Buyers Beware: Buying Real Estate Subject to Unpaid IRS Taxes

When purchasing real estate, it is important to be diligent in whether the seller owes unpaid taxes to the IRS.  In certain situations, the IRS can collect prior owner’s taxes from you the buyer of the real estate, even though the seller incurred those taxes.  A recent United States District Court, District of Nevada demonstrates this issue.

In the case of Shirehampton Drive Trust v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 2:16-cv-02276 (D. Nev. 2019), the owner obtained a mortgage to purchase real estate property.  The owner later fell behind and failed to pay their monthly homeowner’s association (HOA) dues, and the HOA recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien on the property.  The HOA then foreclosed on the property.  Shirehampton Drive Trust (Shirehampton), the plaintiff, purchased the property from the foreclosure sale and sued JP Morgan Chase Bank (the bank) to quiet title to the real property, and the bank filed a counter claim on the same grounds.  The IRS became involved as well and removed the case to Federal Court, filing a claim of its own on the grounds that the previous owner had outstanding unpaid Federal taxes.

Federal IRS Tax Liens arise by an operation of law when taxes are assessed.  Once the IRS records the tax debt, it has an interest in the taxpayer’s property, which generally includes real estate.  The IRS lien is generally made in the local county records and must be recorded to generally be valid.

The issue hung on which lien was superior, the IRS or the HOA lien.  Generally, the “first in time, first in right” rule applies, looking to the timing of when the liens were filed.  Shirehampton argued that the HOA lien was superior and thus they purchased the lien clear of the IRS Federal Tax Lien.  The IRS argued the HOA lien wasn’t perfected before the Federal Tax Lien, as under Nevada state law, the HOA lien would not be perfected until after notice was sent to the owner of the delinquent assessment.  The US District Court for the State of Nevada ruled for the IRS in that the IRS lien filed on May 1, 2009 was before the date the delinquent assessment was sent to the prior owner on July 24, 2009, even though the owner became delinquent of the HOA dues on March 1, 2009.  As notice of the lien was not perfected in being sent to the previous property owner, the IRS’ lien was superior.  Thus, Shirehampton purchased the property subject to the IRS’ lien and had to pay those unpaid taxes of the previous owner.

When dealing with tax issues and liens when buying property it is important to consult a tax attorney that can help you understand the consequences of liens encumbering the property, and not end up paying the unpaid taxes of the previous owner!

VW Contributor: Ryan Coufal
© 2019 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Advertisements

IRS Issues Notice on State and Local Tax Deductions

On May 23, 2018 the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2018-54, which announced new  proposed regulations addressing state and local tax payment deductions for federal income tax purposes.

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act places limits on an individual’s deduction to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return) for the aggregate amount of state and local taxes paid during the calendar year.  Any state and local tax payments above those limitations   are no longer deductible.  This new limitation is effective January 1st, 2018 and applies to taxable years after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026.  This limitation will  have implications for many Nebraska residents according to data research  by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Based on IRS data from 2015, 28 percent of Nebraskans claimed a state and local tax deduction amount higher,  than $10,000.[1]

Several state legislatures, in response to this limitation, are considering adopting legislative proposals that would allow taxpayers to make transfers to funds controlled by state or local governments, in exchange for credits against the state or local taxes already required.  New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, states known for having higher state taxes, have already enacted measures that allow taxpayers to fund municipal governments by making charitable donations that are both fully federal income tax deductible and satisfy state and local tax liabilities.   In these states, a taxpayer would be able to apply any amount of state and local taxes over $10,000 toward a municipal government fund and report the transfer as a charitable donation.   The  treatment of these state and local tax payments as charitable contributions effectively reduces  the taxpayer’s  federal income tax liability.

Notice 2018-54 informs taxpayers that the upcoming proposed regulations will assist them in understanding the relationship between federal charitable contribution deductions and the state and local tax payment deduction.  The notice also warns taxpayers to be mindful and cautious in making such transfers or donations, and to remember that federal laws control the proper characterization of payments for federal income tax purposes.  Finally, the Notice states the proposed regulations intend to clarify the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, and that “substance-over-form” principles govern the federal income tax treatment of such transfers.  In colloquial terms the Treasury and IRS are stating that “if it looks, smells and operates like a state tax deduction those payments will most likely be characterized as state tax deductions with the applicable deduction limits.

[1] Phillip Oliff & Brakeyshia Samms, Cap on the State and Local Tax Deduction Likely to Affect States Beyond New York and California, The Pew Charitable Trusts (Apr. 10, 2018) http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2018/04/10/cap-on-the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-likely-to-affect-states-beyond-new-york-and-california.

© 2018 Vandenack Weaver LLC

For more information, Contact Us

IRS Issues Guidance on Health Care Reporting Requirements for 2017

by Joshua A. Diveley

The IRS issued guidance October 17, 2017, indicating Forms 1040 for the 2017 tax year will not be accepted if the taxpayer does not report on the health coverage reporting requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For prior tax years, returns that did not report required ACA information were delayed for processing, but it did not prevent the return from ultimately being processed and any applicable refund from being issued.

In general, the ACA requires taxpayers to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage for themselves and any dependents. If sufficient coverage is not obtained, the ACA imposes a penalty. Form 1040 directs taxpayers to report the existence or non-existence of essential coverage or whether an exemption from coverage applies.

The IRS guidance is available at: https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/aca-information-center-for-tax-professionals.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

IRS Notice Provides Penalty Relief to Certain Partnership Return Filing Taxpayers

by Monte L. Schatz

The IRS has issued Notice 2017-47 that provides penalty relief to partnerships that filed certain untimely returns or untimely requests for extension of time who filed those returns for the first taxable year that began after December 31, 2015.

Section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (the Surface Transportation Act), Public Law 114–41, 129 Stat. 443 (2015), amended section 6072 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and changed the date by which a partnership must file its annual return. The due date for filing the annual return of a partnership changed from the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year (April 15 for calendar-year -2- taxpayers) to the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year (March 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). The new due date applies to the returns of partnerships for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015.

Many partnerships failed to timely file their various partnership returns (1065, 1065-B, 8804, 8805 or 7004 Extension requests for any of the other various partnership returns).  The assumption of these taxpayers was that the normal deadlines for their 2016 Partnership returns applied (namely April 18, 2017 for the actual returns and September 15, 2017 for those that filed the Form 7004 extension for any of these returns).    Normally in these circumstances the taxpayer is subject to late filing penalties; however, the new filing deadlines shortening the return filing period by one month resulted in many taxpayers filing late returns and the IRS has provided relief for those late filed returns.

The IRS in Notice 2017-47 has announced relief will be granted automatically for penalties for failure to timely file Forms 1065, 1065-B, 8804, 8805, and any other returns, such as Form 5471, for which the due date is tied to the due date of Form 1065 or Form 1065-B. Partnerships that qualify for relief and have already been assessed penalties can expect to receive a letter within the next several months notifying them that the penalties have been abated.  For reconsideration of a penalty covered by this notice that has not been abated by February 28, 2018, contact the number listed in the letter that notified you of the penalty or call (800) 829-1040 and state that you are entitled to relief under Notice 2017-47.

SOURCE: IRS Guidewire Issue Number N-2017-47

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Adopts Simplified Form for Small Nonprofits

By James Pieper

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has adopted a new, shorter online form for small charitable organizations seeking nonprofit status.

The Form 1023-EZ reduces the existing 26-page form to three pages for qualifying groups.  Organizations with gross receipts of $50,000 or less and assets of $250,000 or less will be able to use the streamlined process.

In a media release, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen stated: “This is a common-sense approach that will help reduce lengthy processing delays for small tax-exempt groups and ultimately larger organizations as well. The change cuts paperwork for these charitable groups and speeds application processing so they can focus on their important work.”

The new form can only be completed online and will help the IRS clear its backlog of more than 60,000 pending nonprofit applications.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Denies Tax-Favored Status to Certain “Self-Funding” Health Plans

By James Pieper

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has issued a memorandum (“Memorandum”) indicating that it will deny tax-favored status to payments received under certain health plans marketed by their promoters as “self-funding.”

The Memorandum indicates that payments made under such plans will be considered “income” on the part of the employee (and thus not excluded from “gross income” for purposes of the income tax), and will be considered “wages” for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes paid by the employer.

The Memorandum cites plans being offered by promoters as “fixed indemnity health plans” with associated “wellness plans.”  The benefit promoted is that the plans are “self-funding” because the purported tax benefits will offset the expense, and employees can gain apparently tax-favored payments as a result of the plan while reducing the FICA purportedly owed by the employer.

The key to the plans is that the employee receives a monthly payment, not as income, but as a “health benefit” in return for a simple but voluntary act such as calling a toll-free number to obtain health advice or participating in biometric screening.  So long as the employee undertakes one act per month, then the benefit is paid.  Promoters of such plans contend that the employee receives comparable take-home pay and the employer receives tax benefits, all on a self-funded basis.

The IRS, however, concludes in the Memorandum that the plans do not constitute “insurance” because the “health benefit” is almost certain to be paid, and, on an actuarial basis, the amount of “benefits” is almost certain to exceed the amount paid as “premium.”

Accordingly, the IRS concluded that payments related to the so-called “self-funding” plans will be considered “income” and “wages” – and, therefore, the apparent “self-funding” mechanism obtained via tax-favored treatment is illusory.

Any employers considering any sort of “self-funding” plan should consider the Memorandum as strong evidence that such a plan is not likely to produce the tax benefits promised.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Federal Judge Orders IRS to Refund Tax Preparers for PTIN Fees

In 2014, tax return preparers brought a federal class action lawsuit challenging the legality of fees charged by the IRS for PTINs (Preparer Tax Identification Number). Regulations promulgated in 2010 and 2011 imposed requirements on tax return preparers including obtaining a specific PTIN and paying a fee associated with obtaining such PTIN. Currently, the application and renewal fee for a PTIN is $50.00.

The preparers in the class action argued that the fees are unlawful since tax preparers receive no special benefits from the PTIN and secondly the fee is unreasonable in comparison to the costs the IRS incurs to issue the PTIN.

On June 1, 2017, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the IRS may continue to require PTINs but granted summary judgment in favor of the tax preparers stating, in part, that the IRS may not charge fees for issuing PTINs. Following a review of applicable case law, the Court found that PTINs are not a “service or thing of value” provided by the IRS. The IRS will be enjoined from charging fees in the future and is required to refund fees charged for the PTINs to all members of the class.

The order granting summary judgment is not yet a final judgment. Such final judgment will indicate the amount owed to each member of the class and may be subject to appeal by the IRS.

For more information, including court documents and the opinion rendered by Judge Lamberth see http://ptinclassaction.com/

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us