Posts Tagged ‘Taxpayer.Advocate.Service’

It’s Nice to Know I’m Right, But…

Saturday, December 14th, 2013

I’ve written on a few occasions about my battles with the IRS over incorrectly assessed Failure to File and Failure to Pay penalties. (See here, here, and here.) As I noted in the last post linked to above, I submitted this to the IRS’s Systemic Advocacy Management System (SAMS). Well, progress has been made.

It turns out there’s not a systemic issue, but at least two of them (and almost certainly at least three). First, the regulation that exists does provide an automatic extension for taxpayers outside of the US on April 15th for any reason. Here’s that regulation again (it’s Treasury Regulation, 26 CFR § 1.6073-4 (c)):

(c) Residents outside the United States. In the case of a U.S. resident living or traveling outside the United States and Puerto Rico on the 15th day of the 4th month of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1978, an extension of time for filing the declaration of estimated tax otherwise due on or before the 15th day of the 4th month of the taxable year is granted to and including the 15th day of the 6th month of the taxable year.

The woman I’ve been dealing with at SAMS confirmed that the plain language of the regulation does govern. It’s also noted in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), which is how the IRS is supposed to resolve penalties. But:

1. IRS publications are likely wrong. Publication 54 notes that an extension is available only if outside of the US on April 15th for business purposes and you have to reside outside of the US. The clear language of the regulation is different and governs, so publications are wrong. They’ll have to be rewritten, which won’t happen for 2013 publications (they’ve already been issued and have a July deadline).

2. IRS staff is not using the IRM to properly resolve the matter. Based on the experiences of my clients, these penalties should have been resolved at the service centers. The staff at the service centers may be using publications rather than the IRM to look up how the Tax Code works. (It’s also possible that the IRM needs to be rewritten in this area to note this situation.) There will be a need to determine why the penalties weren’t resolved at the service center; it’s possible that retraining some staff is required.

3. The IRS computer system likely needs to be reprogrammed to stop these penalties from being assessed in the first place. That’s almost certainly not going to happen before 2013 returns are processed, but the sooner the underlying problem(s) in the programming are discovered, the sooner they can be resolved.

Since SAMS now agrees that there is at least one systemic issue, the matter is being elevated and an analyst (and team) will be assigned to attempt to resolve this…hopefully before 2013 tax returns are filed. Unfortunately for my clients impacted by this for 2012 returns, each such case must be fought individually. While I am now fairly certain my clients will all win in the end, it’s still a pain in the neck.

There are two related matters. First, how many taxpayers were erroneously assessed these penalties and didn’t fight them? I noticed the systemic issue because I had multiple individuals impacted in multiple years. It’s likely there are hundreds or thousands of taxpayers who paid penalties that shouldn’t have. If you happen to be one of them (and the tax year in question is still open), I’d immediately write the IRS requesting a refund of the penalty(ies).

Second, I wish to praise the Taxpayer Advocate’s Office of Systemic Advocacy. They did not blindly assume that the IRS was right on these penalties, and did look fully at the evidence I brought up. While I would have liked SAMS to move somewhat faster, getting the acknowledgment of being correct in four months is probably quite fast in terms of the normal speed of the bureaucracy.

“The IRS Has Failed to Provide Effective and Timely Assistance to Victims of Identity Theft”

Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

That’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson. Most tax professionals who have run into identity theft can relate horror stories. Jason Dinesen, an Enrolled Agent in Iowa, has been dealing with an identity theft matter for over 20 months (that’s nearly two years). The matter is still unresolved.

Ms. Olson today came to the conclusion that:

■■ The IRS is moving backward — away from a centralized approach to assisting identity theft victims — and is increasing the risk that taxpayer-victims may fall through the cracks;
■■ After years of ineffective efforts to reengineer its processes, the IRS still takes too long to fully resolve the accounts of victims;
■■ While the Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN) that the IRS has developed provides additional security, it does not cover all victims;
■■ The Taxpayer Protection Unit may not be sufficiently staffed to handle the volume of calls from impacted taxpayers;
■■ Congress may unnecessarily create additional exceptions to taxpayer privacy protections; and
■■ The Social Security Administration still makes the Death Master File available to the public, creating an opportunity for identity thieves to steal and then misuse personal information.

The IRS and the Taxpayer Advocate both have reasonable arguments; the report (linked to above) notes both sets of issues. But I think Ms. Olsen misses a key point: The place to stop identity theft is checking addresses when returns are filed. The proposal that I made back in September would stop some identity theft before it happens. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Ms. Olson hits a bullseye with her comments on the Social Security Death Master File; she sees no reason for that to be available to the public while the social security numbers could be used for identity theft. I agree completely. The government is handing to crooks information they need to be crooks.

Finally, Ms. Olson’s comments about the length of time it takes to resolve many identity theft claims are accurate. The cases take a long time. They are complex. That said, many individuals are waiting years to get matters resolved. This is a disservice to an agency that has “service” in their name.

Contact
Archives
Business Blogs
Note: All Content is Copyright © 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 by Clayton Financial and Tax.
Subscribe