Sunday, February 23, 2014

www.offerincompromiseform656 doubt as to collectibility

  1. Doubt as to Collectibility (DATC) offers the decision to accept or reject usually rests on whether the amount offered reflects the reasonable collection potential (RCP). The exception to this rule would be for offers not accepted based on public policy reasons as defined in IRM 5.8.7.7.2, Public Policy Rejection. RCP is defined as the amount that can be collected from all available means, including administrative and judicial collection remedies. Generally, the components of collectibility outlined in IRM 5.8.4.3.1 below, will be included in calculating the total RCP. .
  2. Offers should not be accepted where the tax can be paid in full as a lump sum or can be paid under current installment agreement (IA) guidelines, unless special circumstances are identified that warrant consideration of a lesser amount. The offer should be recommended for rejection based on the taxpayer's ability to full pay under current IA guidelines.

    An offer in compromise is a legitimate alternative to a protracted installment agreement. A protracted installment agreement is defined as an agreement that extends beyond the Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED)


www.offerincompromiseform656.com

www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

Section 7701(o) codification of the economic substance doctring Notice 2010-62


Part III - Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous




Interim Guidance under the Codification of the Economic Substance Doctrine and
Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010


Notice 2010-62

PURPOSE

This notice provides interim guidance regarding the codification of the economic
substance doctrine under section 7701(o) and the related amendments to the penalties
under sections 6662, 6662A, 6664, and 6676 by section 1409 of the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Act), Pub. L. No. 111-152. The notice applies
with respect to transactions entered into on or after March 31, 2010, which is the
effective date for the amendments made by section 1409 of the Act.
BACKGROUND
 Section 1409 of the Act added new section 7701(o) to the Code. Section
7701(o)(1) provides that, in the case of any transaction to which the economic
substance doctrine is relevant, the transaction shall be treated as having economic
substance only if (i) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal
income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position, and (ii) the taxpayer has a
substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into the  2
transaction. Section 7701(o)(5)(A) states that the term “economic substance doctrine”
means the common law doctrine under which tax benefits under subtitle A with respect
to a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance
or lacks a business purpose.
 that the determination of whether the economic
substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made in the same manner as if
section 7701(o) had never been enacted. With respect to individuals, however, section
7701(o)(5)(B) states that the two-prong analysis in section 7701(o)(1) shall apply only to
a transaction entered into in connection with a trade or business or an activity engaged
in for the production of income. In addition, section 7701(o)(5)(D) states that the term
“transaction” as used in section 7701(o) includes a series of transactions.
 Section 7701(o)(2)(A) provides that a transaction’s potential for profit shall be
taken into account in determining whether the requirements of section 7701(o)(1) are
met only if the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit is substantial in
relation to the present value of the claimed net tax benefits. For purposes of computing
pre-tax profit, section 7701(o)(2)(B) provides that the Secretary shall issue regulations
treating foreign taxes as a pre-tax expense in appropriate cases.
The Act also added section 6662(b)(6), which provides that the accuracy-related
penalty imposed under section 6662(a) applies to any underpayment attributable to any
disallowance of a claimed tax benefit because of a transaction lacking economic
substance (within the meaning of section 7701(o)) or failing to meet any similar rule of
law (collectively a section 6662(b)(6) transaction). The Act also added section 6662(i),  3
which increases the accuracy-related penalty from 20 to 40 percent for any portion of an
underpayment attributable to one or more section 6662(b)(6) transactions with respect
to which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment are not adequately disclosed in
the return or in a statement attached to the return. Furthermore, new section 6662(i)(3)
provides that certain amended returns or any supplement to a return shall not be taken
into consideration for purposes of section 6662(i).
The Act amended section 6664(c) so that the reasonable cause exception for
underpayments found in section 6664(c)(1) shall not apply to any portion of any
underpayment attributable to a section 6662(b)(6) transaction. The Act similarly
amended section 6664(d) so that the reasonable cause exception found in section
6664(d)(1) shall not apply to any reportable transaction understatement (within the
meaning of section 6662A(b)) attributable to a section 6662(b)(6) transaction. The Act
also amended section 6676 so that any excessive amount (within the meaning of
section 6676(b)) attributable to any section 6662(b)(6) transaction shall not be treated
as having a reasonable basis.
APPLICATION OF THE ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT
A. Application of the Conjunctive Test
 For transactions entered into on or after March 31, 2010, to which the economic
substance doctrine is relevant, section 7701(o)(1) mandates the use of a conjunctive
two-prong test to determine whether a transaction shall be treated as having economic
substance. The first prong, found in section 7701(o)(1)(A), requires that the transaction  4
change in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s
economic position. The second prong, found in section 7701(o)(1)(B), requires that the
taxpayer have a substantial purpose (The second prong, found in section 7701(o)(1)(B), requires that the
taxpayer have a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering
into the transaction.
 The IRS will continue to rely on relevant case law under the common-law
economic substance doctrine in applying the two-prong conjunctive test in section
7701(o)(1). Accordingly, in determining whether a transaction sufficiently affects the
taxpayer’s economic position to satisfy the requirements of section 7701(o)(1)(A), the
IRS will apply cases under the common-law economic substance doctrine (as identified
in section 7701(o)(5)(A)) pertaining to whether the tax benefits of a transaction are not
allowable because the transaction does not satisfy the economic substance prong of the
economic substance doctrine. Similarly, in determining whether a transaction has a
sufficient nontax purpose to satisfy the requirements of section 7701(o)(1)(B), the IRS
will apply cases under the common-law economic substance doctrine pertaining to
whether the tax benefits of a transaction are not allowable because the transaction
lacks a business purpose.
The IRS will challenge taxpayers who seek to rely on prior case law under the
common-law economic substance doctrine for the proposition that a transaction will be
treated as having economic substance merely because it satisfies either section
7701(o)(1)(A) (or its common-law corollary) or section 7701(o)(1)(B) (or its common-law
corollary). For all transactions subject to section 1409 of the Act that otherwise would
have been subject to a common-law economic substance analysis that treated a  5
transaction as having economic substance merely because it satisfies either section
7701(o)(1)(A) (or its common-law corollary) or section 7701(o)(1)(B) (or its common-law
corollary) the IRS will apply a two-prong conjunctive test consistent with section
7701(o).
B. Determination of Economic Substance Transactions
 Section 7701(o)(5)(C) provides that the determination of whether a transaction is
subject to the economic substance doctrine shall be made in the same manner as if
section 7701(o) had never been enacted. In addition, section 7701(o)(1) only applies in
the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant.
Consistent with these provisions, the IRS will continue to analyze when the economic
substance doctrine will apply in the same fashion as it did prior to the enactment of
section 7701(o). If authorities, prior to the enactment of section 7701(o), provided that
the economic substance doctrine was not relevant to whether certain tax benefits are
allowable, the IRS will continue to take the position that the economic substance
doctrine is not relevant to whether those tax benefits are allowable. The IRS anticipates
that the case law regarding the circumstances in which the economic substance
doctrine is relevant will continue to develop. Consistent with section 7701(o)(5)(C),
codification of the economic substance doctrine should not affect the ongoing
development of authorities on this issue. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not
intend to issue general administrative guidance regarding the types of transactions to
which the economic substance doctrine either applies or does not apply.
 C. Calculating Net Present Value of the Reasonably Expected Pre-tax Profit.
 In determining whether the requirements of section 7701(o)(1)(A) and (B) are
met, the IRS will take into account the taxpayer’s profit motive only if the present value
of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit is substantial in relation to the present value of
the expected net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected for
Federal income tax purposes. In performing this calculation, the IRS will apply existing
relevant case law and other published guidance.
D. Treatment of Foreign Taxes as Expenses in Appropriate Cases.
Section 7701(o)(2)(B) provides that the Secretary shall issue regulations
requiring foreign taxes to be treated as expenses in determining pre-tax profit in
appropriate cases. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue regulations
pursuant to section 7701(o)(2)(B). In the interim, the enactment of the provision does
not restrict the ability of the courts to consider the appropriate treatment of foreign taxes
in economic substance cases.
ACCURACY-RELATED PENALTIES
Unless the transaction is a reportable transaction, as defined in Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6011-4(b), the adequate disclosure requirements of section 6662(i) will be satisfied
if a taxpayer adequately discloses on a timely filed original return (determined with
regard to extensions) or a qualified amended return (as defined under Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6664-2(c)(3)) the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment of the transaction. If a
disclosure would be considered adequate for purposes of section 6662(d)(2)(B) (without
regard to section 6662(d)(2)(C)) prior to the enactment of section 1409 of the Act, then it  7
will be deemed to be adequate for purposes of section 6662(i). The disclosure will be
considered adequate only if it is made on a Form 8275 or 8275-R, or as otherwise
prescribed in forms, publications, or other guidance subsequently published by the IRS
consistent with the instructions and other guidance associated with those subsequent
forms, publications, or other guidance. Disclosures made consistent with the terms of
Rev. Proc. 94-69 also will be taken into account for purposes of section 6662(i). If a
transaction lacking economic substance is a reportable transaction, as defined in Treas.
Reg. § 1.6011-4(b), the adequate disclosure requirement under section 6662(i)(2) will
be satisfied only if the taxpayer meets the disclosure requirements described earlier in
this paragraph and the disclosure requirements under the section 6011 regulations.
Similarly, a taxpayer will not meet the disclosure requirements for a reportable
transaction under the section 6011 regulations by only attaching Form 8275 or 8275-R
to an original or qualified amended return.
EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS
 The IRS will not issue a private letter ruling or determination letter pursuant to
section 3.02 (1) of Rev. Proc. 2010-3, 2010-1 I.R.B. 110 (or subsequent guidance),
regarding whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to any transaction or
whether any transaction complies with the requirements of section 7701(o).
Accordingly, Rev. Proc. 2010-3 is modified.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
 The IRS is interested in comments concerning the disclosure requirements set
forth in this notice with regard to section 6662(i), especially with regard to the interplay  8
between Rev. Proc. 94-69, proposed Schedule UTP, and the LMSB compliance
assurance process (CAP) program. Interested parties are invited to submit comments
on this notice by December 3, 2010. Comments should be submitted to: Internal
Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2010-62), Room 5205, P.O. Box 7604, Ben

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20224. 


www/offerincompromiseform656.com

Alvin Brown & Associates, PLLC


212-588-1113
www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

economic substance doctrine section 7701(o)


Economic substance doctrine is codified and clarified in Code Sec. 7701(o). Code Sec. 7701(o) codifies and clarifies the economic substance doctrine by providing that a transaction (or series of transactions) to which the doctrine is relevant has economic substance only if: (1) the transaction changes the taxpayer's position in a meaningful way (apart from federal income tax effects), and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from federal income tax effects) for entering into the transaction. (Item (1) is referred to below as the “objective test” and item (2) is referred to as the “subjective test” and this list is referred to as the economic substance test list.) Code Sec. 7701(o)(1). In applying this list, a “transaction” includes a series of transactions. Code Sec. 7701(o)(5)(D). This clarifies that the economic substance doctrine involves a conjunctive analysis, i.e., there must be an inquiry as to the objective effects of the transaction on the taxpayer's economic position and an inquiry as to the taxpayer's subjective motives for engaging in the transaction. A transaction must satisfy both tests, i.e., the transaction must change in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position and the taxpayer must have a substantial non-Federal-income-tax purpose for entering into the transaction, for a transaction to be treated as having economic substance. This clarification eliminates the disparity that has existed among the Federal circuit courts as to the application of the doctrine, and modifies its application in those circuits in which either a change in economic position or a non-tax business purpose (without having both) was sufficient to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. Thus, the definition includes any doctrine that denies tax benefits for lack of economic substance, for lack of business purpose, or for lack of both. Joint Comm Staff, Tec Expln of the Revenue Provisions of the Reconciliation Act of 2010, as Amended in Combination With the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act (JCX-18–10), 3/21/2010, pp.153–154,


The “economic substance doctrine” is defined as the common law doctrine under which the Federal tax benefits of a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance or lacks a business purpose. Code Sec. 7701(o)(5)(A). Thus, the definition includes any doctrine that denies tax benefits for lack of economic substance, for lack of business purpose, or for lack of both. .

 A transaction may be subject to the step transaction and substance over form doctrines (which establish the relevant facts) in addition to being tested for economic substance. The IRS will continue to rely on relevant case law under the common-law economic substance doctrine in applying the two-prong conjunctive test at (1) and (2) above. Thus, in determining if a transaction sufficiently affects the taxpayer's economic position to satisfy the requirements at (1), the IRS will apply cases under the common-law economic substance doctrine (as identified in Code Sec. 7701(o)(5)(A)) as to whether the tax benefits of a transaction are not allowable because the transaction does not satisfy the economic substance prong of the economic substance doctrine. Similarly, in determining whether a transaction has a sufficient nontax purpose to satisfy the requirements at (2), IRS will apply cases under the common-law economic substance doctrine pertaining to whether the tax benefits of a transaction are not allowable because the transaction lacks a business purpose. Notice 2010-62, 2010-40 IRB 411. The IRS will challenge taxpayers who seek to rely on prior case law under the common-law economic substance doctrine for the proposition that a transaction will be treated as having economic substance merely because it satisfies either (1) above (or its common-law corollary) or (2) above (or its common-law corollary). For all transactions subject to Code Sec. 7701(o) the IRS will apply a two-prong conjunctive test consistent with Code Sec. 7701(o).

Notice 2010-62, 2010-40 IRB 411. Consistent with the Code Sec. 7701(o)(1) relevancy requirement and Code Sec. 7701(o)(5)(C), the IRS will continue to analyze when the economic substance doctrine will apply in the same fashion as it did before the enactment of Code Sec. 7701(o). If authorities, before the enactment of Code Sec. 7701(o), provided that the economic substance doctrine wasn't relevant to whether certain tax benefits are allowable, the IRS will continue to take the position that the economic substance doctrine isn't relevant to whether those tax benefits are allowable.

 To ensure consistent administration of the Code Sec. 6662(b)(6) strict liability penalty related to the application of the economic substance doctrine.

Alvin Brown & Associataes, PLLC

212-588-1113

ab@irstaxattorney.com



www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

Friday, February 21, 2014

www.offerincompromiseform656.com offer in compromise form 656

IRS Policy Statement 5-5-100 states that the IRS will accept an offer in compromise when it is unlikely that the tax liability can be collected in full and the amount offered reasonably reflects collection potential.

see www.offerincompromiseform656.com

Alvin Brown & Associates
ab@irstaxattorney.com



www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

Changes to Form 656 offer in compromise www.offerincompromiseform656.com



The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced the release of Form 656, Offer in Compromise, revision February 2007. The new form retains the taxpayer burden reduction features while adding significant changes as a result of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA). These changes include:  New payment terms and submission rules; Processability checklist, redefined as a result of TIPRA, which assists taxpayers in determining up front if they are eligible for an offer before investing any preparation time; A new matrix to assist in determining the number of Forms 656, $150 application fee(s), and TIPRA payments to submit to the IRS depending on the number of individuals submitting the offer and the types of liabilities being compromised;A checklist which reduces the chance that the application will be returned by the IRS for omissions, as well as a reminder of the necessary documents to include with the application prior to its submission to IRS; Form 656-A, renamed Income Certification for OIC Application Fee and Payment; and Form 656-PPV Offer in Compromise Periodic Payment Voucher.

www.offerincompromiseform656.com



www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

offer in compromise form 656 www.offerincompromiseform656.com the new dissipated assets rule

As published in the Internal Revenue Manual 5.8.5.18 909-30-2013) the incllusion of dissipated assets in the calculation of reasonable collection potential is no longer applicable, except in situations where it can be shown the taxpayer has sold transferred, encumbers or otherwise disposed of assets in an attempt to avoid the payment of the tax liability.


www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com

Thursday, February 20, 2014

offer in compromise form 656


An offer in compromise is be binding on both the taxpayer and the Government.” Rohn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-244, 1994 Tax Ct. Memo; 3); Harbaugh v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-316, 2003 Tax Ct. Memo

Section 7122 and the regulations thereunder provide the exclusive method of
effectuating a valid compromise of assessed tax liabilities.
Section 301.7122-1(d)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides that an “offer
to compromise a tax liability pursuant to section 7122 must be submitted
according to the procedures, and in the form and manner, prescribed by the
Secretary. An offer to compromise a tax liability must be made in writing, must be
signed by the taxpayer under penalty of perjury, and must contain all of the
information prescribed or requested by the Secretary.”

 Rev. Proc. 2003-71, sec. 4.01, 2003-2 C.B. 517, 517, provides that an “offer to compromise a tax liability must be submitted in writing on the Service’s Form 656, Offer in Compromise.”
See also Godwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-289, 2003 Tax Ct. Memo
LEXIS 292, at *32 (“Taxpayers who wish to propose an offer in compromise must
submit a Form 656”.), aff’d, 132 Fed. Appx. 785 (11th Cir. 2005).

www.offerincompromiseform656.com

ab@irstaxattorney.com




www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com