Interesting. I read it as a slam on multiple things, one being LTCG & dividends being taxed at 15%. Did you miss the bar chart comparing Mitt’s tax rate to his father’s? Or the pie chart showing his income and the amount of taxes he pays? Or was all this being under the “Taxes & Tricks” title meant to be ignored?

This video features a behind the scenes tour of the TRS headquarters including the Sales Department, Accounts Receivable, an introduction to President of TRS Brian Compton, and Case Specialists.

For fourteen years, I have helped people just like you solve IRS tax problems including IRS audits and having no money to pay off back tax debt. For those currently needing IRS relief, I’m happy to announce that you are in luck; the Tax Man is here with a new tax help video series.

Check out other Tax Man videos on our YouTube Channel. For more tax news, tax relief advice and information, check us out on the Tax Resolution University blog, on Twitter @taxresolution , Facebook.

The purpose of this Tax Man video series was to give taxpayers in need of tax relief insight into how to win their case against the IRS and show how the “winning” is done by featuring “a day in the life of Tax Resolution Services.”  In the video clips, we evaluate “real life” cases and determine how best we can help taxpayers deal with their IRS issues. The TRS Tax Team answers viewer questions and discusses areas of the tax law that generate the most consumer questions.

Come along and take a tour with the Tax Man!

Related posts:

1. Michael Rozbruch Interviewed in Opportunist Magazine
2. Tax Relief Weekly News Round Up
3. Request the Certified Tax Specialist – Small Business Back Taxes

from indystar.com

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120518/LOCAL1801/120518031/Lawsuit-accuses-schools-age-discrimination

Simon W. Johnson

The US government has a large deficit on their hands, and for the past 3 years there has been a lot of gridlock on how exactly to get it under control. Parties from the left and right have called for a ban on what is known as “pork” spending.”
Pork is often tucked away in bills to secure votes on a bill so that it passes, and in exchange the sponsors of the bill will allocate money to that Congressperson’s district or state. The ban is supposed to stop this practice in order to curb wasteful government spending, but that doesn’t mean the waste is gone.

Here are a few things Congress spends millions of tax dollars on annually:

1. Congressional Franks: These mailers are sent to inform registered voters of their Congressperson’s legislative achievements, positions on critical issues, and a general overview on what’s been done for the represented district.

While this literature resembles a campaign brochure, it is not classified as campaign expenditure, therefore it is paid by taxpayers. In total, Congress spent $13.1 million in 2011 on Congressional “Franking.” It’s important to note, many Congresspersons have started to make the transition to email in recent years.

2. Federal Printing: No, I’m not talking about the federal government printing money (that’s another blog), I’m talking about the money it costs in office printing (i.e. printer machines, ink, upkeep, paper, etc.).

The federal government (not including the Defense department) spent nearly $1.3 billion in 2010 on office printing, and this doesn’t include the above mentioned “franks.” The Department of Defense spent almost $1.4 billion alone in copying, printing, and faxing in 2010.

3. Silly Studies: The government is supposed to grant money to scientists in order study things that are in the nation’s interests, and therefore worthy of tax dollars. However, I am not sure how anyone will justify these scientific studies or the bills they racked up on taxpayers.

• Internet Dating Study: The National Science Foundation (NFS) allocated nearly a quarter of a million dollars to study how Americans find love using the Internet.

• Studying World of Warcraft (and other virtual games): What started out in 2008 as a $100,000 NFS grant to a professor at the University of California to study how players collaborate and approach various challenges within the game, has turned to almost $3 million in taxpayer funds since. To top it off, the professor published her findings in 2010 and has still acquired grants to continue her research.

• A scientist from Temple University used a $66,638 NFS grant to study the influence of political programming (i.e. Fox News, MSNBC) in the mass media, testing the claim that such programming polarizes the electorate. What did he find? That the electorate may be more polarized because of increased interest in national politics.

While both sides of the isle make it seem that they are trying to cut spending, they should take a lesson from Main Street and cut the small waste first. While this may not make a huge dent in the deficit, it will sure allow the bigger programs from being severely cut.

As always, this is the IRS Hitman looking out for the American taxpayer. If you find yourself on the other end of a substantial tax debt, give my team a call at 888-415-1337 or fill out the submission form for a free consultation. We are A rated with the Better Business Bureau and we’ll give you the whole truth on your situation.

The presumption would be rebuttable, however. But taxpayers unable to provide alternative explanations would be subject to two penalties. First, they would be prevented from ever returning to the U.S. Second, any investments that person still had in the U.S. would have an increased capital gains tax of 30 percent applied to them.

Orange County residents cannot help but notice the increasing financial buzz surrounding Facebook these days. The billions raised by the company’s initial public offering are generating a wave of media attention. But the tax issues concerning one of the company’s co-founders has also received wide publication in the press.

U.S. Senators Bob Casey and Charles Schumer have combined to draft legislation that would penalize those the government determines gave up their passports into order to avoid taxes. In particular, the law would give the Internal Revenue Service the power to presume that anyone who gave up their citizenship and owed on average $148,000 or more in taxes or had at least $2 million in net worth did so to eschew their tax bill.

Source: Los Angeles Times, “Two senators want to stop Facebook’s Saverin from dodging taxes,” Jim Puzzanghera, May 18, 2012.

The name of the proposed law is the Ex-PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing the Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy.” It remains to be seen whether the law will achieve its goals, but it has the potential to revise the calculus driving the increase in Americans renouncing their citizenship in recent years.

Kim relies on §72(t)(2)(A)(v), which provides that the 10% additional tax does not apply to a distribution from a pension plan “made to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55”. His immediate problem is that the distribution from the IRA was not “made to an employee”; he was not an employee of the IRA’s custodian. He had been an employee of the law firm and therefore could have taken a distribution from its pension plan, but that’s not what happened.

The Tax Court held that Kim owes the 10% tax on the withdrawn money that he had put to other uses and also owes the penalty for a substantially inaccurate return. The parties agreed that, if the Tax Court’s decision is correct, Kim owes $20,456.50 under §72(t)(1) and $4,091.30 under §6662. Judgment was entered to that effect. Kim asks us to hold that he owes nothing—or at least that he does not owe the accuracy-related penalty under §6662.

On May 9, 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Young Kim vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled in favor of the IRS that the taxpayer owes the 10% tax and, because he had not paid it, also owes a penalty for substantial underpayment of taxes.

Just in case this point was unclear, the Internal Revenue Code adds: “Subparagraphs (A)(v) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply to distributions from an individual retirement plan.” 26 U.S.C. §72(t)(3)(A). Kim withdrew money from an IRA, an individual plan; subparagraph 72(t)(2)(A)(v) therefore “shall not apply”.

At age 56, Young Kim left his position as a partner in a law firm and enrolled in the London School of Economics. Employees who depart at age 55 and up may withdraw money from the employer’s retirement plan. They must pay income tax (retirement plans contain pre-tax dollars), but they do not owe the 10% additional tax that the Internal Revenue Code imposes on most withdrawals before age 59½. 26 U.S.C. §72(t)(1), (2)(A)(v). During 2005 Kim moved the funds from the law firm’s retirement plan to an individual retirement account. A rollover is not a taxable event. 26 U.S.C. §402(c); 26 C.F.R. §1.402(c)–2. During 2006 Kim withdrew about $240,000 from the IRA. He paid the income tax but not the 10% additional tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue concluded that he owes the 10% tax and, because he had not paid it, also owes a penalty for substantial underpayment of taxes. 26 U.S.C. §6662.

Kim observes that the Tax Court lacked any evidence from the accountant, but the shortfall is Kim’s own responsibility. After the deadline for submitting expert evidence had passed, Kim filed a motion for a continuance, which the Tax Court denied. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. Kim might have asked the Commissioner to stipulate to what the accountant would have testified, but he did not make such a request. Nor did he make an offer of proof. So we have no idea what evidence the accountant would have provided. Kim testified at the trial but did not tell the Tax Court what information he had furnished to the accountant. With respect to the facts relevant under Neonatology Associates, the record is essentially empty. There is no warrant for upsetting the Tax Court’s decision. Finally, Kim asks us to order the Commissioner to abate interest on his underpayments. That subject was not before the Tax Court and therefore is not before us. CIR v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3 (1987). Kim must request for this relief from the Commissioner, and if he is dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s decision he can file a separate petition in the Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C. §6404(e)(1); Bourekis v. CIR, 110 T.C. 20, 25–26 (1998). AFFIRMED

Here’s the opinion in its entirety:

Section 6662 excuses the taxpayer if “there is or was substantial authority for [the tax return’s] treatment” (§6662(d)(2)(B)(i)) or all relevant facts were disclosed on the return and “there is a reasonable basis for the tax treatment of such item by the taxpayer” (§6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II)). Kim contends that there was “substantial authority” for his return’s treatment of the withdrawal, but there was and is no authority at all for it. Kim does not contend that any court has accepted his argument that an IRA (SEP flavor or otherwise) is the same as an employer’s plan under §72(t)(2)(A)(v).

The Code allowed Kim to extend the tax deferral at the cost of the 10% additional tax if he later took some of the money before age 59½. Money deposited in pension plans and many IRAs is not subject to income tax until the funds (including interest and capital appreciation) are withdrawn. Tax deferral is expensive to the Treasury, so the Code makes resort to some tax-deferral opportunities costly. Hence someone who puts money in an IRA can’t take it out freely before age 59½; the prospect of the 10% additional tax on early withdrawal makes IRAs less attractive (and the 10% tax also compensates the Treasury for some of the revenue foregone from deferred payment of the income tax on sheltered funds). Subsection 72(t)(2)(A)(v) offers an opportunity for avoiding the 10% tax on withdrawals between age 55 and age 59½, but that opportunity is limited by the “to an employee” language and the proviso in §72(t)(3)(A), lest it effectively reduce the age of free withdrawal from 59½ to 55. The interaction of these provisions is bound to seem irrational to many affected persons, but Congress has concluded that some lines of this kind are appropriate. The judiciary is not authorized to redraw the boundaries. Fidelity Investments, which administers Kim’s IRA, sent him a statement in 2006 informing him that he owed both income tax and the 10% additional tax. But the accountant who prepared his tax return omitted the 10% additional tax, which, coupled with the fact that the deficiency exceeded $5,000, led to the substantial-understatement penalty.

Many parts of the tax code are compromises, and all parts reflect the need for lines that can’t be deduced from first principles. Why can an employee withdraw money from an employer’s plan without the 10% addition at age 55 but not age 54? Why does the 10% additional tax apply to withdrawals at age 59 and 181 days, but not 59 and 183 days? These questions cannot be answered by logical analysis. The Code’s lines are arbitrary. The law firm’s pension plan put Kim to a choice between taking the money and moving part or all of it to an IRA. He chose to roll over the whole balance, because he did not want to pay any income tax immediately.

Kim sought review by the Tax Court, which held a trial. The parties reduced the scope of the dispute because the money spent on tuition and other education expenses attending the London School of Economics— and the amount Kim paid for his daughter’s tuition and other education expenses at Bryn Mawr College—is not subject to the 10% tax. See 26 U.S.C. §72(t)(2)(E).

The Tax Court treats the “reasonable basis” exception in §6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II) as applicable when the taxpayer furnishes accurate information to, and then relies in good faith on, the opinion of a competent tax adviser. See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. CIR, 115 T.C. 43, 98–99 (2000), affirmed, 299 F.3d 221, 233–35 (3d Cir. 2002); 26 C.F.R. §1.6664–4(c). See also United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1985). The record does not show what information Kim furnished to his accountant or whether the accountant competently analyzed the situation under §72(t). The Tax Court accordingly concluded that Kim could not take advantage of §6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II).

Kim calls his account a “SEP IRA” (“simplified employee pension”, see 26 U.S.C. §408(k)) as opposed to a “traditional IRA,” but §72(t)(3)(A) does not distinguish among flavors of individual retirement plans. Before reaching 59½, Kim withdrew money from an individual retirement plan, rather than from his former employer’s plan, and therefore must pay the 10% additional tax. Kim insists that this makes no sense. He could have taken the money from the law firm’s pension plan without the 10% additional tax; why should it matter that the money went from the law firm’s plan to an IRA before being withdrawn? The answer is that the Internal Revenue Code says that it matters, and Kim does not contend that §72(t)(3)(A) violates the Constitution.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has approximately 1,000 toning shoe complaints on its public database and many of the consumers who posted a complaint, reported suffering serious injuries. One of the more common types of injuries caused by use of a Skechers Shape-ups toning shoe is a bone fracture, or broken bone (they are one in the same).

Selecting a qualified Skechers Shape-ups injury attorney can be confusing. When looking for an experienced attorney, look for a lawyer with proven trial experience, successful case results, satisfied clients, strong partnerships with top trial experts, and a caring and attentive staff. A reputable attorney will review your case for free and not charge you any fees until your case is won.

Types of Skechers Shape-ups Related Bone Fracture Injuries

Bone fractures occur when a bone cannot support the energy applied to it or when a bone is subjected to repeated, unusual stress. Stress fractures, tibia fractures, femur fractures, Le Fort fractures, hip fractures, ankle fractures, pelvic fractures, clavicle fractures, and foot fractures are just a few of the different types of fractures consumers have sustained as a result of wearing a Skechers Shape-ups.

If your bone fracture injury was caused by falling or tripping in a pair of Skechers Shape-ups, your legal rights may entitle you to compensation. Before you can recover compensation, however, you must prove that your injuries were caused by the negligent actions of a corporation or entity. Proving negligence can be a difficult task, especially when going up against well-funded corporations like Skechers. Large corporations will invest millions to defend their product and their brand, which is why it is highly recommended you hire an experienced Skechers Shape-ups bone fracture injury lawyer.

Making the Selection Process Easier

Proving Negligence

It’s likely that the executives at GM don’t get social media advertising and may not have been willing to target specific ads for a specific audience. For GM, television advertising still gives them the most bang for their buck and most return on investment of advertising dollars, and they are sticking with what they know. While most companies, including Tax Resolution Services, will be looking at their bottom lines and asking if social ads work, General Motors has already made their decision; they think not.

For the latest in IRS tax news, tax relief advice and information, check us out on the Tax Resolution University blog, on Twitter @taxresolution , Facebook and on our YouTube Channel.

Analysts think this move by GM could inspire other businesses unsure of social media advertising, to also pull their Facebook ads. This would make it harder for the soon-to-be-public Facebook to court potential advertisers, shareholders and grow their business.

I’m taking a break from tax issues as a certified tax resolution specialist to comment on an interesting news story that will have an effect on business advertising. Yesterday, a Wall Street Journal article GM Says Facebook Ads Don’t Pay Off announced that General Motors was going to stop advertising on Facebook claiming that their paid advertising on the site did little to influence consumer car purchases.

A Bloomberg article entitled Is Facebook Worth $100 Billion? provided more details about GM’s reasons for the ad pull. According to GM spokesperson, Pat Morrissey, the cuts were the result of a regular spending review, and in that review dollars get shifted around based on return on investment, priorities, and overall effectiveness. GM has said it will re-evaluate future display ads but that now it’s only Facebook presence will be on its brand-promotion pages.

• Advertisers get access to data for over 900 million users.
• It provides strategic information about its users so that advertisers can target them directly.
• It’s inexpensive compared to other advertising means such as TV.
• The person to person, word of mouth nature of social media can build and enhance a brand because people are influenced by what their “friends like” and happily tell others. But this broad consumer reach can’t always be measured in traditional ways.

Companies that have success using Facebook and social media as part of their overall advertising strategy have usually done a better job targeting ads for their potential customers. Facebook’s unique “word of mouth at scale” marketing is the ace in the hole for the following reasons:

Not all businesses including other car manufacturers report the same results as GM. Ford Motor Car Company and Subaru say they are “sticking with Facebook.” Subaru claims that Facebook generates a “cost effective fan-base” for their brand that boosts awareness of their product and generates traffic to their websites.

No related posts.

Some California taxpayers with significant tax debts may have entered into–or contemplated entering into–an offer in compromise with the Internal Revenue Service. An OIC is the exclusive way for taxpayers to satisfy their debts with the IRS for less than the total amount owed. But the amount offered to settle the debt and any additional terms that become part of the agreement are vitally important. Taxpayers must analyze very closely exactly what they agree to, otherwise they could face unintended consequences.

The couple’s legal argument focused on the plain meaning of the terms “overpayment” and “refund.” They asserted that money refunded due to tax credits does not represent an overpayment of tax and therefore should not be forfeited to the IRS under the terms of the OIC. Tax credits are used by the government to effect certain policies, such as helping those with low incomes. They are also especially helpful to taxpayers because they reduce a person’s tax liability dollar for dollar, and some can be refunded.

But the court did not agree. The court ruled that the terms in question should be viewed not according to their plain meaning, but according to the definition given them by the Internal Revenue Code. A section of the Code states that an overpayment of tax includes refunded credits that are more than the amount of tax a person owes. Therefore, the IRS’s withholding of the couple’s refund was proper.

While OICs can be quite beneficial, it is important to understand the legal implications of any agreement with the IRS.

On their income tax return for 2007, the couple took two credits and also claimed money from the federal government’s stimulus package. When the IRS kept the couple’s refund, they took the agency to court. The case went all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which recently released its ruling in favor of the IRS.

Source: Journal of Accountancy, “Terms in OIC agreement take meaning from Code, court holds,” Alistair M. Nevius, May 3, 2012.

A notice is a public pronouncement that may contain guidance that involves substantive interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code or other provisions of the law. For example, notices can be used to relate what regulations will say in situations where the regulations may not be published in the immediate future.

Here are seven of the most common forms of guidance in the form of documents and publications that provide assistance to charitable groups, business firms and taxpayers.

Notice

Revenue Ruling

A private letter ruling, or PLR, is a written statement issued to a taxpayer that interprets and applies tax laws to the taxpayer’s specific set of facts. A PLR is issued to establish with certainty the federal tax consequences of a particular transaction before the transaction is consummated or before the taxpayer’s return is filed. A PLR is issued in response to a written solicit submitted by a taxpayer and is binding on the IRS if the taxpayer fully and accurately described the proposed transaction in the solicit and carries out the transaction as described. A PLR may not be relied on as precedent by other taxpayers or IRS personnel. PLRs are generally made public after all information has been removed that could identify the taxpayer to whom it was issued.

Revenue Procedure

A revenue procedure is an official statement of a procedure that affects the rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Internal Revenue Code, related statutes, tax treaties and regulations and that should be a matter of public knowledge. It is also published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. While a revenue ruling generally states an IRS position, a revenue procedure provides return filing or other instructions concerning an IRS position. For example, a revenue procedure might specify how those entitled to deduct certain automobile expenses should compute them by applying a certain mileage rate in lieu of calculating actual operating expenses.

Announcement

Regulation

A revenue ruling is an official interpretation by the IRS of the Internal Revenue Code, related statutes, tax treaties and regulations. It is the conclusion of the IRS on how the law is applied to a specific set of facts. Revenue rulings are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin for the information of and guidance to taxpayers, IRS personnel and tax professionals. For example, a revenue ruling may hold that taxpayers can deduct certain automobile expenses.

A technical advice memorandum, or TAM, is guidance furnished by the Office of Chief Counsel upon the solicit of an IRS director or an area director, appeals, in response to technical or procedural questions that develop during a proceeding. A request for a TAM generally stems from an examination of a taxpayer’s return, a consideration of a taxpayer’s claim for a refund or credit, or any other matter involving a specific taxpayer under the jurisdiction of the territory manager or the area director, appeals. Technical Advice Memoranda are issued only on closed transactions and provide the interpretation of proper application of tax laws, tax treaties, regulations, revenue rulings or other precedents. The advice rendered represents a final determination of the position of the IRS, but only with respect to the specific issue in the specific case in which the advice is issued. Technical Advice Memoranda are generally made public after all information has been removed that could identify the taxpayer whose circumstances triggered a specific memorandum.

An announcement is a public pronouncement that has only immediate or short-term value. For example, announcements can be used to summarize the law or regulations without making any substantive interpretation; to state what regulations will say when they are certain to be published in the immediate future; or to notify taxpayers of the existence of an approaching deadline.

To consult with a qualified tax attorney on these or any other tax controversy, call Mitchell A. Port at (310) 559-5259

A regulation is issued by the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department to provide guidance for new legislation or to address issues that arise with respect to existing Internal Revenue Code sections. Regulations interpret and give directions on complying with the law. Regulations are published in the Federal Register. Generally, regulations are first published in proposed form in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After public input is fully considered through written comments and even a public hearing, a final regulation or a temporary regulation is published as a Treasury Decision (TD), again, in the Federal Register.

Technical Advice Memorandum

In fact, personal injury lawyers are one way that the legal system stays balanced and fair for all people.  If insurance companies and at-fault persons were not held accountable, people would soon be able to disregard the law and safety measures with impunity.  Employers would not be worried about employee safety, drivers would not care if they caused injuries, and stores and businesses would not impose safety measures to keep customers from harm.  Unfortunately, human nature shows us that unless people are held accountable, they will not take extra efforts to ensure that someone else does not suffer.

Personal injury attorneys perform the function of balancing the needs of the public with the rights of the individual.  When a person is injured, he or she has the right to compensation, and personal injury attorneys in Santa Ana help these victims to recover those damages.

Why, then, do some people have such a negative view of personal injury law?  This often springs from a few well-publicized cases that are in no way representative of the bulk of personal injury settlements.  In a few cases, circumstances have conspired to allow a plaintiff to recover an enormous sum of money from what appeared to be a relatively minor accident.  Each time this happens, the media saturates the public with stories about the settlement, leading people to believe that there are many more of these types of cases than really exist.  

In fact, Santa Ana personal injury lawyers primarily work with "small" personal injury cases.  While no case is small to a person who has been injured, few personal injury cases settle for millions of dollars unless the injuries are very severe or wrongful death has occurred.  For a "simple" personal injury case, the personal injury attorney will be happy if the case settles for a fair amount, including payments for medical damages, pain and suffering, and perhaps some personal expenses incurred as a result of the accident.

Before you dismiss the idea of filing a personal injury case, consult with an expert personal injury attorney and discover the facts about what your case is actually worth.

Continue reading “Searching for Your Personal Injury Attorney in Santa Ana”

In the last two years there has been intense debate over taxes in general including the rate between income groups, the laws that allow different tax breaks, the purpose of the revenue generated through taxes, and how the entire tax code can be reformed in order to be fairer (which is a whole different argument).

The one thing both parties, all income brackets, and politicians alike can agree on about taxes is that the tax code needs to be changed completely. When you delve deeper into how to change it, you find many opinions and thus the debate wages on.

It seems like everyone has an opinion about how to best collect and use the tax dollars paid by Americans, and for good reason too, everyone pays taxes. While there is evidence stating many Americans do not pay anything in taxes, they still have taxes taken out of their wages, they still pay sales tax on purchases, and they surely would suffer consequences if they failed to file or report their earnings to the federal government, so for all intents purposes, everyone pays taxes.

As one might imagine, political affiliations affect the response. A whopping 73 percent of Democrats cited the fairness issue as their biggest problem with taxes, while only 38 percent of Republicans felt the same way. A small majority, 42 percent, of Republicans said the complexity of the tax code was what bothered them most about taxes, while a small amount of Democrats agreed.

This gives everyone the right to have an opinion about taxes, and for most Americans, they are not excited to pay taxes. This isn’t just an assumption, consistent polling has shown 57 percent, or a majority of Americans feel as if the wealthy have more opportunity to skirt their tax bill (through numerous loopholes) while they are forced to pay what they owe. In contrast 38 percent, or a substantial minority of Americans believe they pay more than their fair share in taxes (though tax rates are at historic lows).

If you find yourself on the other end of a large tax debt, no matter where you fall in the debate, give my team a call at 888-415-1337 or fill out the submission form for a free consultation. We’re A rated with the Better Business Bureau and we’ll give you the whole truth on your situation.

If you are not facing big IRS tax problems, the Offer in Compromise program may be a much better option than tax relief bankruptcy. For example, if your entire debt consists mostly of creditors you are having difficulty paying and very little IRS debt, bankruptcy may be your best option.

The IRS objected, and so did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case traveled to the Supreme Court where in a 5-4 vote, the high court agreed with the IRS stating that all the taxes must be paid as part of the bankruptcy.

How to Determine if Bankruptcy is a Viable Tax Relief Option for Resolving IRS Back Taxes

Resolve Tax Bankruptcy-Hire Expert Tax Representation

With the recession in its fourth year, financially distressed consumers are turning to bankruptcy as a means to wipe their financial slate clean including getting rid of their tax debt. However, what many do not realize is that not all tax issues are discharged in bankruptcy. A Bloomberg BusinessWeek article entitled Court says farmers must pay bankruptcy tax reported on a recent Supreme Court ruling that firmly stipulated there be no discharge of taxes for an Arizona couple in their bankruptcy tax case.

The case involved a 320-acre family farm in Wilcox, Arizona belonging to Lynwood and Brenda Hall that sold to settle the couples’ bankruptcy debts. The farm sold for $960,000 and yielded $26,000 in capital gains taxes. Hoping for some tax relief, the Hall’s requested the taxes be treated as part of the bankruptcy; paying part of it and having the other half discharged by the court.

Related posts:

1. IRS Bankruptcy-Five Tax Relief Options for Back Taxes
2. Tax Resolution Services Offers Returning Veterans Free Tax Advice
3. IRS Offers Tax Help Tips-Worker Classification

The IRS does not like to mention bankruptcy as a way to remove tax liabilities, but many IRS taxes, IRS penalties and interest qualify for complete discharge in Bankruptcy, but strict rules governing this. A taxpayer’s income tax liability must qualify to benefit from the Bankruptcy laws and avoid paying income taxes.

Bankruptcy Is Not the Only Option.

If your only major creditor is the IRS, a tax attorney or Certified Tax Resolution Specialist can help you consider options like an IRS installment agreement may work better based on your circumstances and other solutions you may qualify for.

Bankruptcy Laws – Discharge Income Tax Debt

The following articles contain additional information regarding discharging taxes and tax relief bankruptcy:

While not all bankruptcy cases result in a complete discharge of debts, there are instances where IRS tax debt can be discharged through tax relief bankruptcy.  Here are points to consider for those who may use bankruptcy as a form of IRS relief:

IRS Tax Debt Erased in Bankruptcy-Strict Rules Apply

In any case, bankruptcy is a complicated, legal and financial matter that should not be taken lightly. It is highly recommended that any taxpayer considering bankruptcy, seek out experienced legal counsel such as a tax attorney or Certified Tax Resolution Specialist with expertise in handling tax relief bankruptcy cases. These tax professionals can provide tax help in assessing whether you and your tax liabilities are eligible for discharge.