because common sense isn’t always common.
by 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 research
there’s a rumor that the pillared citadel of the internal revenue service on constitution avenue has a secret room where no one ever goes. it’s the largest room in the building, yet empty save for distant echoes in the dark. the room has a name. it’s called the room for improvement.
more: how the irs abuses ‘math errors’ | taxpayers deserve better receipts | troubles with irs private debt collection | what difference does one word make? | what’s the real impact of irs audits? | data divers profile taxpayer filing styles
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.
ok, that’s an exaggeration. the irs is constantly improving, at least when congress gives it the funds to do so.
but that doesn’t mean the room isn’t there.
as national tax advocate, nina e. olson’s office is not far from the room, and she has the key, as it were, if anybody’s interested.
among olson’s many recommendations are 16 aimed at improving tax assessment and collection. part i of this 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 series, how the irs abuses ‘math errors’, looked at four of those recommendations. they dealt with limits on the irs’s “math error authority” and fees charged for installment agreements.
today, we look at three more ideas for a better irs.
1. protect retirement funds from irs levies (except in cases of “flagrant conduct,” whatever that is).
irc § 6331(a) gives the irs broad discretion to “levy upon all property and rights to property.” that property includes, under certain circumstances, retirement funds.
and the certain circumstances are what the irs describes as “flagrant conduct.”
it’s unclear whether flagrant conduct includes your university shenanigans or an office party of the past. the irs doesn’t define it. not wearing pants while not paying taxes is probably more along the lines of what the irs has in mind.
but the definition itself isn’t really the problem, according to the tas. taxpayers who haven’t been especially flagrant in their conduct are often talked into “voluntary” levies on their retirement accounts. that volunteerism is often inspired by fear or anxiety. then, years later, when it’s time to retire, they find themselves suffering economic hardship.
exemptions for hardship
note that the irs is prohibited from levying on certain sources of payment, such as unemployment benefits and child support. the exemptions are policy because in their absence, the unemployed would be stripped of their families’ only income, or children would suffer the consequences of poverty.
the tas says the same principle should apply to retirement accounts. stripping retirees of their retirement savings benefits no one. the consequent poverty comes at a time when the worker is least able to earn. in many cases, the retirees end up qualifying for public assistance at a cost to other taxpayers.
tas recommendations
- amend irc § 6334(a) to include qualified retirement savings as exempt from tax levy if a) the levy would create economic hardship and b) the taxpayer has not engaged in “flagrant conduct.”
- define “flagrant conduct” as willful action that is voluntarily and knowingly committed in violation of chapters 1, 61, 62, 65, 70 or 75.
- amend irc § 6331 to stop the accrual of penalties and interest when a levy has attached to a retirement account and the period of limitation (generally 10 years) has elapsed.
2. extend the time periods for requesting the return of levies while the taxpayer or third party is financially disabled.
under irc § 6331, the irs can levy against a taxpayer’s property. under irs § 6343, in certain circumstances, improper levies must be released and returned – possibly to a party other than the taxpayer. but there are time limits to this possibility.
a third-party can request release of a levy if it was wrongfully levied or seized. typically this is when the third party believes the property belonged to him or her rather than the taxpayer, or when a third party has a superior claim to the property.
there are strict time constraints for third parties requesting the return of wrongfully levied money. basically (with typical irs convolutions), they have two years to make the request. they can also go to the courts to request judicial review.
taxpayers, too, can seek the return of levied monies, and they face the same time constraints as third parties. they have no right to judicial review, however, if their claim is denied by the irs.
but … but … but …
but what if the taxpayer or third party was mentally or physically (and thus financially) disabled during the two-year period?
tough luck, says the irs. the law prevents the return of levied property to a taxpayer or third party after the two-year period – not even if the irs broke the law to seize the property improperly.
it’s not hard to see how this could be remedied.
tas recommendation
amend irs §§ 6343(b) and 6532(c) to extend or eliminate (“toll” is the legal term) time periods for filing a claim for return of levied money, a wrongful levy claim and wrongful levy suit during any period in which an individual is financially disabled.
3. authorize the release of levies that cause economic hardship for business taxpayers.
irc § 643(a)(1)(d) requires the irs to release a levy if satisfaction of the levy causes an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay reasonable basic living expenses.
that escape hatch does not apply to businesses, however. when the irs takes action against a business, the enforcement often tips the business into bankruptcy. financial hardship is not a consideration.
bankruptcy is rarely a desirable end. the owner loses a livelihood. investors lose investments. employees lose their jobs. third parties don’t get paid. the market loses a supplier. maybe a lender suffers a loss. and the national treasury loses future revenue on the taxes that would have been paid by the owners, investors, employees, and lenders.
granted, a business delinquent on its taxes may not be viable anyway. but some businesses could get by if their government could give them a little break. there are collection alternatives to simply seizing assets.
why not give the irs the discretion to release levies in cases in which a business is likely to remain a going concern? why not encourage an alternative compliance? a little understanding and goodwill by the irs (which is not permitted under the current revenue code) might be more beneficial than harsh enforcement that often ends up pushing taxpayers into the gig economy and its many temptations of noncompliance.
tas recommendation
amend irc § 6343 to authorize the irs to release a levy if it is creating economic hardship for a viable business. in determining whether to release a levy on those grounds, the irs should consider
- the economic viability of the business,
- the nature and extent of the hardship (including whether the owner exercised all due prudence) and
- the potential harm to individuals if the business is liquidated to pay taxes.
also, congress should clarify that the irs should also consider whether taxes could be collected from a responsible person through an irc § 6672 trust fund recovery penalty assessment.