Source: http://www.carnahanlaw.com/news-and-miscellaneous-legal-topics-2010/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:12:13+00:00

Document:
The Federal Trade Commission said Wednesday that despite collecting $60 million to $100 million in upfront fees from often-desperate clients in recent years, American Tax Relief rarely, if ever, delivered on its promises. NY Times article. FTC web site.
Persons engaged in a trade or business must report payments to another person of $600 or more in any tax year to the IRS. The 2010 Small Business Act provides that solely for purposes of Code § 6041(a), and except as provided in § 6041(h) (2), a person receiving real estate rental income is considered engaged in a trade or business of renting property, and consequently must report payments of $600 or more to a service provider, e.g., plumber, painter, or accountant, to the IRS and to the service provider (typically using Form 1099-MISC), effective in 2011. § 6041(h)(2) exceptions include de minimus rental income under IRS regulations, active military or intelligence service members, and where “substantially all” the rental income results from renting the individual’s principal residence on a “temporary” basis. The terms “substantially all” rental income and “temporary” basis are not defined and leave many situations open to question, e.g., renting while trying to sell a home for an extended period due to current market conditions. You must obtain the recipient’s tax id number for the information return, because failure to provide the number results in a substantial penalty.
Notice requirements for Internet and catalog retailers contained in OK H.B. 2359, Laws 2010, has been adopted by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and submitted to the governor and Legislature for approval. Remote sellers would be required to provide notice to customers that use tax may be due on purchases. Notice on a Web site would be required to appear on a page necessary to facilitate the transaction, and the inclusion of a prominent notice link worded in specified language would be sufficient. Invoice notice for Internet purchases would be required to occur on the electronic order confirmation. Notice in a catalog would be required to be part of the order form. For Internet purchases, notice on the checkout page would satisfy both the Web site and the invoice notice requirements. If a retailer were required to provide a similar notice for another state in addition to Oklahoma, the retailer would be permitted to provide a consolidated notice, so long as the notice contained the information required by Oklahoma. New language is added to the proposed rule that would prohibit remote sellers from displaying that no tax is due, unless the seller knew that a purchase was exempt, or unless the seller also displayed the required notice. “Display,” in this context, would include a summary of the transaction containing a line designated “sales tax” showing the amount of sales tax as “0.00” or “zero.” The second proposed version of the rule stated only that a non-collecting retailer would not be permitted to advertise on its retail Internet Web site or retail catalog that no tax was due on purchases for use in Oklahoma.
The amnesty is for delinquent tax liability (income, withholding, sales, privilege, severance, estate, liquor, cigarette and tobacco products) effective between September 1, 2010, and October 15, 2010, and for tax periods ending on or before December 31, 2008. Amnesty applies to interest and penalties if the delinquent tax liability is paid in full during the amnesty period. Amnesty is not available for certain liabilities that exist on or after September 1, 2010, such as audits, tax liabilities subject to administrative or judicial appeal, those in bankruptcy, or in criminal investigation or certain criminal or civil litigation. Taxpayers may contact the DOR at (785) 368-8222 to discuss eligibility, and applications may be made via telephone with a department agent.
The amnesty for any taxable period ending after June 30, 2002, and prior to July 1, 2009 runs from October 1, 2010, through November 8, 2010. On payment the department will abate and not seek to collect any interest or penalties that may apply and will not seek civil or criminal prosecution for any taxpayer for the period of time for which the amnesty was granted. Failure to pay all taxes due to the state during the amnesty period invalidates any amnesty granted. Amnesty is not available to taxpayers under criminal investigation or any civil or pending criminal litigation for nonpayment, delinquency, or fraud in relation to any state tax. Participation in the amnesty precludes a taxpayer from claiming a refund on an issue unrelated to the amnesty or for an overpayment of tax by taxpayers estimating a non-final liability. A taxpayer with a tax liability for the amnesty period that does not satisfy it during the amnesty program will be charged double the amount of any interest or penalty that would otherwise apply.
Two types of relief are available: (1) a filing extension for the smallest organizations (eligible to file Form 990-N); and (2) a voluntary compliance program for small organizations (eligible to file Form 990-EZ). IRS News Release 2010-87, 7/26/10.
Unless Congress acts, the individual marginal income tax rate reductions under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will expire In less than six months. President Obama’s proposals to resurrect the top two pre-EGTRRA — individual rates of 36% and 39.6% after December 31, 2010 were recently reviewed by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
The IRS issued Notice 2010-53 (see news link) on July 14 containing updates for out-of-date addresses for filing various elections, statements, returns, and other documents. The new notice is effective for such documents filed on or after August 2, 2010. As a result of theIRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, the IRS replaced its national, regional and district structure with organizational units that serve particular industries and taxpayer groups, so the addresses listed in the IRS’s previous notice had provided taxpayers with the addresses to file certain documents as a result of the IRS’s reorganization. However, many of the locations listed are now inaccurate.
The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2010 (H.R. 5649), introduced by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Lamar Smith, R-Texas on June 30, 2010, has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, would prohibit States and localities from imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes on the sale or use of digital goods or digital services. “Digital good” and “digital service” include any good or service delivered or transferred electronically to a customer, including those accessed or used remotely, but not a telecommunications service or an Internet access service, or an audio or video programming service that is provided by, or comparable to programming provided by, a radio or television broadcast station. All taxes on the sale or use of a digital medical service, digital education service, or digital energy management service would be prohibited.
A tax on the sale or use of a digital good or digital service would have to be imposed explicitly, could only be imposed on retail sales, not sales for resale, and only by the jurisdiction whose territorial limits encompass the customer’s “tax address.” Charges for digital goods or digital services that are bundled with charges for other goods and services could be taxed similarly, unless the seller’s books and records could identify the charges for the digital goods or digital services.
A tax on the sale or use of a digital good or digital service. A regulation or administrative ruling could not construe a tax on the sale or use of tangible personal property (or telecommunications, Internet access, or audio or video programming services) to apply to the sale or use of a digital good or digital service.
Oklahoma H.B. 2359, Laws 2010 required “noncollecting retailer” making sales of tangible personal property from a place of business outside Oklahoma for use in Oklahoma and which are not required to collect use tax, must provide notice on their retail Internet Web sites or retail catalogs, and onthier invoices provided to customers, that use tax is imposed and must be paid by the purchaser (unless an exemption applies) on the storage, use, or other consumption of the property in Oklahoma, effective after a corresponding emergency or permanent administrative rule takes eff ect.
The Oklahoma Tax Commission issued a proposed draft of an emergency sales and use tax rule that would govern the notice requirements. If a non-collecting retailer does not provide an invoice to a purchaser, it may send a confirmation e-mail containing the notice. The proposed rule would also apply to any “online auction website”. A “de minimis retailer,” currently defined as any non-collecting retailer that made less than $100,000 total gross sales in the prior year and reasonably expects less than $100,000 sales in the current year. Oklahoma Tax Commission, June 30, 2010.
The Main Street Fairness Act (H.R. 5660) to give member states of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax (SST) Agreement collection authority over remote sellers was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 1, 2010 by Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., who sponsored similar legislation in the last several Congresses, and the bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. A companion bill is expected to be introduced shortly in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. Introduction of these bills has been expected since the current 111th Congress convened in January 2009, but has been delayed while the SST Governing Board engages in ongoing negotiations with stakeholders over the parameters of the required vendor compensation, small seller exception, and inclusion of communication services. In addition to the Agreement’s current requirements, the legislation would mandate the following: reasonable vendor compensation for all sellers, which may vary by the complexity of state law and the characteristics of sellers; a small seller exception to the collection requirement; application of the minimum simplification requirements to taxes on communication services; a path to SST membership for any federally recognized Indian tribe that complies with the Agreement; and judicial review of Governing Board actions by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) eliminates the exception to the reporting requirement for payments of $600 or more made to a corporation in the course of a trade or business, other than for corporations exempt from tax, applicable to payments made after December 31, 2011. Vendors must furnish, and businesses must collect, Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), or the business must impose back-up withholding at 28% of the purchase price. Additionally, businesses will have to keep records of all purchases sorted by TIN and produce and transmit information reports. Busiesses must file Forms 1099 electronically if it makes qualifying purchases from at least 250 vendors during the calendar year.
Olson reported more than 19 million pieces of mail are returned to the IRS as undeliverable every year, including refunds, notices, letters, and other correspondence. Most non-certified mail returned to the agency is generally destroyed and no attempt is made to locate a current address or correct a faulty one. Only selected notices and letters (such as final notices and compliance letters) are processed to try to obtain a possible current address.
Mandatory e-filing for tax return preparers under the Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (2009 Worker Act) will be phased-in over two years, and beginning	January 1, 2011 for preparers who anticipate preparing 100 or more federal individual or trust tax returns during the year; or	January 1, 2012 for preparers who anticipate preparing 11 or more federal individual or trust tax returns during the year. An individual income tax return for purposes of the 2009 Worker Acts e-file mandate encompasses any return of the tax imposed by Subtitle A on individuals, estates, or trusts.
An IRS spokesperson recently stated that IRS is continuing to follow an older decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that held that payments made to involuntarily terminated workers should be classified as “wages” for FICA tax purposes. IRS will not follow a recent pro-taxpayer district court decision to the contrary. Mary Gorman, Assistant Division Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, for the IRS Small Business/Self-Employed Division, indicated during the Forum on Federal Payroll Issues at the American Payroll Association’s (APA) 28th Annual Congress, that IRS is still denying claims that seek a refund of FICA tax paid on severance payments. She said that IRS will appeal the district court case.
In 2002, the Court of Federal Claims held that severance pay was not subject to FICA. (CSX Corp. v. U.S., (Ct of Fed Cl 4/1/02) 89 AFTR 2d 2002-1935 (4/18/2002). Iin 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and held that the severance pay involved in the taxpayer’s various downsizing programs was subject to FICA. ((CSX Corp. v. U.S., (CA FC 3/6/2008) 101 AFTR 2d 2008-1120 (3/13/2008). In February of 2010, a federal district court ruled in U.S. v. Quality Stores, Inc., (DC MI 2/23/2010) 105 AFTR 2d 2010-1110 (3/04/2010) that payments made to involuntarily terminated workers by a company going out of business should not be classified as “wages” for FICA tax purposes. The district court said that “where severance payments are intended to serve the same purpose as Social Security benefits, i.e., support for workers in lieu of a lost ability to earn wages, the collection of social benefit taxes on the wage-replacement benefits makes little sense.” The court believed that the severance payments at issue were properly viewed as wage-replacement social benefits, not taxable remuneration for the employees’ services or wages. Therefore, the court reasoned that the severance payments were not subject to taxation for FICA purposes.
Taxpayers should consider filing a protective claim to preserve their opportunity to receive a refund if the courts were ultimately to decide that severance payments aren’t subject to FICA tax. Protective refund claims are filed to preserve a taxpayer’s right to claim a refund when the taxpayer’s right to the refund is contingent on future events (e.g., future litigation), and may not be determinable until after the statute of limitations expires. Without a protective refund claim, taxpayers will only have a three-year statute of limitations in which to seek a refund.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a Tax Court decision that invalidated Reg. §1.6015-5(b)(1), which provides that a spouse must request equitable relief under Code Sec. 6015(f) no later than two years from the first collection activity against the spouse. Lanz v. Comm., 105 AFTR 2d 2010-2780 (7th Cir. 6/08/2010).
“a systematic approach for engaging and involving Large and Mid-Size Business (LMSB) taxpayers in the tax examination process, from the earliest planning stages through resolution of all issues,” replacing IRS’s Audit Planning Process, and the LMSB Guide for Quality Examinations in Internal Revenue Manual §4.46 is being updated to reflect this change. In the Pub, IRS explains that the examination can generally be divided into 3 phases: planning, execution, and resolution.
Pre-exam analysis. The exam team gathers and reviews information about the taxpayer that is available publicly and within IRS.
Initial planning meeting. The exam team holds an initial planning meeting with the taxpayer, reviewing the preliminary risk analysis and the anticipated exam process for the issues identified.
Subsequent planning meetings. The exam team and the taxpayer discuss prior audit cycle or exam results, materiality thresholds relating to identification and selection of examination issues, other potential compliance issues and required compliance checks, affirmative issues and/or claims the taxpayer expects to file, strategies the parties will use for resolving compliance issues, and the use of a mid-cycle risk analysis.
A general overview of business activities.
A list of significant transactions for the current examination and any other information that is new and/or different from previous examination(s) (e.g., acquisitions, dispositions, tax shelters, accounting method changes – Forms 3115, etc.).
Access to general ledgers; a complete audit trail from these ledgers and financial statements to taxable income; identification and full description of all significant Schedule M-3 book/tax differences and the requisite supporting documentation; breakdown of all general ledger accounts aggregated in Schedule M-3, and reconciliation of Schedule M-3 items to disaggregated general ledger accounts; and any other tax reconciliation workpapers and/or other workpapers in accordance with the Service Policy outlined in IRM 4.10.20.3 ( Requesting Audit, Tax Accrual, or Tax Reconciliation Workpapers).
Financial information (such as the general ledger) in electronic format.
List of known and anticipated claims and requested audit adjustments (with all supporting documentation made readily available) to ensure that these items are included in the audit plan.
Exchange of additional transactional and financial information. The taxpayer provides the exam team with business and financial information on acquisitions, dispositions, accounting method changes, tax shelters, book-to-tax reconciliations, etc.
Finalizing the exam plan. The exam team develops and finalizes an examination plan that specifies the issues to be examined, time frames, personnel required, processes to be followed, and the respective responsibilities.
Changes to the exam scope. The exam team keeps the taxpayer aware of any potential scope and/or depth changes.
Ongoing monitoring. The exam team and the taxpayer regularly review their progress towards achieving the agreed upon milestones.
Discussion of issues. Once the examination of a compliance issue begins, the exam team explains to the taxpayer why the issue was selected for examination.
Information Document Requests (IDR). The exam team and the taxpayer reach agreement on the procedures for administering IDRs (e.g., notification, IDR content, time frames for IDR responses, etc.).
Confirming the facts. Before issuance of a Form 5701, Notice of Proposed Adjustment, the taxpayer and the exam team discuss the issues under the proposed adjustment. The taxpayer confirms the facts and clarifies its position.
Engaging specialists and experts. If appropriate, the exam team engages specialists (e.g., economists, engineers, and financial products experts), technical advisors, counsel and/or other experts.
Issue resolution strategies. The exam teams encourage the use of appropriate issue resolution strategies (i.e., Fast Track, Rules of Engagement, Early Referrals to Appeals, etc.) while exams are in progress.
Other issues. The exam teams discuss with taxpayers any potential identified issues that may warrant settlement initiative treatment.
Determining areas of agreement. The exam teams memorialize the final determinations of issues (i.e., agreed, unagreed, no change).
Next/final steps. The exam teams inform taxpayers of next steps in the examination process up through resolution of remaining issues, issuance of the final report and exam case closing.
The IRS also noted that LMSB “Quality Examination Process Reference Guide” (a tool for LMSB revenue agents and exam teams) is available.
The Tax Court in Wadleigh v. Comm. found that the automatic section 6321 tax lien continued in effect against taxpayer’s pension excluded from his chapter 7 bankruptcy estate even absent IRS filing of a notice of tax lien.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board is working to merge its generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with the International Accounting Standards Board standards, with an impact on the accounting for leases. Currently, American and foreign companies list many leases as footnotes in their financial statements. A new standard to be completed next year and enacted in 2013 that will require companies using GAAP to book leases as assets and liabilities on their balance sheets. Companies will record the cost of rent over the remaining term of the lease as a liability (reducing over the term) and their right to use the space as an asset. There will be no grandfathering under the rule, so any active leases will have to be recorded on the balance sheet.
Landlords will record the obligation to provide space as a liability and rents they are to receive as an asset. Landlords currently book their revenue as rental income, but under the new standard rents received will be recorded partly as interest income and partly as a reduction in the obligation to provide space.
A renewal option term must be included in the term and thus included on the balance sheet if it is likely that the lessee will execute the renewal option. Because this increases debt on the balance sheet, renewal options could become less popular. Retailers with contingent rents based on a percentage of sales will have to estimate their sales numbers over the entire term of the lease to book the contingent rent on their balance sheet. These estimates will have to be reviewed and adjusted annually. Having to estimate the likelihood of exercising a renewal option or future sales requires forecasting what the lessee is going to pay rather than their legal obligation to pay.
The new rule is meant to stop significant off-balance-sheet lease activity and remove many of the differences in the way companies account for property that they own and property they lease. It may most heavily affect companies already struggling under heavy debt loads, large retailers with hundreds or thousands of leases, and commercial banks with multiple branches. It may cause more companies to buy their offices and drive down demand for leased space, and shrink the length of leases to diminish the amount required to put on the balance sheet.
The IRS uses a taxpayer’s “address of record” when mailing certain notices and documents that the agency is required to send to taxpayer’s last known address, which is legally effective and binding even if the taxpayer never receives the notice because the address of record is incorrect. Taxpayers can verify the IRS has their correct address by calling the agency.
The IRS automatically updates taxpayer’s address after a return with a new address has been properly processed, generally 45 days. Rev. Proc. 2010-16 lists the returns that automatically update taxpayer’s address Certain forms are not considered returns and do not automatically update a taxpayer’s address, including: (1) Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or (2) Form 2848, Power of Attorney.
The IRS automatically updates the taxpayer’s address of record with the address maintained in the USPS’s National Change of Address database when a taxpayer provides the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) with a new address.
Taxpayers must provide the IRS with “clear and concise” notice that they no longer wants the address provided on their most recently filed tax return as their address of record, or, if after a joint return is filed either taxpayer establishes a separate residence. Clear and concise notification may be made in writing, electronically or orally, and must include taxpayer’s full name, new address, old address, and taxpayer identification number. It can be accomplished by submitting Form 8822, Change of Address.
Taxpayer’s response with corrections marked on taxpayer’s address to IRS correspondence that solicits or requires taxpayer’s response constitutes clear and concise written notification.
Electronic notification can be provided using one of the secure applications found on www.irs.gov, but other forms of electronic notice, such as emailing an IRS email address, are not clear and concise notification.
The IRS maintains separate address records for gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax returns so notification should identify whether any gift, estate, or GST tax returns are affected.
Sellers to Government and Exempt Entities Must Pay Sales Tax on Purchases.
Taxpayer provided nontaxable services to counties and municipalities in Missouri, and claimed that tangible personal property it purchased to perform those services was resold to the local governments, which are excluded from the sales tax, and was therefore not subject to tax. The Court held that the sale to the local governments was not a sale at retail because it was not subject to tax, and consequently, ICC could not claim the sale for resale exclusion and must pay tax on its purchases.
The Court relied primarily on two cases: Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 935 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. banc 1996), and Westwood Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W3d 885 (Mo. banc 1999). In Greenbriar Hills, the Court held that a private country club that only sold meals to its members and guests did not have to collect and remit tax on the sales of those meals because the statute only imposed tax on places “in which rooms, meals or drinks are regularly sold to the public.” Meals sold only to members and guests were excluded from the taxing statute. In Westwood, another private country club claimed it did not have to pay tax on its purchases of food used to sell meals to its members and guests because they were sales for resale. The Court held that because the sales of meals were excluded from tax, they did not constitute sales at retail. Because the sale for resale exclusion is contained in the definition of sale at retail, a transaction that is not a sale at retail cannot be a sale for resale. As the Court noted, Westwood invoked the principle of avoiding double taxation “to avoid being taxed even once.” 6 S.W.3d at 888.
This rationale is directly applicable here. ICC’s supply of the food and other consumables to the inmates will not be taxed due to application of the governmental sales exemption. As in Westwood, this disqualifies ICC from claiming the resale exemption, because the rationale for that exemption — the avoidance of double taxation — does not apply. Indeed, if ICC were correct in its argument that its purchases of consumables are not subject to tax because they will be served to inmates, but that its sales are not subject to tax because of the governmental tax exemption, then no tax would be imposed on the purchase, use or sale of these consumables at all. The purpose of the exemption is not to provide a special benefit to ICC that is not enjoyed by other taxpayers. As in Westwood, the taxpayer must pay a tax on its purchase of consumables where, as here, its resale of the consumables is not taxable.
The IRS recently announced more flexible offer-in-compromise (OIC) evaluation procedures for taxpayers who are unemployed or underemployed.
IRS personnel may use a taxpayer’s current lack of income or reduced income in the analysis of the taxpayer’s future ability to pay an OIC, effective March 10, 2010, for any OIC currently under consideration and OICs previously rejected that are in their appeal period or where the taxpayer has requested Appeals consideration. If a taxpayer is unemployed and is not expected to return to his or her previous occupation or level of earnings, IRS personnel are instructed to contact the taxpayer to discuss the expected future level of income, and should also allow anticipated increases in necessary living expenses and/or applicable taxes. If a taxpayer is long-term unemployed, the interim guidance instructs IRS personnel to use the taxpayer’s current income in the future income calculation. The same treatment applies to taxpayers who are long-term underemployed. The IRS did not remove the requirement that a taxpayer generally must include a nonrefundable 20% payment (in a lump sum offer) when submitting his or her offer. When submitting a periodic payment offer, the taxpayer must include the first proposed installment payment. The IRS also may be flexible for missed payments under an OIC or installment agreement where taxpayers have a record of compliance. IR-2010-29, SB/SE 05-0310-012.
An additional review must be initiated before rejection if the difference between taxpayer’s offer and IRS determined “reasonable collection potential” is solely attributable to a disagreement on real property equity.
Taxpayers are not required to include a 20% payment or periodic payments to change an accepted offer. Nospecific form is required (e.g., Form 656), but the proposal must be in writing. IRS employees are to review updated financial information and supporting documents and negotiate based on taxpayer’s current financial situation, recognizing how quickly circumstances change in the current economy.
The IRS posts information on its web site on the Health Coverage Tax Credit (“HCTC”).
In particular, the report cites IRS lien filing policies as the second most serious problem facing taxpayers. The IRS uses automated systems to file liens against taxpayers in a variety of situations, even when the taxpayer possesses minimal or no property and the lien will do little more than damage the taxpayer’s financial viability and access to credit. A study conducted by Olson’s office found no obvious causal relationship between the number of lien notices filed and the amount of overall revenue collected.

References: § 6041
 § 6041
 § 6041
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 §4
 v. 
 v. 
 v.