Hug Your Tax Professional, or The Upcoming Horrible, Miserable, Rotten, and Delayed Tax Season

December 12th, 2018

A question I’ve been asked many times this month: When will the 2019 Tax Season (for filing 2018 tax returns) open? The answer I’ve given is, “I don’t know.” Normally by now the IRS has released the date. As of today, the IRS’s only comment has been, “It might not be in January [2019].” At a recent continuing education event speakers from the IRS implied that the 2019 Tax Season could be delayed–possibly significantly. My tax software company has no idea; many forms state “Final on January 28th” but that’s just a best guess on their part. Why? Because the IRS still has not released all of the final 2018 forms. For example, the link to Form 1040 takes you to the 2017 form. (You can find the draft of the new 2018 form here.)

There are two major issues and one minor issue delaying the release of the forms. First, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changed much of the Tax Code; this required the IRS to redo many of the forms to adapt to the new Code. The second major issue is that the IRS is no longer exempt from having rules and forms reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). That review likely adds 30 days to the release date of anything out of the IRS. The minor issue is that the IRS decided to make the new Form 1040 a giant, double-sided postcard size with six subsidiary schedules, meaning there are seven new forms to be reviewed by OMB.

Some of the 2018 forms have been released. For example, you can find Schedule A, Schedule C, and Schedule D. But without a Form 1040, no one is filing.

Adding to the delay is that the IRS is slow in releasing the “Schema” for 2018 returns. This is the coding that tax software companies use to transmit returns to the IRS, so that what’s noted on (say) line 10 of Schedule C goes onto line 10 of Schedule C in the IRS’s records when a return is transmitted. In most years, there’s a 60-day period from the date of announcement of the schema to the date Tax Season opens; this allows the software companies and the IRS to test everything to make sure it all works. This means we could be looking at Tax Season opening on February 10th…if the schema were given to the software companies today. Of course, the IRS could shorten the testing period but it’s looking like the 2019 Tax Season will be compressed (perhaps significantly).

In our Engagement Letters for 2018 returns we’re adding the following:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act) passed late in 2017 contains sweeping changes to the Tax Code. Given the magnitude of changes in the Tax Act, as well as some new concepts introduced in the law, additional stated guidance from the IRS, and possibly from Congress in the form of technical corrections, may be forthcoming. We will use our professional judgment and expertise to assist you based on the Tax Act guidance as currently promulgated. Subsequent developments issued by the applicable tax authorities may affect the information we have previously provided, and these effects may be material.

In particular, the Tax Act added a new deduction for Qualified Business Income (the Section 199A deduction). This deduction is generally available for taxpayers who have income generated from business activity, including Sole Proprietors (Schedule C). The calculation for this deduction is based on numerous factors. We may need to conduct an extensive interview with you, receive additional information from you, and/or spend extensive time in calculating this deduction. This may result in an increase in the cost of our services to you.

Beginning with the 2018 tax year, the IRS now requires S-Corporation shareholders who either reported a loss on their K-1, received a distribution (not including a salary or expense reimbursement), disposed of any shares of stock (or the equivalent), or received a loan repayment from the corporation to include a complete basis calculation with their return. We will need this basis calculation for your return (if applicable). If you do not already have this basis calculation, we can prepare it for you at an additional cost. To do this, we would need copies of all K-1s issued to you by the S-Corporation and details of your investments to and distributions from the S-Corporation.

These are just three issues. First, the law may change while we’re in the middle of preparing your return. Second, the new deduction for Qualified Business Income is very complex; this will add cost to many taxpayers’ returns. And third, the new rule on reporting S-Corporation basis will be a surprise for many taxpayers (and tax professionals). We’ve prepared basis schedules for the S-Corporation returns we prepare; however, many tax professionals omit these. These three items are guaranteed to add time and stress to return preparation.

So consider what tax professionals are dealing with:
– A delayed start to Tax Season;
– New tax law with many complexities;
– New tax forms; and
– Many more IRS/state non-conformity issues.

This is a recipe for a very high-stress Tax Season. That’s why I suggest you hug your tax professional; he or she will appreciate it.

Nominations Due for Tax Offender of the Year

December 12th, 2018

In a little less than a month it will be time to reveal this year’s winner of the prestigious “Tax Offender of the Year” award. Remember, To be considered for the Tax Offender of the Year award, the individual (or organization) must do more than cheat on his or her taxes. It has to be special; it really needs to be a Bozo-like action or actions. Here are the past lucky recipients:

2017: State and Local Pension Crisis

2016: Judge Diane Kroupa
2015: Kenneth Harycki
2014: Mauricio Warner
2013: U.S. Department of Justice
2012: Steven Martinez
2011: United States Congress
2010: Tony and Micaela Dutson
2009: Mark Anderson
2008: Robert Beale
2007: Gene Haas
2005: Sharon Lee Caulder

IRS (and All Federal Agencies) Closed Tomorrow, December 5th

December 4th, 2018

The Internal Revenue Service and all federal agencies will be closed tomorrow, Wednesday, December 5th, for the national day of mourning for President George H.W. Bush. The IRS also announced today that they have granted taxpayers an extra day, until Thursday, December 6th, to file any return or pay any tax originally due on Wednesday, December 5th:

The Internal Revenue Service today granted taxpayers an extra day, until Thursday, Dec. 6, 2018 to file any return or pay any tax originally due on Wednesday, Dec. 5.

The IRS granted the extra time, following the Dec. 1 Executive Order closing all federal agencies on Dec. 5, as a mark of respect for George Herbert Walker Bush, the forty-first President of the United States.

The one-day extension applies to any return, required to be filed with the IRS, on Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2018. It also applies to any required federal tax payment, originally due on that day. In addition, it also applies to any federal income, payroll or excise tax deposit due on Dec. 5, including those required to be made through the Treasury Department’s Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).

Swart Broadens

November 29th, 2018

California’s Franchise Tax Board believes that any business with even a remote tie to California should pay California tax. Let’s say you own a 0.21% interest in Acme LLC. Acme invests in something in California. You have no authority to manage (or administer) Acme. In the decision in Swart Enterprises, a 0.2% holding for such an LLC was ruled not to be conducting business in California. The FTB noted that similar businesses could file a refund:

Explain why the taxpayer has the same facts as in the Swart Court of Appeal decision (i.e., sole connection to California is a 0.2 percent membership interest, or less; in a manager-managed LLC; and the original members of the LLC delegated to a sole manager full, exclusive, and complete authority to manage and control the LLC). [emphasis added]

And, yes, the FTB has been continuing to challenge businesses with more than a 0.2% interest. But that may stop soon.

Appeals of FTB decisions now go to the Department of Taxation and Fee Administration. Satview Broadband, Ltd. fell astray in filing California tax returns. Satview is a Nevada LLC that owned a 25% interest in Escape Broadband, LLC. Satview was a limited partner (member) of Escape, and like in Swart, was a passive investor.

Satview paid back taxes and then filed a claim for refund. The FTB denied the claim. One of the issues was the doing business question: Was Satview doing business in California solely by owning a 25% stake in another LLC as a nonmanaging member of that other LLC? After the FTB denied the claim for refund, Satview appealed to the Department of Taxation Fee Administration.

The only conceivable basis in the record before us upon which it could be contended that appellant was actively engaging in transactions for profit in California is the fact that appellant held a non-managing minority member interest in Escape, an LLC that admittedly was doing business in California. However, the doing-business status of a pass-through entity – here an LLC taxable as a partnership – is not automatically attributed to its non-managing minority members where, as here, there is no indication that the non-managing minority member had any power or authority, directly or indirectly, to participate in the LLC’s management or operations.

In Swart, the taxpayer had a 0.2% interest; here, it’s a 25% interest. The FTB is holding that if you exceed 0.2% you need to file in California.

The court in Swart rejected FTB’s position that Swart’s passive holding a minority non-managing interest in Cypress established that Swart was “actively engaging in any transaction for financial or pecuniary gain or profit” during the year at issue. It found that the leading authority, Golden State Theatre & Realty Corp. v. Johnson (1943) 21 Cal.2d 493, could not be interpreted so broadly as to warrant characterizing Swart’s investment activity as “doing business” in the state. (Swart, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th, at pp. 503-505.) We draw the same conclusion under the instant facts. To hold otherwise would ignore the important distinction between actively and passively (or inactively) engaging in business transactions. (Ibid.)…

FTB makes no argument that the operative facts of this appeal are materially different from those at issue in Swart. Although appellant’s percentage interest in the in-state pass- through entity at issue here is significantly greater than the percentage interest in Swart (25 percent as opposed to 0.2 percent), both are minority interests. Without any allegation – much less any showing – that appellant had any ability or authority, directly or indirectly, to influence or participate in the management or operation of Escape’s business, we cannot uphold FTB’s position that Escape’s doing-business status may be attributable to (i.e., flow through to) appellant. Merely pointing to the fact that appellant held a non-managing minority interest in an LLC that was doing business in this state does not, standing alone, satisfy the requirement that FTB show a rational basis for its determination. Consequently, we conclude that appellant is not liable for the 2011 and 2012 NQSF penalties.

It will be interesting to see if the FTB will continue to state that businesses with solely passive interests in other entities that invest in California are doing business in the state. Unfortunately, this opinion is not precedential so my suspicion is that the FTB will continue to force companies to fight it. I also doubt that the FTB will appeal this decision to the court system. Doing so would turn this non-precedential decision into a precedential decision.

Still, this is overall good news. The administrative judges at the Department of Taxation and Fee Administration appear to have a grounding in reality. Sooner or later there will be a precedential decision on this issue, and the FTB will be forced to realize that not everyone is doing business in California.

Bobble Away

November 27th, 2018

Are bobbleheads promotional items that are subject to Use Tax? The Cincinnati Reds fought the Ohio Department of Taxation’s ruling that bobbleheads were subject to Use Tax all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In this case, we are asked to consider how state tax law applies to the purchase of those promotional items by appellant, Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C. (“the Reds”). More specifically, the question before us is whether the sale-for-resale exemption of R.C. 5739.01(E) precludes the Reds from having to pay use tax on those promotional items. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the exemption applies in this case. Thus, in the familiar words of Marty Brennaman, longtime Reds radio announcer and recipient of the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s Ford C. Frick Award, we determine that “this one belongs to the Reds.” We accordingly reverse the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).

Now that I’ve spoiled the decision, we need to look at the law. When you purchase items for resale, they’re generally exempt from sales tax. When you sell them to the end-customer, they pay the sales tax. If you end up not reselling the items you purchase for resale, you owe Use Tax on those items.

Consideration, in the contract-law sense, is important here: the question whether the Reds purchased promotional items for resale entails asking whether fans furnished consideration for the Reds’ promise to hand out the promotional items at the games.

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ruled that the Reds were giving away the promotional items rather than selling them. The Reds argue that they resell the promotional items by distributing them (or promising to do that). “The Reds argue that this promise creates a contractual expectation on the part of the fans, who purchase tickets and attend the games as consideration for receiving the unique promotional items.”

The Cincinnati Reds’ CFO, Dan Healy, testified at the original hearing. He noted that the Reds distribute promotional items at less desirable games (from an attendance standpoint). That makes complete sense if you think about baseball. The Reds have 81 home dates, and some of those games will be against teams that aren’t very good (not that the Reds have been particularly good) who don’t draw well in Cincinnati–say, the San Diego Padres. Mr. Healy’s testimony is logical and sensible.

In determining that no consideration was given by fans in exchange for the promotional items, the tax commissioner and BTA focused on their findings that fans pay the same price to attend a game regardless of whether a promotional item is offered and that the cost of the promotional item is not included in the ticket price. But Healy specifically testified that the costs of promotional items are included in ticket prices when they are set before the start of a season and that promotional items are distributed at less desirable games for which tickets are not expected to be sold out. Thus, rather than offering discounted ticket prices to these less desirable games, it stands to reason that by including the cost of the promotional item in the ticket price, one portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to attend the less desirable game and a separate portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to receive the promotional item. Based on this record, we accordingly conclude that the promotional items constituted things of value in exchange for which fans paid money that was included in the ticket prices.

So the Reds didn’t strike out here (they did plenty of that during the 2018 season), and that portion of the Board of Tax Appeals decision charging the Reds with Use Tax on promotional items was thrown out at home plate.

Nothing for Something

November 21st, 2018

Have I got a deal for you! (It is, after all, the Holiday Season where we’re all looking for deals, right?) I can take your assets and hide them from anyone and everyone! Simply form one of my special Nevada Corporations, and, well:

Camouflaging your assets is the first step in implementing any asset protection plan. Remember, if a federal judge can find an asset, he can seize it. Conversely what he can’t find, or doesn’t know about, he can’t touch. Although I enjoy advertising bulletproof asset protection, the prescription for making an asset bulletproof is first to make it invisible.

And I also offer a hidden bank account program! With my new vanishing bank accounts, you have access to your money but nobody else does! No more worries from the government, or anyone else. The whole program retails for just under $10,000, and there are multi-level marketing opportunities, too! Who can refuse?


All of the above is what one Las Vegas man, Richard Neiswonger, offered through his Asset Protection Group, Inc. Back in 2011 he was indicted on various tax fraud charges. He was sentenced last week to 22 months at ClubFed and must make restitution to the IRS of $3,212,078.

This wasn’t Mr. Neiswonger’s first brush with the US government. The FTC had obtained an injunction against Asset Protection Group, but that didn’t stop them. The US Attorney’s office had requested another injunction in 2007. The sentencing press release details Mr. Neiswonger’s activities:

From 1999 to mid-2006, Neiswonger, who was imprisoned, and his business partner, formed Asset Protection Group, Inc. (APG) in Nevada in late 1998. Neiswonger, along with his business partner and a certified public accountant, conspired to promote false and misleading business information. Consumers would purchase the APG “asset protection” program for typically $9,800 and become APG “consultants,” who would sell “asset protection” services to clients who wished to conceal assets from potential litigants and creditors, as well as government agencies. The service allowed clients to place funds in bank accounts in the name of nominee entities that could never be traced back to the clients themselves. In turn, APG “consultants” received a portion of the client’s fees. These nominee entity accounts and other fraudulent conveyances, such as so called “friendly liens,” were used to divert and hide income from the IRS. Over 70 APG clients using the APG system had collective IRS liabilities totaling approximately $14 million.

Mr. Neiswonger not only hid others from the IRS, he hid $1 million through his attorney from the IRS.

A helpful hint to those reading this: It’s far, far simpler and easier to simply pay what you owe to the IRS. The scheme that Asset Protection Group offered was just that: an illegal scheme. Mr. Neiswonger did enjoy the fruits of his labors for a few years, but in the end he has to disgorge what he made and gets an almost two-year trip to ClubFed.

A helpful hint to those reading this: Don’t do this!

Gambling With an Edge Podcast

November 13th, 2018

I appear on this week’s episode of Gambling With an Edge. We discuss the new tax law, and tax topics of interest to gamblers, including how the new higher standard deduction will negatively impact gamblers.

This Name Looks Vaguely Familiar

November 1st, 2018

I’m a tax nerd. I read Tax Court decisions. Today, one caught my eye: W.T. Snipes v. Commissioner. This name looks vaguely familiar.

Yes, it’s the Wesley Snipes. Mr. Snipes, for those who don’t remember, visited ClubFed for failing to file tax returns in the early 2000s. Today’s decision begins,

P[etitioner] has Federal income tax liabilities of approximately $23.5 million for tax years 2001-06. These liabilities are largely a result of P’s failure to file Federal income tax returns. R[espondent] assessed these deficiencies, filed a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL), and issued notice and demand for payment of the liabilities, and, when P did not pay, issued to P a notice of the filing. P timely requested a collection due process hearing under I.R.C. sec. 6330(d) and stated that he wanted a collection alternative–i.e., an offer-in-compromise (OIC) or currently not collectible status–and wanted the NFTL withdrawn. P did not challenge his underlying tax liabilities. P made a cash OIC of $842,061, less than 4% of his total underlying liability.

The tax liability is now about $23.5 million. Interestingly, back in 2008 (when Mr. Snipes was tried for failing to file) he and his then-attorney, Robert Bernhoft, said he would pay his taxes. That apparently didn’t happen.

The Tax Court dispute is over Mr. Snipes’ having a Federal tax lien being put on him. Mr. Snipes submitted an Offer In Compromise (OIC) stating there was doubt as to whether the $23.5 million could be collected. When an OIC is submitted, the taxpayer must provide a complete listing of all of his assets and liabilities. In many cases an OIC is justified. Mr. Snipes alleged that a former financial advisor of his took out loans and disposed of assets and income on his behalf without his knowledge or benefit. Indeed, the advisor signed affidavits. The Tax Court had an issue, though: “However, petitioner did not provide any definitive or otherwise bona fide documentation showing the dissipation or diversion of his assets or income.”

Something I’ve said before in discussing the Tax Court, you need to provide absolute proof and documentation. It appears that didn’t happen in this case. But I digress….

Following review of petitioner’s case the settlement officer reduced petitioner’s [reasonable collection potential (RCP)] to $9,581,027 in an effort to compromise for settlement purposes. Petitioner maintained his original OIC of $842,061. The settlement officer ultimately concluded that it was not in the best interest of the Government to accept petitioner’s OIC. The settlement officer’s manager reviewed the settlement officer’s actions regarding petitioner’s case and her rejection of petitioner’s OIC.

Mr. Snipes didn’t accept the ruling, so the case went to Tax Court.

Petitioner contends that the settlement officer abused her discretion in refusing his OIC by failing to (1) calculate petitioner’s exact RCP, (2) exclude dissipated assets, (3) conduct an expedited transferee investigation into Mr. Johnson, (4) consider whether the NFTL would cause petitioner economic hardship, and (5) satisfy the review obligations of section 7122(e)(1).

The Court did not give Mr. Snipes good news. The exact RCP isn’t required. The petitioner asked for $842,061; the settlement officer calculated $9,581,027; that’s a big difference. Without, in the view of the Tax Court, credible documentation of his assets, Mr. Snipes lost his first argument.

The argument regarding dissipated assets is more interesting. Here’s what the Court said:

Even though the settlement officer included potentially dissipated assets in petitioner’s RCP, she did not abuse her discretion. She was properly following published guidance that directs settlement officers to reject an OIC where issues of transferee liability are present unless the taxpayer includes the transferee amount in his offer. Petitioner had multiple entities in which his multiple assets, particularly his real estate properties, were held. The settlement officer could not determine petitioner’s assets clearly. Moreover, petitioner did not provide bona fide or definitive documentation showing that he no longer owned the assets in question or to what extent, if any, he had benefited from their dissipation. He provided only affidavits by [his financial advisor]. The settlement officer was justified in her calculation of petitioner’s RCP. [internal citation omitted]

I can see some basis for an appeal here. Given that the financial advisor was willing to sign affidavits saying he disposed of assets, there’s likely proof that those assets were disposed. On the other hand, you shouldn’t assume with the Tax Court. Consider that if Mr. Snipes had included proof of disposition he might have won this argument (and he might have won at Appeals, too).

The argument on transferee issues was a loser. The Internal Revenue Manual pt. 5.8.5.6(7) states,

It is not necessary to actually seek or obtain any specific legal remedy in order to address * * * [transferee/nominee/alter ego] issues in an offer. However, the offer file must be clearly documented with the basis for including the value of a transferred asset in the RCP. Care should be taken so that the determination to include assets held by others is reasonable.

This was a losing argument.

The next argument was economic hardship.

Economic hardship is considered a “special circumstance” under which a settlement officer can accept an OIC that is considered significantly below a taxpayer’s RCP…Factors indicating “economic hardship” include: (1) a long-term illness, medical condition, or disability that renders the taxpayer incapable of earning a living, where it is “reasonably foreseeable that taxpayer’s financial resources will be exhausted providing for care and support during the course of the condition”; (2) a situation where the taxpayer’s monthly income is exhausted by providing for care of dependents without other means of support; and (3) a situation where, although the taxpayer has certain assets, the taxpayer is unable to borrow against the equity in those assets and the liquidation of the assets would render the taxpayer unable to meet basic living expenses…Petitioner contends that payment of his RCP as calculated by the IRS would render him unable to meet basic living expenses. [internal citations omitted]

If you can prove that paying the RCP would cause you to be unable to pay your living expenses, you normally do qualify for an OIC based on economic hardship. There’s just one problem here:

The taxpayer must submit complete and current financial documentation to the Commissioner to prove economic hardship. Petitioner has not submitted complete and current financial data to respondent, as he did not provide definitive or bona fide documentation of his assets. Accordingly, petitioner’s settlement officer could not determine that he could not borrow against the equity of his real property interests or other assets, or that the liquidation of these interests would render him unable to meet basic living expenses. Petitioner did not make a showing of economic hardship necessary to qualify for special circumstances.

The final argument was that the review obligations of Section 7122(e)(1) were not met. Petitioner stated that the Appeals Office manager was not an ‘independent’ reviewer. The Court rejected that argument, noting that this is exactly how the proposed rejection of an offer is reviewed.

While I do expect this case to be appealed, for now the tax lien stands. As I said years ago, it would have been far, far easier (and far, far less expensive) for Mr. Snipes to have simply paid his taxes in the first place. Of course, I would have missed out on years of great blog materials but it would have saved Mr. Snipes millions of dollars.

Case:

W.T. Snipes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-184

Here We Go Again…

October 30th, 2018

A few years ago I penned a post titled “Taxes and Daily Fantasy Sports: The Duck Test.” To remind everyone,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck.

The duck test came up yet again yesterday in Albany, New York. The New York legislature passed a law legalizing Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS), even though the New York state constitution specifically prohibits gambling. The New York legislature statutorily said, “DFS isn’t gambling.” Yesterday, Judge Gerald Connolly said the legislature was wrong.

Last year a lawsuit was filed seeking a ruling on whether DFS is New York was legal. (The case is titled White, et. al., v. Cuomo, et. al.) Yesterday, the ruling came out. (My thanks to Legal Sports Report who published the ruling. LSR is a vital resource for anyone interested in sports betting in the United States. But I digress….) The issue is the same one I raised back in 2014.

Unfortunately, many states look at just an element of chance to determine if something is gambling. And there’s no doubt that daily fantasy sports have such an element. [emphasis in original.]

In this case, Judge Connolly ruled that based on the New York constitution if there’s a contest with an element of chance, a prize, and consideration and the constitution doesn’t state that activity isn’t gambling, it is gambling. Gambling is prohibited by the New York constitution, so the constitution will need to be amended in order for DFS to be legalized.

I expect this decision to be appealed, and a stay put on any adverse impacts for DFS in New York…for now. The problem is that the ruling seems right to me. If the New York prohibition against gambling was statutory, DFS could be legalized by statute. Since the New York prohibition is in the state’s constitution, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary. This does not bode well for the future of DFS in New York.

Additionally, this ruling points out something that should be obvious regarding sportsbetting. The Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA allows sportsbetting to be legalized state-by-state. In some states, that just means passing a new law. In many states, though, that will mean amending the state’s constitution. Changing a state’s constitution takes a lot more time and effort.

Haste Makes Waste

October 22nd, 2018

Or so the cliche goes. And for the IRS, it certainly does.

A client filed his tax return on October 2nd. He had a balance due (he had made an extension payment, but he still owed some tax). He paid by having his bank account electronically debited with the filing of his tax return. In today’s mail he received a CP14 notice (dated today) alleging he hadn’t paid his balance due. Yikes!

My client was upset. “Russ, you forgot to have my bank account electronically debited.” No, I didn’t forget, and the return shows his payment being accepted for processing. I had a Tax Information Authorization for my client, so I ran an Account Transcript and it showed a $0 balance. My client was relieved, but there appears to be a systemic IRS issue.

The payment went through on October 2nd, but the IRS posted the tax due first (dated October 22nd) without posting his payment. Yet the payment was made, and my client should have never received this notice. It wasted both of our time for no good reason.

If this were the only such IRS notice I received this year I’d just ignore the issue, but there were two others I received in today’s mail (one I received as I had authorization for my client, and the other that the client forwarded to me). Both clients have $0 balances, so it appears there is a systemic issue of the IRS being a bit too fast in sending out CP14 notices.

Several years ago this was an issue for April filers; the IRS corrected the problem by allowing an additional ‘cycle’ before sending out CP14 notices. I hadn’t seen this issue before for extension filers, but it appears we have a case of deja vu all over again. I reported this to the IRS Systemic Advocacy Management System. If you’re a tax professional and run into this issue I urge to to report it, too.