Florida Department of Revenue Administrative Collection Processing Fee Beginning September 1, 2009
Effective May 30, 2009, a new law imposes a 10 percent administrative collection processing fee on any outstanding debt older than 90 days. The fee is equal to 10 percent of the total amount of tax, penalty, and interest owed, or $10 for each collection event, whichever is greater. A “collection event” is defined as any time a taxpayer fails to:
• Timely file a complete return.
The IRS has provided a list of transactions that have been identified by the Service as “transactions of interest.” The IRS will consider transactions similar to any of the transactions on the list to be transactions of interest for purposes of Code Secs. 6111, 6112, 6662A, 6707, 6707A and 6708, and Reg. §1.6011-4(b)(6).
One transaction of interest (initially identified in Notice 2007-72, 2007-2 CB 544) involves taxpayers who purchase a remainder interest or similar successor member interest directly or indirectly in real property and then transfer such interest to a tax-exempt organization, claiming a charitable contribution deduction significantly higher than the amount paid for the interest. The Treasury and the IRS are concerned that taxpayers may be utilizing the contribution of such successor member interests to generate an excessive deduction.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski has signed legislation that authorizes the Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) to initiate a tax amnesty program for taxpayers subject to the corporation excise (income) tax, the personal income tax, the inheritance tax, and the mass transit district tax on self-employment. The program will begin on October 1, 2009, and end on November 19, 2009, and applies to tax years, reporting periods, and estates for which the DOR could issue a notice of deficiency under ORS 305.265 or ORS 314.410, as amended and in effect on September 27, 2009.
To qualify for participation in the program, a taxpayer must have been required to:
A taxpayer may not participate in the tax amnesty program if the OR DOR issued a notice of deficiency before the start of the program or assessed a tax for a tax year for which the taxpayer could otherwise apply for amnesty. However, a taxpayer who has filed a bankruptcy petition may participate in the program if the taxpayer submits an order from the bankruptcy court allowing participation.
Louisiana: Tax Amnesty Program Enacted
The Louisiana Tax Delinquency Amnesty Act of 2009, which requires the Department of Revenue () to develop and implement a tax amnesty program to be effective for a period not to exceed two consecutive calendar months between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, at the discretion of the secretary, is enacted.
The tax amnesty program will apply to all taxes administered by the DOR except for motor fuel taxes and penalties for failure to submit information reports that are not based on an underpayment of tax.
Top Seven Tips for Taxpayers Starting a New Business
IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2009-02
Anyone starting a new business this summer should be aware of their federal tax responsibilities. Here are the top seven things the IRS wants you to know if you plan on opening a new business this year.
1. First, you must decide what type of business entity you are going to establish. The type your business takes will determine which tax form you have to file. The most common types of business are the sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation and S corporation.
Closely held C corporations are more likely to accumulate earnings and profits beyond the reasonable needs of the business in order to avoid income taxes on its shareholders than are large C corporations. Each accumulated earnings case is unique. No pro forma guide for calculating a taxpayer’s reasonable needs can be prepared. Reasonable needs that would usually be considered in any accumulated earnings case are the need for sufficient net liquid assets to pay reasonably anticipated, normal operating costs through one business cycle and sufficient net liquid assets to pay reasonably anticipated, extraordinary expenses and capital improvement financing.
In addition, the following represents a non-exclusive list of specific items that should be considered for construction contractors:
IRS Did Not Fail to Properly Credit Checks Against Married Couple’s Tax Liability (Kovacevich, TCM)
The IRS properly credited five checks toward the outstanding tax liability of a law firm and not the individual tax liability of an attorney and his wife. For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer/husband was improperly characterized as an independent contractor rather than an employee of his law firm and the IRS determined that the couple failed to report income and improperly claimed deduction. The taxpayers requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing after the IRS sent a notice of intent to levy. Although one of the disputed checks was not presented to the Appeals Officer, the Tax Court could consider it because the Tax Court did not follow the record rule, and therefore, could consider evidence not produced at the CDP hearing as long as it was relevant. Since the IRS did not make an evidentiary objection to the check at trial, any objection for relevance was waived. Because the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency, their underlying tax liability could not be challenged in the CDP hearing. Questions about whether a particular check could be credited to a taxpayer’s account for a particular tax year, however, were not challenges to the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability. The Appeal’s officer’s determination to the contrary was a harmless error of law and not an abuse of discretion because the IRS did correctly credit the checks against liabilities other than the taxpayers’ unpaid individual tax liability for the tax year at issue. The taxpayers payments were voluntary and so their designations controlled. Designations on the checks, such as the employer identification number of the law firm that was liable for the employment taxes with respect to the taxpayer, supported a conclusion that the payments were meant to pay the law firm’s tax debt, not the taxpayers’ individual tax debt. Although one check arguably could have been for the payment of trust fund recovery penalty against the taxpayer as a responsible person for his law firm, the liability was for a tax year outside of the CDP hearing and the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over those taxes.
The taxpayers failed to present evidence that the employment taxes were overpaid prior to the year at issue and that the overpayment should be credited toward their individual deficiency. The taxpayers presented no evidence of their income from earlier years nor stated how the amounts should be credited or how the credits reduced the deficiency. Finally, the Appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in refusing to send the Social Security Administration information about the taxpayer’s additional income. The issue was not related to an unpaid tax or levy and so was an issue that could not be raised at a CDP hearing.
Abusive Tax Evasion Schemes
Resolve your tax problem and get tax relief today!
Examples of Abusive Tax Scheme Investigations – Fiscal Year 2009
CA New Home Tax Credit Going Fast
Sacramento – The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) announced today that the $100 million allocated by the state in new home tax credits will soon be gone.
As of June 17, 2009, FTB had received more than 9,800 applications claiming nearly $95 million. Because some of these applications are duplicates, revisions, or invalid, FTB plans to accept 12,000 applications. This will ensure enough valid applications will be available to allocate the full $100 million credit. However, FTB will only issue approved credit certificates until the $100 million is exhausted.
Tax Relief Blog