Main Menu
Posts tagged Individual Income Tax Return.

Gavel and U.S. flagAs reported in my April 7, 2016, October 3, 2016 and October 27, 2016 blog posts, former U.S. Tax Court Judge Diane L. Kroupa and her then husband, Robert E. Fackler, were indicted on charges of tax fraud. Specifically, they were each charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of tax evasion, two counts of making and subscribing a false tax return, and one count of obstruction of an IRS audit. The indictment was the result of an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

As previously reported, former U.S. Tax Court judge Diane L. Kroupa and her now estranged husband, Robert E. Fackler, were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing a false tax return, and obstruction of an Internal Revenue Service audit. On September 23, 2016, Mr. Fackler pleaded guilty to attempting to evade more than $400,000 in federal taxes. He also signed a plea agreement wherein he sets out in some detail a long-term scheme, which he proclaims was masterminded by Ms. Kroupa to evade taxes.

As reported in my April 2016 blog post, former U.S. Tax Court judge Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert E. Fackler, were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing a false tax return, and obstruction of an Internal Revenue Service audit. The indictment resulted from an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

Naughty and Nice ListsEvery year, around the April 15 individual tax return filing deadline, a story appears in the press highlighting the tax woes of famous people.  The Government undoubtedly issues these press releases to encourage taxpayers to comply with their tax filing and tax payment obligations.  The list of famous people who have been the subject of this news over the years is lengthy.  It includes:  Abbott & Costello, Spiro Agnew, Chuck Berry, Richard Pryor, Martha Stewart, Darryl Strawberry, Nicholas Cage, Heidi Fleiss, Pete Rose, Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson.

On April 4, 2016, U.S. Attorney Andrew M. Luger from Minnesota issued a press release that adds a recently-retired United States Tax Court judge to the list.  Mr. Luger announced a federal indictment charging former tax court judge Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert E. Fackler, each with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of tax evasion, two counts of making and subscribing a false tax return, and one count of obstruction of an IRS audit.

According to the indictment, the defendants, among other things, fraudulently claimed personal expenses such as rent for a personal residence, utilities, pilates class tuition, spa fees, jewelry, clothing, music lessons and vacation costs as deductible expenses.  In addition, the indictment states that the defendants understated taxable income by about $1 million and understated taxes owing by $400,000 or more.

U.S. Attorney Luger stated:  “The allegations in this indictment are deeply disturbing.  The tax laws of this country apply to everyone and those of us appointed to federal positions must hold ourselves to an even higher standard.”

Ms. Kroupa was appointed to the United States Tax Court in 2003 by President George W. Bush, and served in that position until her retirement in June 2014.  Upon retiring, the court issued a press release stating that:  “The court is deeply grateful for the excellent judicial service that Judge Kroupa has rendered in her 11 years on the court.”

"I will pay my taxes" chalkboardThe charges made against the former judge and her husband are serious.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that the charges at this point in the case are merely accusations.  Former judge Kroupa and her husband are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Most people, especially tax practitioners, will likely agree that it is a very sad day for our justice system when a former judge is indicted on such serious charges.  If former judge Kroupa and her husband are found guilty of the charges, however, it will be an even sadder day for our tax system.

The case is the result of an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

Stay tuned!  I expect we will see several more press releases as this case progresses in our judicial system.

Regardless of whether former judge Kroupa and her husband are found guilty, their indictment serves as a warning:  Compliance with our tax obligations should be taken seriously!

On January 27, 2014, Judge Haines of the United States Tax Court issued a decision in Ydney Jay Hall v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2014-6.  This case illustrates that a taxpayer’s failure to retain adequate business records to substantiate income and expenses will lead to disastrous results. 

The taxpayer, Ydney Jay Hall, is a practicing attorney admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court.  His law practice income was reported on Schedule C of his Individual Income Tax Return.  Upon examination of Mr. Hall’s 2008 return, the Service asked to review his books and records relating to the law practice.  The Service, believing Mr. Hall did not fully respond to its request for information, summoned bank records.  With that information, it reconstructed his business income for the tax year.  The results of the audit reconstruction were not pretty. 

The IRS issued a deficiency notice to the taxpayer, asserting he had underreported his income by $76,681 for the tax year.  In addition, the Service disallowed deductions for travel and other expenses listed on Schedule C totaling $63,542 as the taxpayer did not maintain any books or records for his business activities and failed to provide proof he actually paid the expenses (e.g., receipts, invoices, cancelled checks or other evidence of payment).   To put salt on the wound, the Service assessed an accuracy related penalty against the taxpayer.

Mr. Hall filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the notice of deficiency and the assessment of taxes and penalty.  He represented himself in the case.

Unreported Income 

In the Ninth Circuit, the Service is required to show minimal evidence supporting its conclusion a taxpayer underreported income.  Then, the burden shifts to the taxpayer who must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Service’s determination is incorrect.

Box of Unorganized FilesIn this case, the Service in its brief conceded the correct amount of underreported income was $61,014 (rather than $76,781).  It based this amount on a reconstruction of the taxpayer’s bank deposits.  In response to the taxpayer’s challenge to the government using this method to recreate his income, the court said:  “If a taxpayer has not maintained business records or the taxpayer’s business records are not adequate, the Commissioner is authorized to reconstruct the taxpayer’s income by any method that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, clearly reflects that taxpayer’s income.  The Commissioner’s reconstruction need not be exact, but it must be reasonable in the light of all the surrounding facts and circumstances (citations omitted).” 

The taxpayer provided no documentation or other evidence supporting the income reported on his Schedule C other than his testimony which the court classified as “self-serving and uncorroborated.”  Consequently, the court found for the government and concluded Mr. Hall failed to report income of $61,014 in 2008.

Disallowed Deductions 

Unfortunately for the taxpayer, the case did not get any better when the court turned its attention to the disallowed business deductions.  The court stated:  “Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving he is entitled to the deductions claimed.”  In accordance with IRC Section 162, “there shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.”  The court then went on to reiterate the well established rule of law that taxpayers, however, are required to maintain records to support these deductions and to enable the Service to determine the correct tax liability.

In the instant case, the taxpayer did not maintain any books or records of his business activities.  He also failed to produce any receipts, invoices, bills, cancelled checks or other documents to support payment of the business expenses reported on the tax return. 

In accordance with IRC Section 274(d), no deduction is allowed for travel, entertainment or gifts unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement as to: (1) the amount of the expense; (2) the time and place of the travel or entertainment, or the date and description of the gift; (3) the business purpose of the expense; and (4) in the case of entertainment or gifts, the business relationship between the taxpayer and the persons entertained.

If a taxpayer establishes he paid or incurred an otherwise deductible expense other than travel, entertainment, or gift expenses (“non-274(d) expenses”), but does not establish the amount of the expense, the Court has authority to estimate the amount of the expense but it can weigh heavily against the taxpayer.  In order to estimate the amount of the expense, the court, however, must be presented with some reasonable basis upon which an estimate may be made.

In the instant case, the taxpayer failed to offer any evidence to support any of the expenses in question other than his own uncorroborated testimony.  The court reiterated that it is not required to accept such testimony.  Consequently, it concluded that the taxpayer failed to meet his burden to substantiate the business expenses in question.  The court upheld the Service’s disallowance of the business expenses.

Penalty Assessment 

Last, the court looked at the 20% accuracy related penalty imposed under IRC Section 6662 for the taxpayer’s negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.  Failure to maintain adequate books and records or provide substantiation of items reported on a tax return constitutes negligence.  IRC Section 6662(c); T. Reg. Section 1.6662-3(b)(1). A taxpayer may obtain reprieve from the imposition of the penalty if he establishes he acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.

In this case, the taxpayer failed to address his liability for the penalty assessment other than including a brief statement in his brief that he was not liable for an accuracy related penalty.  Despite his failure to present any additional argument to support an abatement of the penalty, the court looked to see if any evidence in the record supported that the taxpayer acted in good faith and with reasonable cause.  Finding no such evidence, the court upheld the penalty assessment.

Conclusion 

This case leaves us with a few obvious take-aways.  First, taxpayers must maintain adequate records.  Failure to do so could lead to a finding by the Service that the taxpayer misreported income and expenses.  Second, as Mr. Hall encountered firsthand, it will likely lead to the imposition of an accuracy related penalty.  Last, for tax return preparers, it could lead in egregious situations to the imposition of a tax preparer penalty under IRC Section 6694(b)(2).  Caution is advised.

 

 

Search This Blog

Subscribe

RSS RSS Feed

Larry Brant
Editor

Larry J. Brant is a Shareholder in Garvey Schubert Barer, a law firm based out of the Pacific Northwest, with offices in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; New York, New York; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing, China. Mr. Brant practices in the Portland office. His practice focuses on tax, tax controversy and transactions. Mr. Brant is a past Chair of the Oregon State Bar Taxation Section. He was the long term Chair of the Oregon Tax Institute, and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Portland Tax Forum. Mr. Brant has served as an adjunct professor, teaching corporate taxation, at Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College. He is an Expert Contributor to Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Catalyst. Mr. Brant is a Fellow in the American College of Tax Counsel. He publishes articles on numerous income tax issues, including Taxation of S Corporations, Reasonable Compensation, Circular 230, Worker Classification, IRC § 1031 Exchanges, Choice of Entity, Entity Tax Classification, and State and Local Taxation. Mr. Brant is a frequent lecturer at local, regional and national tax and business conferences for CPAs and attorneys. He was the 2015 Recipient of the Oregon State Bar Tax Section Award of Merit.

Recent Posts

Topics

Select Category:

Archives

Select Month:

Upcoming Speaking Engagements

Contributors

Back to Page