describe the expected tax treatment and all potential tax benefits expected to result from the transaction, describe any tax result protection (as defined in §301.6111-3(c)(12) of this chapter) with respect to the transaction, and identify and describe the transaction in sufficient detail for the IRS to be able to understand the tax structure of the reportable transaction and the identity of all parties involved in the transaction. An incomplete Form 8886 (or a successor form) containing a statement that information will be provided upon request is not considered a complete disclosure statement. If the form is not completed in accordance with the provisions in this paragraph (d) and the instructions to the form, the taxpayer will not be considered to have complied with the disclosure requirements of this section. If a taxpayer receives one or more reportable transaction numbers for a reportable transaction, the taxpayer must include the reportable transaction number(s) on the Form 8886 (or a successor form). See §301.6111-3(d)(2) of this chapter.

(e) Time of providing disclosure --(1) In general. The disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's tax return for each taxable year for which a taxpayer participates in a reportable transaction. In addition, a disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to each amended return that reflects a taxpayer's participation in a reportable transaction. A copy of the disclosure statement must be sent to OTSA at the same time that any disclosure statement is first filed by the taxpayer pertaining to a particular reportable transaction. If a reportable transaction results in a loss which is carried back to a prior year, the disclosure statement for the reportable transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's application for tentative refund or amended tax return for that prior year. In the case of a taxpayer that is a partner in a partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of a trust, the disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to the partnership, S corporation, or trust's tax return for each taxable year in which the partnership, S corporation, or trust participates in the transaction under the rules of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section. If a taxpayer who is a partner in a partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of a trust receives a timely Schedule K-1 less than 10 calendar days before the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions) and, based on receipt of the timely Schedule K-1, the taxpayer determines that the taxpayer participated in a reportable transaction within the meaning of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the disclosure statement will not be considered late if the taxpayer discloses the reportable transaction by filing a disclosure statement with OTSA within 60 calendar days after the due date of the taxpayer's return (including extensions). The Commissioner in his discretion may issue in published guidance other provisions for disclosure under §1.6011-4.

(2) Special rules --(i) Listed transactions and transactions of interest. In general, if a transaction becomes a listed transaction or a transaction of interest after the filing of a taxpayer's tax return (including an amended return) reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction or transaction of interest and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction or transaction of interest, then a disclosure statement must be filed, regardless of whether the taxpayer participated in the transaction in the year the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest, with OTSA within 90 calendar days after the date on which the transaction became a listed transaction or a transaction of interest. The Commissioner also may determine the time for disclosure of listed transactions and transactions of interest in the published guidance identifying the transaction.

(ii) Loss transactions. If a transaction becomes a loss transaction because the losses equal or exceed the threshold amounts as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, a disclosure statement must be filed as an attachment to the taxpayer=s tax return for the first taxable year in which the threshold amount is reached and to any subsequent tax return that reflects any amount of section 165 loss from the transaction.

(3) Multiple disclosures. The taxpayer must disclose the transaction in the time and manner provided for under the provisions of this section regardless of whether the taxpayer also plans to disclose the transaction under other published guidance, for example, §1.6662-3(c)(2).

(4) Example. The following example illustrates the application of this paragraph (e):

Example. In January of 2008, F, a calendar year taxpayer, enters into a transaction that at the time is not a listed transaction and is not a transaction described in any of the paragraphs (b)(3) through (7) of this section. All the tax benefits from the transaction are reported on F's 2008 tax return filed timely in April 2009. On May 2, 2011, the IRS publishes a notice identifying the transaction as a listed transaction described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Upon issuance of the May 2, 2011 notice, the transaction becomes a reportable transaction described in paragraph (b) of this section. The period of limitations on assessment for F's 2008 taxable year is still open. F is required to file Form 8886 for the transaction with OTSA within 90 calendar days after May 2, 2011.

(f) Rulings and protective disclosures --(1) Rulings. If a taxpayer requests a ruling on the merits of a specific transaction on or before the date that disclosure would otherwise be required under this section, and receives a favorable ruling as to the transaction, the disclosure rules under this section will be deemed to have been satisfied by that taxpayer with regard to that transaction, so long as the request fully discloses all relevant facts relating to the transaction which would otherwise be required to be disclosed under this section. If a taxpayer requests a ruling as to whether a specific transaction is a reportable transaction on or before the date that disclosure would otherwise be required under this section, the Commissioner in his discretion may determine that the submission satisfies the disclosure rules under this section for the taxpayer requesting the ruling for that transaction if the request fully discloses all relevant facts relating to the transaction which would otherwise be required to be disclosed under this section. The potential obligation of the taxpayer to disclose the transaction under this section will not be suspended during the period that the ruling request is pending.

(2) Protective disclosures. If a taxpayer is uncertain whether a transaction must be disclosed under this section, the taxpayer may disclose the transaction in accordance with the requirements of this section and comply with all the provisions of this section, and indicate on the disclosure statement that the disclosure statement is being filed on a protective basis. The IRS will not treat disclosure statements filed on a protective basis any differently than other disclosure statements filed under this section. For a protective disclosure to be effective, the taxpayer must comply with these disclosure regulations by providing to the IRS all information requested by the IRS under this section.

(g) Retention of documents. (1) In accordance with the instructions to Form 8886 (or a successor form), the taxpayer must retain a copy of all documents and other records related to a transaction subject to disclosure under this section that are material to an understanding of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction. The documents must be retained until the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to the final taxable year for which disclosure of the transaction was required under this section. (This document retention requirement is in addition to any document retention requirements that section 6001 generally imposes on the taxpayer.) The documents may include the following:

(i) Marketing materials related to the transaction;

(ii) Written analyses used in decision-making related to the transaction;

(iii) Correspondence and agreements between the taxpayer and any advisor, lender, or other party to the reportable transaction that relate to the transaction;

(iv) Documents discussing, referring to, or demonstrating the purported or claimed tax benefits arising from the reportable transaction; and documents, if any, referring to the business purposes for the reportable transaction.

(2) A taxpayer is not required to retain earlier drafts of a document if the taxpayer retains a copy of the final document (or, if there is no final document, the most recent draft of the document) and the final document (or most recent draft) contains all the information in the earlier drafts of the document that is material to an understanding of the purported tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction.

(h) Effective/applicability date --(1) In general. This section applies to transactions entered into on or after August 3, 2007. However, this section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006. Paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies to ruling requests received on or after November 1, 2006. Otherwise, the rules that apply with respect to transactions entered into before August 3, 2007, are contained in §1.6011-4 in effect prior to August 3, 2007. (See 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2007).

(2) [ Reserved].



§1.6011-4T [Removed]

Par. 3. Section 1.6011-4T is removed.



PART 20 --ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16, 1954

Par. 4. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 5. Section 20.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§20.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.



PART 25 --GIFT TAX; GIFTS MADE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1954

Par. 6. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 7. Section 25.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§25.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves a gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.



PART 31 --EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT THE SOURCE

Par. 8. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 9. Section 31.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§31.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.



PART 53 --FOUNDATION AND SIMILAR EXCISE TAXES

Par. 10. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 11. Section 53.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§53.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an excise tax under chapter 42 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to private foundations and certain other tax-exempt organizations), the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.



PART 54 --PENSION EXCISE TAXES

Par. 12. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 13. Section 54.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§54.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an excise tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to qualified pension, etc., plans) the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.



PART 56 --PUBLIC CHARITY EXCISE TAXES

Par. 14. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 15. Section 56.6011-4 is revised to read as follows:



§56.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers.

(a) In general. If a transaction is identified as a listed transaction or a transaction of interest as defined in §1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see §601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an excise tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to public charities), the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.

(b) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.
Kevin M. Brown,

Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

Approved: July 25, 2007.
Eric Solomon,

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).


SEC. 6707A. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE REPORTABLE TRANSACTION INFORMATION WITH RETURN.
6707A(a) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. --Any person who fails to include on any return or statement any information with respect to a reportable transaction which is required under section 6011 to be included with such return or statement shall pay a penalty in the amount determined under subsection (b).

6707A(b) AMOUNT OF PENALTY. --

6707A(b)(1) IN GENERAL. --Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of the penalty under subsection (a) shall be --

6707A(b)(1)(A) $10,000 in the case of a natural person, and

6707A(b)(1)(B) $50,000 in any other case.

6707A(b)(2) LISTED TRANSACTION. --The amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with respect to a listed transaction shall be --

6707A(b)(2)(A) $100,000 in the case of a natural person, and

6707A(b)(2)(B) $200,000 in any other case.

6707A(c) DEFINITIONS. --For purposes of this section:

6707A(c)(1) REPORTABLE TRANSACTION. --The term "reportable transaction" means any transaction with respect to which information is required to be included with a return or statement because, as determined under regulations prescribed under section 6011, such transaction is of a type which the Secretary determines as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion.

6707A(c)(2) LISTED TRANSACTION. --The term "listed transaction" means a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of section 6011.

6707A(d) AUTHORITY TO RESCIND PENALTY. --

6707A(d)(1) IN GENERAL. --The Commissioner of Internal Revenue may rescind all or any portion of any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any violation if --

6707A(d)(1)(A) the violation is with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction, and

6707A(d)(1)(B) rescinding the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of this title and effective tax administration.

6707A(d)(2) NO JUDICIAL APPEAL. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any determination under this subsection may not be reviewed in any judicial proceeding.

6707A(d)(3) RECORDS. --If a penalty is rescinded under paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall place in the file in the Office of the Commissioner the opinion of the Commissioner with respect to the determination, including --

6707A(d)(3)(A) a statement of the facts and circumstances relating to the violation,

6707A(d)(3)(B) the reasons for the rescission, and

6707A(d)(3)(C) the amount of the penalty rescinded.

6707A(e) PENALTY REPORTED TO SEC. --In the case of a person --

6707A(e)(1) which is required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or is required to be consolidated with another person for purposes of such reports, and

6707A(e)(2) which --

6707A(e)(2)(A) is required to pay a penalty under this section with respect to a listed transaction,

6707A(e)(2)(B) is required to pay a penalty under section 6662A with respect to any reportable transaction at a rate prescribed under section 6662A(c), or

6707A(e)(2)(C) is required to pay a penalty under section 6662(h) with respect to any reportable transaction and would (but for section 6662A(e)(2)(B)) have been subject to penalty under section 6662A at a rate prescribed under section 6662A(c),

the requirement to pay such penalty shall be disclosed in such reports filed by such person for such periods as the Secretary shall specify. Failure to make a disclosure in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be treated as a failure to which the penalty under subsection (b)(2) applies.

6707A(f) COORDINATION WITH OTHER PENALTIES. --The penalty imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed by this title.

Labels:

6694 proposed regulations - the trap

Section 1.6694-3(a)(2)(ii) provides for the $5,000 penalty or 50% of the income to be derived by the tax return preparer if the return preparer has a "reckless" disregard of a "rule or regulation." The "reckless" provision is separate from the word "willful." A determination that the return preparer is "reckless" is a facts and circumstances issue.

Section 1.6694-3(e) of the proposed regulations defines the term "rules or regulations" to include the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, revenue rulings or notices issues by the IRS.

Tax regulations and published revenue rulings cover every kind of tax issue and in each instance they are mostly interpretative regulations and revenue rulings. There are multiple factual and legal issues arising out of regulations and revenue rulings.

Suppose a return preparer does not follow the entertanment regulations under section 1.274-2(b) by mistake or ignorence. That is sufficient to trigger the $5,000 or 50% penalty.

I would be hard pressed to distinguish between "negligence" and "recklessness" in the circumsgtances. The fast pace of return preparation results in massive mistakes by tax return preparers. One can argue that any mistake is a reckless mistake because of the subjective nature of that word.

The "reckless" position can be avoided if there is a disclosure to the IRS in accourdance with section 1.6694-2(c). Then one merely has to meet the "reasonable basis" standard." But even the "reasonable basis" standard will not be met if the return preparer cites the wrong law or otherwise makes a mistake on the analysis and authority that forms the basis of the position.

Without question, IRS examiners are generally aggressive. Worse - many of the examiners and not well trained and are often wrong. It will be quite difficult for one to defend against an IRS determination that a negligent mistake is not "reckless."

THERE IS NO "REASONABLE CAUSE" EXCEPTION TO SECTION 6694(b). The "reasonable cause" excption is limited to section 6694(a).

I have represented many tax return preparers involved with civil and ciminal examinations. In most cases, when the IRS examines a return preparer, they review multiple tax returns prepared for the preparer client base. For this reason, if there if the examiner thinks the preparer has been "reckless" in one return, it is likely that the preparer will be found to be "reckless" with other returns. A mere mistake can be determined to be a "reckless" mistake threby triggering multiple $5,000 or 50% penalties on the compensation received.

The problem is not the proposed regulation. The problem is that section 6694(b)(2)(B) references "a reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations."

The 6694(b) trap for return preparers because of the work "reckless" can be partially mitigated if the final regulations equate "reckless" to "gross negligence" or intentionally reckless behavior. An even better solution would be to have the final regulations specify that the word "reckless" only applies to legal issues.

Frankly, the section 6694(b) statute should be lobbied to get the word "reckless" out of the statute or get Congress to provide a "reasonable cause" exception to section 6694(b). My main problem with the work "reckless" is that it can easily be applicable to mere "negligence." We have to deal with that word because it is in the statute.

Labels:

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Section 1.6694-1(e)

The following is a quotation from section 1.6694-1(e) of the proposed regulations which indicates that a return preparer can rely on information submitted by a client unless there are specific requirements in the Code or regulations that must be met; in those circumstances, the return preparer must verify that information. The classic example are the specific regulations dealing with travel and entertainment expenses with very specific substantiation requirements. You need to understand that it is going to be very difficult to just plug numbers into return preparation software without checking out the statute and regulations when the 2008 tax returns are filed in 2009 and the years thereafter. A great deal more time will need to be devoted to the prepraration of tax returns and clients will need to understand that they will have to pay for that additional time. This creates a conflict of interest between the return preparer and the client because the extra time is needed to protect the return preparer from the 6694 penalty. The response to the client is that one also needs to protect the client from the 20% negligence penalty. The problem is that this extra effort cannot be done at the last minute. Return preparation clients should be contacted now to see what kind of expenses are being generated so that the research and analysis can be done now. On another point, the reliance cannot be on a legal conclusion, but the "reasonable cause" part of the regulations should be considered when one needs to rely on a tax professional for compex issues and problems. There are also many published IRS positions identifying problematical positions (e.g., tax shelter issues) that will not justify reliance on other tax advisors.


1.6694-1(e) Verification of information furnished by taxpayer or other party --(1) In general . For purposes of sections 6694(a) and (b) (including meeting the reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits and reasonable basis standards in §§1.6694- 2(b) and (c)(2), and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(d)), the tax return preparer generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer. A tax return preparer, however, may not rely on information provided by a taxpayer with respect to legal conclusions on Federal tax issues. A tax return preparer may also rely in good faith and without verification upon information furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm). The tax return preparer is not required to audit, examine or review books and records, business operations, or documents or other evidence to verify independently information provided by the taxpayer, advisor, other tax return preparer, or other party. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. Additionally, some provisions of the Code or regulations require that specific facts and circumstances exist (for example, that the taxpayer maintain specific documents) before a deduction or credit may be claimed. The tax return preparer must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existence of facts and circumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a condition of the claiming of a deduction or credit.

-------------------

If you have any questions about the above section of the regulations, send an e-mail to ab@irstaxattorney.com or add comment to this blog.

Labels:

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

6694 - reliance on an advisor

The proposed regulations reference "reliance on an advisor" within the same firm twice: once under the "more likely than not standard" and once under the "reasonable cause" provision. That is, a return preparer may rely on information "or advice" furniehd by a taxpayer, advisor, another tax return prepaer, or other party, even one within the same firm. Under the reasonable cause provision, the return preparer reliance will form the basis for "reasonable cause."

The above language is far more liberal than the "reliance on a professional" example in the 6664 regulations that provide relief from the negligence penalty and other penalties. The reason is that the new requirements for a "technical analysis" and the need to cite the "relevant authority" involve complex tax law provisions and the tax policy is to offset the complexity with these liberal reliance issues.

In any of the CPA firms or any of the tax preparation firms, there will be some competion to be at the lower level rather than the managerial, review or supervisory levy to avoid the penalty risk. On person in the firm where there is a signing prepaerer and one person in a non-signatory firm will be subject to the penalty - only one person per issue.

Those return preparers do want to avoid the 6694 penalty risk need to understand that they should not be the person who gives the advice or approval for the position taken.

As noted in a prior blog, the firm itself can be liabile for the penalty.

The dog fight in the firms will be whether one is an advisor or the person who gets the advice. That division of responsibility should be documented in writing.

Everyone is "off of the hook" merely be getting the advice of an outside professional who can meet the analysis and technical authority standards of the proposed regulations.

For those who need clarification of this important issue, send an e-mail to ab@irstaxattorney.com or call 888 712-7690 ex 106. We have been receiving requests for technical advice on complex technical position, however, we give courtesy (free) comment on questions regarding these proposed regulations. Under the proposed regulations there is a new risk to our tax law firm when we draft a written opionion because that makes our firm subject to the 6694 penalty; for that reason, our written opinions are based on an agreement that the position taken must be disclosed to the IRS under the disclosure provisions of the proposed regulations in order to take advantage of the "reasonable basis" standard.

Labels:

Monday, September 8, 2008

6694 liability for the firm and the individuals

It will be possible for at least three sets of section 6694 penalty liability for each proscribed posigtion: the return preparer (the person with primary responsibility), a non-signing return preparer in another firm with the supervisory authority, and the firm. Since the penalty applies to each position, the penalty can apply corresponsing to the three potentially liable return preparers. The rules for finding a "firm" also liable for a penalty are broadly drafted. The responsibility for the return preparer and the firm should both sign-off on any use of an outside tax consultant. You can expect the IRS examiners will be aggressive in assigning penalty responsibility to both the return preparer and the firm; if that is done properly, only the outside tax consultant will be subject to the penalty under the "reasonable cause" exception. Without an outside consultant, the risk is that the 6694 penalty (for each proscribed position) could apply to both the idenfied return preparer and the return preparer's firms. You can expect that the outside consultant will not offer an opinion unless the proscribed position is disclosed to the IRS in order to reduce the technical ananalysis and authority standards are met. If this is done properly, there will be no section 6694 penalty for the position taken.




Section 1.6694-1(b) of the proposed regulations define the term Tax return preparer, as follows:

(1) In general. For purposes of this section, "tax return preparer" means any person who is a tax return preparer within the meaning of section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15 of this chapter. An individual is a tax return preparer subject to section 6694 if the individual is primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. There is only one individual within a firm who is primarily responsible for each position on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. In the course of identifying the individual who is primarily responsible for the position, the Internal Revenue Service may advise multiple individuals within the firm that it may be concluded that they are the individual within the firm who is primarily responsible. In some circumstances, there may be more than one tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position(s) giving rise to an understatement if multiple tax return preparers are employed by, or associated with, different firms.

(2) Responsibility of signing tax return preparer. The signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter will generally be considered the person who is primarily responsible for all of the positions on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. It may be concluded, however, based upon information received from the signing tax return preparer (or other relevant information from a source other than the signing tax return preparer) that another person within the signing tax return preparer's same firm was primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement.

(3) Responsibility of nonsigning tax return preparer. If there are one or more individuals within a firm who are nonsigning tax return preparers within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(2) of this chapter and there is no signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701- 15(b)(1) of this chapter for the return or claim for refund within that firm, the individual within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement is the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694. Additionally, if, after the application of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it is concluded that the signing tax return preparer is not primarily responsible for the position or the IRS cannot conclude which individual (as between the signing tax return preparer and other persons within the firm) is primarily responsible for the position, the individual within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement is the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694.

(4) Tax return preparer and firm responsibility. To the extent provided in §§1.6694-2(a)(2) and 1.6694-3(a)(2), an individual and the firm that employs the individual, or the firm of which the individual is a partner, member, shareholder, or other equity holder, may both be subject to penalty under section 6694 with respect to the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. If an individual (other than the sole proprietor) who is employed by a sole proprietorship is subject to penalty under section 6694, the sole proprietorship is considered a "firm" for purposes of this paragraph (b).



§1.6694-2 Penalty for understatement due to an unreasonable position.

(a) (2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms. A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(a) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(a);

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) Such review procedures were disregarded by the corporation, partnership, or other firm entity through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

§1.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct.

(a) (2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms. A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(b) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(b);

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) Such review procedures were disregarded by the corporation, partnership, or other firm entity through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

* * * * *

Labels:

Friday, September 5, 2008

Reasonable basis standard

The "reasonable bais" standard applies for section 6694 disclosed positions, as follows:


Section 1.6694-2(c)(2) of the regulations defined “reasonable basis” as the standard for disclosed positions and provides: “For purposes of this section, “reasonable basis” has the same meaning as in §1.6662-3(b)(3) or any successor provision of the accuracy-related penalty regulations. For purposes of determining whether the tax return preparer has a reasonable basis for a position, a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer, advisor, other tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer’s firm), as provided in §1.6694-1(e).

§1.6662-3(b)(3) of the regulations defines Reasonable basis.

--Reasonable basis is a relatively high standard of tax reporting, that is, significantly higher than not frivolous or not patently improper. The reasonable basis standard is not satisfied by a return position that is merely arguable or that is merely a colorable claim. If a return position is reasonably based on one or more of the authorities set forth in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (taking into account the relevance and persuasiveness of the authorities, and subsequent developments), the return position will generally satisfy the reasonable basis standard even though it may not satisfy the substantial authority standard as defined in §1.6662-4(d)(2). (See §1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) for rules with respect to relevance, persuasiveness, subsequent developments, and use of a well-reasoned construction of an applicable statutory provision for purposes of the substantial understatement penalty.) In addition, the reasonable cause and good faith exception in §1.6664-4 may provide relief from the penalty for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, even if a return position does not satisfy the reasonable basis standard.

COMMENT: Obviously, the "reasonable basis" standard is subjective, however it can be based on the analysis and authorities cited in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) and (iii). For this reason, one can never know if the return preparer will be subject to the 6694 penalty even if the position is disclosed. One cannot ever assume that and IRS examiner is going to give you the benefit of the doubt when the standard is subjective. The IRS examiners are aggressive. For this reason, one must use a large amount of substantiation to support the position rather than a minimum substantiation standard.

I do not think one can take comfort in the reliance standard based on the above list of advisors if the advisors are wrong. The person used for "reliance" should be a strong professional prepared to write a legal memorandum on the issues.

If you have any questions on this important topic, call 888 712-7690 ex 106 or send an e-mail to ab@irstaxattorney.com

How and when does that authority have to be documented? The common sense answer is that it should be documented in writing to be disclosed with the tax return; otherwise, the tax return will be earmarked for examination by the IRS.

Labels:

Proposed Regs: 1.6694-2(b)(3) comment

Section 1.6694-2(b)(3) of the temporary regulations references section 1.6662-4(d)(iii) of the regulations, as follows:
The authorities considered in determining whether a position satisfies the more likely than not standard are those authorities provided in §1.6662-4(d)((iii) (or any successor provision).
Therefore, in preparing the analysis for the “more likely than not standard,” the tax return preparers are required to consider the following authorities:

(3) Determination of whether substantial authority is present
(i) Evaluation of authorities. --There is substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item only if the weight of the authorities supporting the treatment is substantial in relation to the weight of authorities supporting contrary treatment. All authorities relevant to the tax treatment of an item, including the authorities contrary to the treatment, are taken into account in determining whether substantial authority exists. The weight of authorities is determined in light of the pertinent facts and circumstances in the manner prescribed by paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. There may be substantial authority for more than one position with respect to the same item. Because the substantial authority standard is an objective standard, the taxpayer's belief that there is substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item is not relevant in determining whether there is substantial authority for that treatment.

(ii) Nature of analysis. --The weight accorded an authority depends on its relevance and persuasiveness, and the type of document providing the authority. For example, a case or revenue ruling having some facts in common with the tax treatment at issue is not particularly relevant if the authority is materially distinguishable on its facts, or is otherwise inapplicable to the tax treatment at issue. An authority that merely states a conclusion ordinarily is less persuasive than one that reaches its conclusion by cogently relating the applicable law to pertinent facts. The weight of an authority from which information has been deleted, such as a private letter ruling, is diminished to the extent that the deleted information may have affected the authority's conclusions. The types of document also must be considered. For example, a revenue ruling is accorded greater weight than a private letter ruling addressing the same issue. An older private letter ruling, technical advice memorandum, general counsel memorandum or action on decision generally must be accorded less weight than a more recent one. Any document described in the preceding sentence that is more than 10 years old generally is accorded very little weight. However, the persuasiveness and relevance of a document, viewed in light of subsequent developments, should be taken into account along with the age of the document. There may be substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item despite the absence of certain types of authority. Thus, a taxpayer may have substantial authority for a position that is supported only by a well-reasoned construction of the applicable statutory provision.

(iii) Types of authority. --Except in cases described in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section concerning written determinations, only the following are authority for purposes of determining whether there is substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item: applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other statutory provisions; proposed, temporary and final regulations construing such statutes; revenue rulings and revenue procedures; tax treaties and regulations thereunder, and Treasury Department and other official explanations of such treaties; court cases; congressional intent as reflected in committee reports, joint explanatory statements of managers included in conference committee reports, and floor statements made prior to enactment by one of a bill's managers; General Explanations of tax legislation prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation (the Blue Book); private letter rulings and technical advice memoranda issued after October 31, 1976; actions on decisions and general counsel memoranda issued after March 12, 1981 (as well as general counsel memoranda published in pre-1955 volumes of the Cumulative Bulletin); Internal Revenue Service information or press releases; and notices, announcements and other administrative pronouncements published by the Service in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Conclusions reached in treatises, legal periodicals, legal opinions or opinions rendered by tax professionals are not authority. The authorities underlying such expressions of opinion where applicable to the facts of a particular case, however, may give rise to substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item. Notwithstanding the preceding list of authorities, an authority does not continue to be an authority to the extent it is overruled or modified, implicitly or explicitly, by a body with the power to overrule or modify the earlier authority. In the case of court decisions, for example, a district court opinion on an issue is not an authority if overruled or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for such district. However, a Tax Court opinion is not considered to be overruled or modified by a court of appeals to which a taxpayer does not have a right of appeal, unless the Tax Court adopts the holding of the court of appeals. Similarly, a private letter ruling is not authority if revoked or if inconsistent with a subsequent proposed regulation, revenue ruling or other administrative pronouncement published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
COMMENT:

There is little doubt that the same “analysis” and “authorities” are required for the “substantial authority” and “reasonable basis” standards. These regulations are for the “substantial authority” for the purpose of defending against the negligence penalty. Therefore, even if the more likely than not standard is replaced by the substantial authority standard (under proposed legislation now pending in the Senate), the same quantify or quality of the authority is likely to be the same. Moreover, in each instance, the determination of whether these standards will be satisfied are subjective standards. Reference to this list of authorities will also be used for the “reasonable basis” standard for disclosed positions.


If you have any questions on this contact, send an e-mail to ab@irstaxattorney.com.

Labels:

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

31 C.F.R. 10.7(c) (1)(viii) (Cir 230) upheld

This case is an important case because it determines for the first time that the Cir 230 regulations are legislative regulations.


31 C.F.R. 10.7(c) (1)(viii) is a valid regulation that did not unlawfully and arbitrarily limit an unenrolled tax return preparer's right to represent taxpayers before the IRS. In a case of first impression, the 11th Circuit Court determined that 31 C.F.R. 10.7(c) (1)(viii), which limits the scope of representation by an unenrolled representative, was a reasonable legislative regulation and not arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute. Congress has expressly delegated authority to the Secretary to promulgate regulations governing who could practice before the IRS. Although Code Sec. 7521 permits practitioners and certain other persons to represent taxpayers before the IRS in the context of a taxpayer interview, it did not define the persons permitted to practice before the IRS. Moreover, the tax return preparer could acquire the ability to fully represent clients by becoming an enrolled agent.





Patrick H. Wright, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mark W. Everson, Defendant, United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit; 07-13167, August 15, 2008.

Affirming, per curiam, an unreported DC Fla. decision.

[ Code Sec. 7521 and 31 CFR Part 10]



PER CURIAM: Patrick H. Wright ("Wright") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government on his declaratory judgment action. Wright challenged the validity of 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii), claiming that it unlawfully and arbitrarily limits his right to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The district court found that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is valid, because it is a reasonable regulation promulgated by the IRS pursuant to an express delegation of authority from Congress under 31 U.S.C. §330(a)(1), and that it is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we AFFIRM.




I. BACKGROUND


Wright served as a revenue officer with the IRS from 1981 to 1983. He then became a self-employed tax consultant, and he is registered with the IRS as an unenrolled tax return preparer. Wright provides various services including: preparing and filing tax returns; advising clients engaged in prospective or ongoing tax issues with the IRS; requesting IRS transcripts and interpretations when representing clients before the IRS; filing hardship applications with the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate; filing offers in compromise and refund claims; and representing clients in interviews with the IRS. Wright stated that he has routinely secured powers of attorney and tax information authorizations from his clients, which authorize him to represent his clients before the IRS. Since 1998, however, IRS officers and employees often have refused Wright permission to represent clients in matters before the IRS because he is not a "practitioner" as that term is defined by 31 C.F.R. §10.2(a).

Through counsel, Wright filed a declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, challenging that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) unlawfully and arbitrarily limited his ability to represent taxpayers before the IRS. According to Wright, the IRS violated his constitutional due process rights and 26 U.S.C. §7521 by promulgating, applying, and implementing 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii), which restricts to "practitioners" the ability to represent a taxpayer before appeals officers, revenue officers, counsel, or similar officers or employees. Wright contended that 31 C.F.R §10.7(c)(1)(viii) contravened the statutory requirement of 26 U.S.C. §7521, enacted in 1988, "that the taxpayer be able to have a person permitted to practice represent him in any interview." R-19 at 6. Wright maintains that a representative may be admitted to practice before the IRS if he has a good character and reputation, the necessary qualifications, and is competent. He sought a declaration that he was entitled to represent taxpayers pursuant to the United States Constitution, 26 U.S.C. §7521, 31 U.S.C. §330, the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, and the Internal Revenue Manual, and that the IRS has unconstitutionally interpreted relevant statutes and enforced certain regulations.

Wright argued that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is an interpretive regulation, rather than a legislative regulation, because, while Congress explicitly authorized the Secretary to regulate the practice of persons before the IRS, Congress's delegation was broad and unspecific. As a result, he contended that the regulation was entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984), only if it implemented the intent of Congress in a reasonable manner. According to Wright, the regulation was unreasonable because no legitimate basis existed for treating an unenrolled tax preparer differently from other unenrolled representatives. He asserted that none of the restrictions provided in 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) relate to knowledge, education, training, or experience, and the only restriction on other unenrolled representatives required them to have a special relationship with the taxpayer. Wright further noted that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c) permits a taxpayer to be represented by an immediate family member, an employer to be represented by an employee, an individual to represent an individual or entity outside the United States when the representation occurred outside the United States, and that these disparities in who could represent a taxpayer were not justified. Wright conceded that under 5 U.S.C. §500 and 31 U.S.C. §330, the Secretary of the Treasury ("Secretary") could completely prohibit all persons other than attorneys and certified public accountants ("CPAs") from practicing before the IRS, but he argued that the Secretary had not done so because 26 U.S.C. §7521 operated "to prevent the Secretary from interfering with the representation of a taxpayer by any person permitted to practice whom the taxpayer authorizes to represent him." R1-19 at 17. Wright posited that if he was found to be incompetent as a representative, the IRS could suspend or disbar him pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §330(b) and 31 C.F.R. §10.50, but could not circumvent 26 U.S.C. §7521 and preclude him from practicing before the IRS in the name of protecting taxpayers.

The government responded that Congress has not spoken on the questions of who, in addition to attorneys and CPAs, can represent a taxpayer before the IRS, and whether and when a tax preparer can represent a taxpayer before the IRS. The government maintained that the Secretary's authority to issue regulations regarding taxpayer representation arose from 31 U.S.C. §330, not 26 U.S.C. §7521. Even so, the government argued that under §7521, the language "any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service" does not establish that any person with a written power of attorney can represent a taxpayer before the IRS, and no conflict exists between §7521 and applicable regulations. The government asserted further that the regulations define "those `other people' who are permitted to engage in such representation." R-21 at 5.

The government asserts that the regulations at issue are legislative, and not interpretive, because Congress expressly granted to the Secretary the authority to regulate who may act as a representative before the IRS in 31 U.S.C. §330. Further, the government maintains that, if Congress had intended that a taxpayer could choose anyone to represent him before the IRS, Congress would not have delegated authority to the Secretary to regulate practice before the IRS. The government argued that the regulations are not arbitrary or capricious because they help to ensure that taxpayers are represented by qualified individuals, which benefits the taxpayers, the IRS, and the general public. The government acknowledged that some lay representatives, such as an immediate family member or full-time employee, may represent taxpayers during the audit of a return prepared by the representative, but they may not represent a taxpayer in the unfettered manner sought by Wright for himself. The government submitted that the special relationship between these lay representatives and the taxpayer increases the likelihood of fair representation, warned of the dangers of permitting incompetent or unscrupulous lay representatives to set up cottage tax industries, and noted that the current regulatory scheme protects the integrity of the revenue system while protecting the public and providing options to employ less expensive representatives than licensed professionals. The government also noted that Wright could apply to become an enrolled agent, which would permit him to engage in a broader scope of representation.

The district court denied Wright's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion for summary judgment. The district court framed the issue by stating that Wright sought a declaration that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) was void, and the government's interpretation of certain statutes and enforcement of relevant regulations was unconstitutional. The district court found that Congress had not spoken directly on whether an unenrolled agent could represent taxpayers in any proceeding. According to the district court, 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) implements 31 U.S.C. §330, and the latter grants authority to the Secretary to regulate the practice of representatives. Although 31 U.S.C. §330 is subject to 5 U.S.C. §500, section 500 notes only that attorneys and CPAs may represent individuals before the IRS. The district court rejected Wright's argument that 26 U.S.C. §7521(a)(1) permits an unenrolled agent to represent a taxpayer in any interview.

The district court next addressed whether Congress delegated authority to the Secretary to decide whether an unenrolled agent may represent a taxpayer in any proceeding. The court found that Congress expressly delegated to the Secretary the authority to regulate the practice of taxpayer representatives and, therefore, the challenged regulation was legislative. Accordingly, the court reviewed the regulation to determine whether the regulation was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute, and not for reasonableness. The court found that the regulation was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute because (1) it aimed to protect taxpayers and the integrity of the internal revenue system; (2) a representative could demonstrate his qualifications through the enrollment process and an enrolled agent could represent taxpayers in any proceeding before the IRS; (3) treasury regulations that have continued without substantial change over a long period of time are deemed to have received congressional approval and have the effect of law; (4) 31 U.S.C. §330 gives the Secretary the authority to determine who may practice; and (5) 26 U.S.C. §7521 does not define who is permitted to practice. The court further found that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) was reasonable, noting that the government presented legitimate reasons to treat unenrolled tax preparers differently from other unenrolled representatives. The district court entered its final judgment on May 2007, and Wright, pro se, timely appealed.




II. DISCUSSION


At issue in this case is whether Wright, who is not an attorney, CPA, enrolled agent, or enrolled actuary, but who is "any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer" as described by 26 U.S.C. §7521(b) and (c), is permitted to represent taxpayers before the IRS under 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii), and the extent of his authority to represent taxpayers under 26 U.S.C. §7521(c). This is an issue of first impression in our circuit.

We review de novo a district court's interpretation of underlying questions of law. Major League Baseball v. Crist, 331 F.3d 1177, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003). We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment. Begner v. United States, 428 F.3d 998, 1001 (11th Cir. 2005). "Summary judgment is proper if, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904, 911 (11th Cir. 2007).

"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2781 (1984).


First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.


Id. at 842-43, 104 S. Ct. at 2781-82 (footnotes omitted). If Congress explicitly leaves a gap in a statute for an agency to fill, "there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation." Id. at 843-44, 104 S. Ct. at 2782. A resulting regulation is reviewed only to see if it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Id. at 844, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.

An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors that Congress did not intend for it to consider, "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 2867 (1983). A reviewing court may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency has not provided, although the court may uphold an agency decision if the agency's path to the decision may be reasonably determined. Id. If a delegation is implicit, but not explicit, then review is for whether the resulting regulation is a reasonable interpretation of the statute, and "considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.

In discussing the limits of Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has held that such deference is appropriate "when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority." United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27, 121 S. Ct. 2164, 2171 (2001). The Court noted that a delegation may be demonstrated in several ways, including "an agency's power to engage in adjudication and notice-and-comment rulemaking, or by some other indication of a comparable congressional intent." Id. at 227, 121 S. Ct. at 2171; but see Ala. Power Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 307 F.3d 1300, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that a settlement agreement was far removed from notice-and-comment rulemaking and any other circumstances reasonably suggesting that Congress thought deference was proper, but declining to determine whether Chevron deference was appropriate).

To determine whether 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is valid, we begin by reviewing the statute it implements, 31 U.S.C. §330. Under §330, Congress granted to the Secretary the right to "regulate the practice of representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury," mandating that the Secretary require representatives to demonstrate: "(A) good character; (B) good reputation; (C) necessary qualifications to enable the representative to provide to persons valuable service; and (D) competency to advise and assist persons in presenting their cases." 31 U.S.C. §330(a)(1)-(2). 1 Under 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1), a non-practitioner may represent a taxpayer before the IRS in certain circumstances, if he provides satisfactory identification and proof of his authority to represent the taxpayer. 2 Most relevant to Wright's appeal,


[a]n individual who prepares and signs a taxpayer's tax return as the preparer, or who prepares a tax return but is not required (by the instructions to the tax return or regulations) to sign the tax return, may represent the taxpayer before revenue agents, customer service representatives or similar officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service during an examination of the taxable year or period covered by that tax return, but, unless otherwise prescribed by regulation or notice, this right does not permit such individual to represent the taxpayer, regardless of the circumstances requiring representation, before appeals officers, revenue officers, Counsel or similar officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of Treasury.


31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii).

These rights to represent a taxpayer are subject to three limitations set forth in 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(2). First, a non-practitioner is barred from engaging in the limited practice discussed in (c)(1) if he is under suspension or disbarment from practice before the I RS. 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(2)(i). Second, a non-practitioner may be denied the opportunity to engage in the limited practice discussed in (c)(1) if he has engaged in conduct that would merit a sanction under 31 C.F.R. §10.50. 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(2)(ii). Third, a non-practitioner who represents a taxpayer under (c)(1) is subject to applicable rules regarding standards of conduct. 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(2)(iii).

Through statute, Congress has provided that only attorneys and CPAs may represent a person before the I RS. 5 U.S.C. §500(b)-(c). No other individuals are granted a statutory right to do so. 5 U.S.C. §500(d)(1). However, Congress also stated that individuals who are neither an attorney nor a CPA are neither granted nor denied "the right to appear for or represent a person before an agency or in an agency proceeding." Id. Congress has enacted legislation relating to procedures involving taxpayer interviews, but has not explicitly defined who is authorized to represent a taxpayer before the IRS. Under 26 U.S.C. §7521,


[a]ny attorney, [CPA], enrolled agent, enrolled actuary, or any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service who is not disbarred or suspended from practice before the Internal Revenue Service and who has a written power of attorney executed by the taxpayer may be authorized by such taxpayer to represent the taxpayer in any interview described in subsection (a).


26 U.S.C. §7521(c). Subsection (a) refers to "any in-person interview with any taxpayer relating to the determination or collection of any tax." 26 U.S.C. §7521(a). A taxpayer also has the right to suspend an interview if he clearly states to an IRS officer or employee that he "wishes to consult with an attorney, certified public accountant, enrolled agent, enrolled actuary, or any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service." 26 U.S.C. §7521(b)(2). Consequently, we find that Congress has not directly spoken on the precise question of whether an unenrolled representative is entitled to represent taxpayers before the IRS under 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii), and Congress expressly has granted to the Secretary the right to regulate who practices before the IRS in 31 U.S.C. §330(a) via an express delegation of authority. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-44, 104 S. Ct. at 2781-82.

Accordingly, we review 31 C.F.R. §10.7 only to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S. Ct. at 2782. We conclude that 31 C.F.R. §10.7, which limits the scope of representation by an unenrolled representative, is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute. The IRS has provided valid reasons for the limits on who may practice, noting that the regulation balances the need for a taxpayer to have affordable representation and to be able to choose his representative with the need for competent representation that protects the taxpayer, the IRS, and the general public. An individual with a special relationship with a taxpayer, such as an immediate family member, is permitted to engage in full representation because the special relationship serves to increase the likelihood that the taxpayer's interests will be protected by his representative. An individual may represent any individual or entity outside of the United States when the representation occurs outside of the United States because such a happening is rare and the availability of qualified attorneys, CPAs, or enrolled agents in such a situation is minimal. Additionally, Wright may plausibly acquire the ability to fully represent clients under 31 C.F.R. §10.7 if he demonstrates his knowledge to the IRS and becomes enrolled under 31 C.F.R. §10.4(a).

It is true that 26 U.S.C. §7521 states that practitioners and any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the IRS may do so in the context of a taxpayer interview, but that statute does not define the persons permitted to practice before the IRS. Congress has delegated to the Secretary the right to regulate practice before the IRS under §330, and 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is not manifestly contrary to statute. Therefore, Wright's contention that §7521 is relevant to deciding the issue on appeal lacks merit. See Conn. Nat. Bank. v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992) (noting that "courts should disfavor interpretations of statutes that render language superfluous," and that "courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."). Accordingly, 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute, and Wright cannot represent taxpayers before the IRS as an unenrolled representative.




III. CONCLUSION


Wright challenges the validity of 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii), claiming that it unlawfully and arbitrarily limits his right to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service. We conclude Congress expressly delegated authority to the Secretary to promulgate regulations governing who may practice before the IRS, and we determine that 31 C.F.R. §10.7(c)(1)(viii) is a reasonable regulation which is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Accordingly, Wright is not authorized to represent taxpayers before the IRS.

AFFIRMED .

* Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

1 Congress also granted the right to suspend or disbar from practice certain individuals, 1 e.g., those who violate applicable regulations, after notice and opportunity for a hearing. 31 U.S.C. §330(b).

2 Under 31 C.F.R. §10.2, a "practitioner" is defined as an attorney, CPA, enrolled agent, 2 enrolled actuary, or enrolled retirement plan agent, as those persons are described in 31 C.F.R. §10.3. An individual may become an enrolled agent after taking a written examination and demonstrating special competence in tax matters. 31 C.F.R. §10.4(a).

Labels:

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

section 1.6694-2(a)(2) special rule LOOPHOLE

The 6694 penalty temporary regulations have a special rule for tax return preparation corporations, partnerships and other firms.

Under these regulations, the person in the firm plus the firm employing the tax return preparer can each be subject to the section 6694 penalty. The penalty applies if one or more members of the firm or a branch office participated in or know of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(a) (i.e., not meeting the "more likely than not" standard or a lesser standard) and the firm failed to provide a reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed..

The regulations do not define "reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position>."

Common sense dictates that the proceures can be met if the firm drafts a written procedure that funnels all complex factual and legal issues to a "compliance manager" or other "reviewer" with further procedures on notifying a client, implementing special research or analysis or bringing in an outside consultant, and including procedures for the determination of whether the position taken should be disclosed or not disclosed. Engagement letters with clients should reflect the possibility that additional time may be neede for research, review, analysis, consultants, etc. Clients need to understand that their fees will go up if they take dubious positions that put at risk the return preparer and the firm that engages the tax return preparer.

PTHE PROPER PROCEDURES ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE FRIM FROM THE 6604 PENALTY. IN A SENSE, THIS REGULATION OUTLINES A LOOPHOLE FOR THE TAX PREPARATION FIRM.

Also note that ignorence is not an excuse. If the firm does not identify the issue because they cannot identify the issue, the penalty will be assessed. Therefore, if the return preparer or manager wants to know if there is an issue that needs to be addressed, they should consult an outside consultant to deal with the issue.

If you have any questions about drafting procedures to protect the firm from the 6694 penalty, contact Alvin Brown & Associates 888 712-7690 ex 106.