Employment tax penalties: Let’s keep it civil

Many practitioners who counsel business clients, both small and large, are familiar with the difficult challenges that quickly arise when taxes are withheld from employee wages but not turned over to the federal government. On occasion, these taxes are not paid over due to the misdeeds of an in-house bookkeeper or a third-party payroll service responsible for ensuring that a business meets its tax obligations. More often than not, however, employers, acting without bad intentions, use the withheld money to satisfy pressing trade obligations or to meet payroll, debts the nonpayment of which is likely to lead to the shutdown of the business and loss of employee jobs. Unfortunately, this strategy can prove extremely costly to both the business and its principals, generating exposure to substantial penalties for late payment or failure to pay at all.

Making the stakes even higher, the federal government has taken steps in recent years to increase the likelihood that employment tax cases will be handled criminally. All of this means that tax advisers working with business clients cannot focus solely on strategies to minimize and pay the business’s income tax obligations but also must be extremely vigilant regarding employment tax duties.

This article focuses on the potential criminal consequences that can arise when a business fails to collect or pay over withheld tax. Included is an analysis of the key tax crimes that can be charged in these cases. The article provides suggestions to help practitioners recognize when a business’s failure to pay employment tax may be treated criminally. It also provides guidance about how best to proceed to minimize a client’s potential jeopardy. The article includes a discussion of the difficult issues practitioners face as they seek to resolve civil cases through cooperation, while remaining cognizant of the potential for criminal referral and prosecution. Ultimately, however, the article notes that advisers best serve clients by detecting nonpayment early and promptly crafting payment plans to bring delinquent obligations current and ensure new periods do not become delinquent.

Policy change: Increased emphasis on federal criminal prosecution

The Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues both civil litigation and criminal investigations and prosecutions for failure to comply with employment tax obligations.¹ Recently, the DOJ has increasingly emphasized criminal prosecution of those who fail to comply with their obligations to withhold, account for, and pay over federal employment taxes. In an April 2016 press release, the DOJ stressed that the failure to comply with federal employment tax obligations is “not simply a civil matter.”² Instead, employers that fail to pay employment tax, and treat amounts withheld from employees’ wages as the employers’ own property “are engaging in criminal conduct and face prosecution, imprisonment, monetary fines and restitution.”³

The DOJ’s emphasis on the criminal prosecution of employment tax evasion was further demonstrated by an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines.⁴ The “Background” commentary provided with the guideline for sentences imposed for “Failing to Collect or Truthfully Account for and Pay Over Tax” formerly read as follows:

The offense is a felony that is infrequently prosecuted. The failure to collect or truthfully account for the tax must be willful, as must the failure to pay. Where no effort is made to defraud the employee, the offense is a form of tax evasion, and is treated as such in the guidelines.⁵

The Guidelines Manual was amended in November 2016 to remove the first sentence of that background comment, eliminating the premise that employment tax criminal prosecutions are rare or infrequent.⁶ When it proposed this amendment, the U.S. Sentencing Commission provided the following reason for the change:

The Department of Justice in its annual letter to the Commission has proposed that the “infrequently prosecuted” statement should be deleted. The Department points out that while that statement may have been accurate when the relevant commentary was originally written (in 1987), the number of prosecutions under section 7202 have since increased substantially. The use of §2T1.6 increased from three cases in 2002 to 46 cases in 2014.⁷

Employment tax criminal statistics

In light of the Sentencing Commission’s reliance on statistics in support of its revisions to the manual’s commentary, it is interesting to look at some numbers. The IRS’s data regarding employment tax evasion⁸ show that the numbers of investigations, recommended prosecutions, sentences imposed, incarceration rates, and average sentence length vary from year to year. In 2014,⁹ the IRS initiated 120 criminal investigations and recommended 92 prosecutions. In that same year, the government sentenced 88 persons with an incarceration rate of 73.9% and an average sentence of 17 months. In 2015, the IRS initiated 102 criminal investigations and recommended 80 prosecutions.¹⁰ Sixty-two persons were sentenced in 2015, with an incarceration rate of 77.4% and an average sentence of 24 months. In 2016, the IRS initiated 137 criminal investigations and recommended 77 prosecutions. Eighty-seven persons were sentenced in 2016, with an incarceration rate of 70.1% and an average sentence of 14 months.

The statistical trends are not entirely clear, at least in part because a case may cross fiscal years — so that an investigation that the IRS begins in one year may not result in a recommended prosecution or sentencing until a later year.¹¹ However, two significant facts should concern anyone representing a client in an employment tax audit. First, the number of employment tax criminal investigations initiated in 2016 increased significantly — over 14% more than the number of investigations begun in 2014 and 34% more than the number initiated in fiscal year 2015. Second, although the incarceration rate and average sentence length vary from 2014 to 2016, the average incarceration rate has remained above 70%. In other words, if a client is convicted for criminal employment tax evasion, there is a greater than two-thirds likelihood of incarceration when sentenced.¹²

Statutory provisions

The government has great latitude in deciding whether to handle an employment tax case civilly or criminally. Three Code sections potentially apply. Sec. 6672(a) imposes a 100% civil penalty on responsible officers in cases of failure to withhold and/or pay over employment taxes. Sec. 7202 makes failing to meet employment tax obligations a felony, punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, prison for up to five years, or both. Sec. 7201 is the statute criminalizing tax evasion, a crime also punishable by a much larger fine than that imposed under Sec. 7202, and may also impose imprisonment, or imprisonment and a fine.

The portions of these sections that define the activity that is subject to a penalty (i.e., the willful failure to collect and/or pay over employment tax or the willful attempt to evade or defeat tax) are virtually indistinguishable. Sec. 6672, titled “Failure to Collect and Pay Over Tax, or Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax,” provides:

(a) General rule. Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over. No penalty shall be imposed under section 6653 [regarding the failure to pay stamp tax] or part II of subchapter A of chapter 68 [regarding the accuracy-related and fraud penalties] for any offense to which this section is applicable.

Sec. 7202, which by its title applies to willful failures to collect or pay over the tax, provides, in its entirety, as follows:

Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Sec. 7201 is titled “Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax.” It provides that “[a]ny person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony.” Persons convicted of violating Sec. 7201 may be fined “not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation)” or, like Sec. 7202, “imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

The government uses this provision to prosecute many kinds of tax evasion — not just cases involving employment tax obligations. Also, it clearly applies to what may be unsuccessful attempts to evade tax, which the language of Sec. 7202 does not specifically cover. In the context of employers who fail to meet their employment tax responsibilities, however, the key difference among all three of these provisions relates to consequences: 100% of the unpaid tax as a civil penalty against a responsible individual under Sec. 6672 as compared to a criminal fine and/or imprisonment.

Given the similarity between Sec. 6672 and Secs. 7202 and 7201, one would expect some administrative guidance regarding the circumstances in which the IRS will pursue a criminal prosecution. In fact, however, the only guidance that might help a tax adviser counsel a client in determining whether the IRS will seek a criminal prosecution in a particular case is in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). The only regulation issued under Sec. 6672 essentially just restates the Code section,¹³ and no regulations exist for either Sec. 7202 or Sec. 7201.

Specifically citing Sec. 7202, the IRM includes the willful failure to account for, collect, or pay over taxes in a list of the most common Code sections “used by employment tax examiners when developing criminal fraud cases.”¹⁴ The manual also notes that “[f]or a taxpayer to be guilty of a crime in which willfulness is an element, that individual must have acted deliberately, knowingly, and with the specific intent to violate the law.”¹⁵ Examiners are referred to another portion of the manual, which “notes several elements that may be indicative of fraud” and are admonished to “remain continually alert for these and other ‘badges of fraud.'”¹⁶ The manual’s “Fraud Handbook” states that tax fraud “is often defined as an intentional wrongdoing, on the part of a taxpayer, with the specific purpose of evading a tax known or believed to be owing,” and “requires both a tax due and owing; and fraudulent intent.”¹⁷ The latter, of course, is necessary because of the element of willfulness required in Sec. 7202.

Proving fraudulent intent generally requires proof of an affirmative action to evade or defeat a tax, or the payment of tax. As noted in the handbook, taxpayers who knowingly take those actions often leave indicators that serve as a sign that they may have done something “for the purpose of deceit, concealment or to make things seem other than what they are.”¹⁸ These indicators of fraud primarily relate to income tax evasion and “include substantial unexplained increases in net worth, substantial excess of personal expenditures over available resources, bank deposits from unexplained sources substantially exceeding reported income, and documents that appear to be altered or false.”¹⁹ The handbook further notes that establishing fraud requires affirmative acts of fraud, such as “omissions of specific items where similar items are included; concealment of bank accounts or other assets; failure to deposit receipts to business accounts; and covering up sources of receipts.”²⁰

Similarly, the IRM indicates that courts have interpreted the term “attempt” as implying that an “affirmative act or the commission of some overt act” is a necessary element of the violation of Sec. 7201.²¹ Examples of those actions that may be relevant in the employment tax evasion context include concealing assets; misappropriating, converting, and diverting corporate assets; filing late returns; and failing to withhold taxes as required by law.²²

The DOJ’s internal Criminal Tax Manual also addresses the willfulness element of the criminal employment tax provisions, and states that willfulness requires the government to show “that a defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated a known legal duty.”²³ The manual’s examples of circumstantial evidence that can be used to prove willfulness include intentionally preferring creditors over the government and paying wages and debts owed to creditors in lieu of remitting employment taxes.²⁴

What case law tells us

Comparing the indicators of fraud noted in the IRS’s “Fraud Handbook” and what may be evidence of willfulness as noted in the DOJ’s Criminal Tax Manual to what may occur in an employment tax situation, one might expect that a responsible person’s willfully filing an erroneous return, failing to remit withheld employment taxes, or hiding or using those taxes for other purposes might be considered an indicator of fraud. At least historically, however, the IRS generally has only brought criminal charges in “the most egregious cases . . . rather than situations where an owner or other responsible person in a business that was facing hard times used the money to pay other creditors in a misguided attempt to keep the business afloat.”²⁵

A recent decision from a district court in Pennsylvania is a good example of one type of extreme circumstance likely to invite criminal prosecution — when the defendant is a tax professional who clearly knowingly violated the law. In Lynch, the defendant was convicted of 16 counts of willfully failing to pay over employment taxes in violation of Sec. 7202. The court described Lynch as a “highly skilled tax attorney” who shifted assets and employees among multiple entities to avoid IRS collection efforts for more than 10 years.²⁶ Similarly, in Lord,the defendant’s conviction for failing to pay over to the government withheld employment taxes was affirmed. The court noted that prior to accepting her job as acting president and CFO, the defendant had worked as an accountant for almost 20 years and in at least two prior jobs was involved with or in charge of filing and paying employment tax.²⁷

Other cases where a criminal prosecution may be more likely are those that involve multiple acts of wrongdoing. For example, in Demuro, an engineer and his wife/office manager were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and of failing to pay over trust fund taxes. The Demuros owned a limited liability company that withheld but failed to pay over more than $500,000 in tax. Although it did not lead to a charge in federal court, the opinion held that evidence of the wife’s use of her ill father’s assets for personal purposes rather than to pay the delinquent tax was properly admitted, since it undercut her defense that she and her husband were attempting to structure a payment plan with the IRS.²⁸

In Farr, the defendant was the general manager/administrator of an alternative medicine clinic run by her husband until his death. The clinic filed employment tax returns but failed to pay the withheld taxes, apparently avoiding detection by frequently changing its name and tax identification numbers. Farr was charged with tax evasion under Sec. 7201 after she failed to pay a civil penalty as a responsible officer under Sec. 6672.²⁹

The defendant in Brennick was convicted of three crimes: failing to pay over withholding taxes, structuring currency transactions to avoid reporting requirements, and corruptly impeding the IRS, in violation of Sec. 7212. Brennick involved over $1.4 million in delinquent tax.³⁰ In Thayer, the defendant also was convicted of multiple crimes, including failing to pay over withheld taxes, willfully filing false claims for refunds, and willfully concealing bankruptcy estate assets. The latter charge arose because Thayer used corporate funds to make payments on a condominium held in his personal name in an effort to hide assets from the bankruptcy court and from creditors.³¹

Another factor that may trigger criminal prosecution is inconsistent documentation. For example, in McLain, the owner-operator of a health care staffing LLC was convicted of violating Sec. 7202. The LLC did not file employment tax returns nor did it withhold and pay over withheld taxes. The defendant argued as a defense to the charges that the nurses working for the LLC were actually independent contractors and thus the LLC was not required to withhold employment taxes. Evidence against him included a certification, required by state law, that the nurses who worked for the company were employees, and not independent contractors.³² Similarly, William Crabbe was convicted of both failing to pay over withholding taxes and filing false returns where Forms 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, filed on behalf of the corporation showed only some of the company’s employees. The court noted that Crabbe saw and signed state tax forms that reported inconsistent information.³³

By comparison, some of the cases involving unpaid employment tax that generated only civil proceedings under Sec. 6672 presented either routine situations of financial distress, or even sympathetic circumstances. In Boyajian, for example, the president and sole owner of a company was held liable for payroll tax under Sec. 6672, but he was not prosecuted criminally. He admitted his status as a responsible person and the court found he acted willfully, showing reckless disregard for whether the taxes were paid while he made payments to other creditors. His wife, who had mostly administrative and client contact responsibilities, was not held liable.³⁴

The defendant in In re Lee, also faced only civil action. He was held to be a responsible person even though he was not involved in daily management because he had general control over business matters, met with the company’s manager once or twice a month, had absolute authority over finances, and was the only person authorized to sign checks.³⁵ In Bernabe, a case presenting more sympathetic facts, the defendant was held liable under Sec. 6672 but was not prosecuted criminally. She had been abused verbally by the company’s president, who instructed her not to give payroll taxes first priority.³⁶ In Wells a defendant faced only potential civil liability as a responsible officer; in that case the defendant’s husband assured her that he was handling all tax matters, lied about the extent of the problem, and intercepted IRS correspondence addressed to her.³⁷

Other factors

Apart from extreme circumstances, it is likely other factors may also be at play in the decision whether to handle a case civilly or criminally. The strength of the government’s evidence is one consideration. Criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof is on the government. By comparison, in responsible officer cases the IRS issues a civil assessment. Thereafter, the person challenging the assessment must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is not a responsible person or did not act willfully.³⁸

The requirement that a defendant act “willfully,” common to both civil and criminal actions for unpaid employment tax, may also be a consideration. In criminal cases, willfulness has been defined as “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty . . . [it] need not include bad faith or bad purpose.”³⁹ The Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Quinn, which upheld the defendant’s convictions under Sec. 7202 for failing to pay employment tax, and Sec. 7203 for failing to pay individual income tax, quoted the instructions to the jury on the subject of willfulness at length:

An essential element of the crimes charged is that defendant must have acted willfully. The word “willfully” means voluntarily and intentionally in violation of a known legal duty. In other words, the defendant must have acted voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something she knew the law prohibited, or fail to do something she knew the law required; that is to say, with intent either to disobey or disregard the law. Conversely, the defendant did not act willfully if you find that she acted or failed to act because of negligence (even gross negligence), inadvertence, accident, mistake, reckless disregard for the requirements of the law, ignorance of the law, or a good-faith belief, based on a misunderstanding of the law, that she was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws.⁴⁰

Since the government is not required to prove motive as part of willfulness, a defendant’s financial situation is not relevant.⁴¹

For Sec. 6672 purposes, willfulness has been defined similarly as a voluntary, intentional, and conscious decision, not requiring proof of an evil motive or a specific intent to defraud or deprive the government of money.⁴² The Kobus court noted:

There are two basic ways that a person can willfully fail to pay over withholding taxes: a person acts willfully if the employer has funds to pay the taxes and the person either (1) knowingly chooses not to pay over the withholding taxes or (2) acts with a reckless disregard of a risk that the withholding taxes will not be paid.⁴³

Note that in both civil and criminal cases, proof of an evil motive is not required. However, while a reckless disregard for the law is not sufficient under Sec. 7202, a reckless disregard of a risk that taxes will not be paid can be used to establish willfulness in a Sec. 6672 action.

State tax complications

Many businesses that have withholding tax obligations under the Code face comparable state law requirements. These can be similar to federal law, meaning they arise in the context of employment because a state may require a business to withhold and pay over income tax for its employees. However, many states also require businesses that make sales to customers to collect sales tax, which they also must pay over. The table below lists a few of the states that impose criminal penalties for failure to collect, account for, or pay over tax.

Practitioner issues/guidance

While the warnings from the DOJ should cause practitioners concern moving forward for all employment tax cases, the greatest difficulty is identifying early if a client is likely to be referred criminally. Many of the examples of the case law referenced above demonstrate the extremes, where it is at least somewhat clear to a practitioner at the outset that the IRS may or may not refer a case criminally. Unfortunately, for the majority of cases, the facts are less clear, and it will be difficult to determine early on whether a practitioner and client should be concerned about a possible criminal referral.

It is not impossible, but is unusual, that a state will begin criminal investigation of employment tax nonpayment before any federal criminal investigation because amounts due to the state for withheld employment tax are often substantially less than what is owed to the federal government, and states frequently have different enforcement priorities.⁴⁴ Where a federal case has gone criminal, however, there is always a concern that the relevant state might also prosecute criminally. When employment tax noncompliance is discovered at the federal level, a determination should be made as to the amount of tax, if any, that is due to the state.

A practitioner should be cognizant of the amount of taxes and the number of periods a client has withheld and not paid over taxes and how the withheld funds were used. Cases where a taxpayer has incurred payroll tax liabilities for multiple periods, also known as “pyramiding,” may be more susceptible to a criminal referral. Circumstances similar to those in the Farr case referenced above, where a taxpayer has incurred payroll tax liabilities in multiple entities, should raise significant concerns about the possibility of a criminal referral. To be clear, these factors are not determinative but must inform a practitioner’s handling of a client’s matter.

A practitioner or taxpayer that has any concern about an investigation being referred criminally should immediately consult an attorney with experience handling criminal tax matters. Sec. 7525 provides a privilege to nonattorney tax practitioners.⁴⁵ However, this privilege is limited to noncriminal cases.⁴⁶ Usually the taxpayer will be aware of the civil investigation under Sec. 6672 prior to any knowledge of a criminal investigation. Any information a nonattorney practitioner receives during the civil investigation no longer is privileged once the matter is referred criminally. The engagement of an attorney early in the Sec. 6672 investigation will allow the lawyer to work with the taxpayer with the protections of the attorney-client privilege. While the attorney-client privilege has certain limitations, it offers far greater protection to the taxpayer than the practitioner privilege provided by Sec. 7525 should a case go criminal.

Unfortunately for practitioners, there is no specific step in the civil investigation process that ensures a case will or will not be referred criminally. The revenue officer assigned to the case will normally be working to establish a payment arrangement for the amounts outstanding and will seek to make a trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) determination for responsible persons under Sec. 6672. As a part of this inquiry, the revenue officer will be seeking financial information for the company and bank records, including signature cards and checks for the business accounts. It is important to cooperate as a lack of cooperation with the revenue officer who is conducting the Sec. 6672 investigation may trigger a criminal referral. However, the level of cooperation needs to be considered carefully on a case-specific basis.

During the course of a Sec. 6672 investigation, the IRS will frequently request an interview with the individual or individuals facing potential civil liability. This interview, which is referred to as a “4180 interview” based on the form the government uses (Form 4180, Report of Interview With Individual Relative to Trust Fund Recovery Penalty or Personal Liability for Excise Taxes), is conducted by the revenue officer with the target taxpayer. According to IRM Section 5.7.4.2.4, the purpose of the 4180 interview “is to secure direct, detailed information regarding the individual’s or other person’s involvement in the business in order to determine if he or she meets the criteria for responsibility.” Any taxpayer considering agreeing to a 4180 interview should consult counsel and, if the decision is made to sit for the interview, attend with his or her representative.

The 4180 interview is a topic of debate among practitioners. Many advisers are concerned that the IRS revenue officer may view declining to sit for the interview as a lack of cooperation, which could cause a criminal referral, while others rightly worry that admissions made during the meeting could cause a case to go criminal or be used in a later criminal prosecution. Importantly, the taxpayer is required to sign the Form 4180, acknowledging its accuracy as completed by the revenue officer. Signing a Form 4180 containing all the elements for civil liability under Sec. 6672 also then admits the elements required for criminal liability under Sec. 7202. Should a case go criminal, later challenges to the content of the Form 4180 are unlikely to succeed. As a result, a practitioner should review the document carefully before allowing a client to sign.

The concern here is justified since key portions of the language in Secs. 6672 and 7202 are identical and the 4180 interview addresses willfulness, which is required under both statutory provisions. In the context of parallel investigations, admissions made in the 4180 interview could constitute a confession of a violation under Sec. 7202 in a criminal proceeding. A parallel investigation is when a civil investigation and a criminal investigation occur simultaneously. Tweel was a criminal case before the Fifth Circuit dealing with records collected in a civil audit being used in a criminal investigation and prosecution. In Tweel, the accountant for the defendant asked the revenue agent if a special agent (i.e., an agent of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation) was also investigating. The revenue agent accurately replied that no special agent was involved in the case but failed to mention that the DOJ had requested the audit. The revenue agent provided the documents received from the accountant and taxpayer to DOJ for use in the criminal matter. The Fifth Circuit determined that “a consent search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the consent was induced by the deceit, trickery or misrepresentation of the Internal Revenue agent.”⁴⁸ Tweel effectively prevents the IRS from pursuing a criminal investigation through a civil examiner. However, in the years since Tweel,courts have eroded the protections found in the case, and the IRS has adopted a policy that does not require a civil exam to stop once the criminal investigation has begun.⁴⁹ The possibility of parallel investigations makes it all the more critical for practitioners to be cautious as they provide information for the civil investigation.

With the potential for a taxpayer behind on employment tax filing and payment obligations to be referred criminally, what can a practitioner do to prevent such a referral? An accountant or other tax professional is often in a position to identify nonpayment of employment taxes. Early identification of and addressing the nonpayment will likely obviate the possibility of a criminal referral and may even preclude the need for a TFRP assessment. One possibility is to recommend that a likely target under Sec. 6672 loan money to the business if necessary to enable it to pay the delinquent obligations. If the business fails to repay the loan, the responsible person may be able to claim a bad debt deduction, assuming all requirements are met.

In First Nat’l Bank of Duncanville,⁵⁰ for example, a bank that was a responsible person with respect to its borrower’s unpaid trust fund employment taxes was allowed a bad debt deduction for the payment it made to the IRS to settle a Sec. 6672 claim, where the loan documents classified any taxes or assessments paid by the bank to preserve its collateral as part of secured debt. But compare this with Elliott,⁵¹ where the president and shareholder of a corporation was not allowed a bad debt deduction where he claimed the corporation failed to indemnify him for payment of a Sec. 6672 penalty, despite an indemnification provision in the corporation’s articles of incorporation, because amounts paid for Sec. 6672 assessments are nondeductible under Sec. 162(f)).

In Hinsdale,⁵² a shareholder was allowed a nonbusiness bad debt deduction for a loan he made to a corporation that was used to pay trust fund employment taxes even though the loan was partially motivated by the shareholder’s desire to avoid potential personal liability under Sec. 6672. For a noncorporate taxpayer, a nonbusiness bad debt is treated as a short-term capital loss.⁵³ The court did not discuss, and apparently the parties did not raise, the issue of nondeductibility of a penalty in Hinsdale. Note that to support a bad debt deduction position, among other requirements, it is important any loan between a principal and corporation be made under market-rate conditions and with appropriate documentation.

Outside of the loan context, however, no deduction is allowed for amounts paid by an individual under a Sec. 6672 assessment.⁵⁴

The role tax professionals play in detecting and addressing nonpayment early is becoming more and more important. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) published a report about trends and recommendations for enforcement of employment tax obligations.⁵⁵ TIGTA found that the number of employers with 20 or more quarters of delinquent employment taxes had grown from approximately 5,000 in 1998 to nearly 17,000 in December 2015. However, the report further notes that the IRS assessed 38% fewer TFRPs from FY 2011 to FY 2015 due to decreases in collection personnel.

Fewer collection actions make it even more important for tax professionals to discover and address delinquent employment tax issues early. A business that has fallen behind on tax payments, without any apparent consequences, may be tempted to continue nonpayment. As a result, the amount of the deficiency is likely to grow, increasing the likelihood of an eventual criminal referral. In that light, the clear trend of such a significant increase in the number of cases involving severe noncompliance is alarming. A tax professional detecting the nonpayment early and assisting the client in developing a feasible plan to pay the tax owed offers an important service. Moreover, to minimize the personal financial exposure of persons potentially responsible under Sec. 6672, a practitioner should be certain to designate any voluntary payments toward the trust fund portion of the delinquency.⁵⁶ Again, the quicker the trust fund portion is paid, the less likely the need for a TFRP investigation and the less likely there will be a subsequent, or concurrent, criminal investigation.

What practitioners should do

A business that cannot pay its bills presents many challenges for the tax professional, but the government’s apparent policy of more aggressive criminal prosecution makes these cases far more difficult. Advisers can no longer focus on simply trying to resolve potential liability under Sec. 6672 but now must also consider the specter of a criminal prosecution. Professionals serve clients well by stressing the importance of staying compliant with employment tax obligations.

Where a delinquency does develop, a tax adviser should help the client to take all steps necessary to resolve the situation before the government takes action. However, if the delinquency is substantial or involves multiple periods, or if other criminal acts may have been committed, the adviser should recommend that the client retain an attorney experienced in criminal tax matters as quickly as possible. Failure to do so may mean a professional who is trying to minimize a civil liability actually helps the government build a criminal case, creating jeopardy for the client and ­potential exposure for the adviser.  

Footnotes

¹Justice Department, “Employment Tax Enforcement” (rev. Sept. 28, 2017), available at www.justice.gov. For an overview of recent enforcement trends see Freeman, “Employment Tax Enforcement Is Trending,” 48 The Tax Adviser 522 (July 2017), available at www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2017/jul/employment-tax-enforcement-trending.html.

²DOJ Press Release “Justice Department Reminds Employers of Their Employment Tax Responsibilities” (April 27, 2016), available at www.justice.gov.

³Id.

⁴United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2016). The Sentencing Commission was created by Congress because of concern about disparities in sentences handed down in different federal courts. The commission annually releases updates to the guidelines; the manual itself can be found at www.ussc.gov/guidelines. As the name suggests, the guidelines are advisory, meaning judges are not required to follow them when sentencing someone convicted of a crime.

⁵United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2T1.6, comment (background) (November 2015). The Sentencing Guidelines include policy statements that apply to various federal crimes. Sec. 7202 is covered by §2T1.6. The guideline’s policy statements are accompanied by commentary that explains and elaborates upon the commission’s reasoning and may give practitioners an indication of the government’s possible position in criminal sentencing matters.

⁶United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §2T1.6, comment (background) (November 2016).

⁷United States Sentencing Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, p. 3 (Jan. 15, 2016), available at www.ussc.gov. When the amendment was finalized in November 2016, the commission also noted that removing the language regarding the frequency of prosecutions “will remove the perception that the commission has taken a position regarding the relative frequency of prosecution of such offenses.” United States Sentencing Commission, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, p. 62 (April 28, 2016, effective date November 1, 2016), available at www.ussc.gov.

⁸It should be noted that these numbers represent all employment tax evasion cases, not just those involving the violation of Sec. 7202 for the failure to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over employment tax. In other words, these numbers also include, for example, cases where a noncompliant employer is prosecuted for tax evasion under Sec. 7201 rather than under Sec. 7202.

⁹All statistics are for the fiscal year. IRS Statistical Data — Employment Tax Division, available at www.irs.gov.

¹⁰Id.

¹¹Id.

¹²“Incarceration includes confinement to federal prison, halfway house, home detention, or some combination thereof” (id.).

¹³Regs. Sec. 301.6672-1.

¹⁴IRM §4.23.9.6.3, ¶2.

¹⁵IRM §4.23.9.6.2, ¶2.

¹⁶IRM at §4.23.9.6.4, ¶٥, refers to the “Fraud Handbook” portion of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM Part 25.1).

¹⁷IRM §25.1.1.2, ¶2.

¹⁸IRM §25.1.1.3, ¶1.b.

¹⁹IRM §25.1.1.3, ¶1.c.

²⁰IRM §25.1.1.3, ¶2.

²¹IRM §9.1.3.3.2.2.2, ¶2.

²²IRM §9.1.3.3.2.2.2, ¶7.

²³DOJ 2012 Criminal Tax Manual 9.04[2], available at www.justice.gov.

²⁴Id. (citations omitted).

²⁵Murthy, “The Consequences of Willful Failure to Pay Payroll Taxes,” 2014-3 Journal of Accountancy 54 (June 2014), available at www.journalofaccountancy.com.

²⁶Lynch, 227 F. Supp. 3d 421 (W.D. Pa. 2017).

²⁷Lord, 404 Fed. Appx. 773 (4th Cir. 2010).

²⁸Demuro, 677 F. 3d 550 (3d Cir. 2012).

²⁹In Farr, 701 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2012), the Tenth Circuit affirmed Farr’s conviction under Sec. 7201. It noted that evidence of willfulness, including prior liability for unpaid trust fund taxes under Sec. 6672, pyramiding of clinic operating entities, and paying employees in cash, was all properly admitted. The court dismissed Farr’s argument that she should have been charged under Sec. 7202 rather than Sec. 7201, stating that where a defendant’s conduct violates more than one law, the government may choose under which statute(s) to proceed.

³⁰Brennick, 949 F. Supp. 32 (D. Mass. 1996). Although Brennick withdrew money for gambling, the district court found that changes in health care reimbursement rates and a bank failure also contributed to his financial distress. A later appellate decision (Brennick, 134 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1998)) vacated the district court decision granting Brennick a downward sentencing departure and remanded the case for further proceedings.

³¹Thayer, 201 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. denied (2000). While upholding the convictions, the opinion did vacate and remand Thayer’s sentence for further proceedings. For another example of a case involving multiple crimes see Gollapudi, 130 F.3d 66 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied (1998).

³²In McLain, 646 F. 3d 599 (8th Cir. 2011), cert. denied (2012), the appellate court upheld the defendant’s convictions but remanded for resentencing. A later district court opinion denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the second sentence noted that civil remedies used against McLain in connection with earlier businesses were ineffective because of his “unwillingness to keep his promises and willingness to fraudulently conceal his activities.” McLain, No. 08-CR-0010 (D. Minn. 10/8/13).

³³Crabbe, 424 Fed. Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2011). The Tenth Circuit opinion reports, apparently in error, that Crabbe was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2 and 26 U.S.C. §7203. Per earlier proceedings, Crabbe’s convictions were under Secs. 7202 and 7206(1). See Crabbe, No. 06-cr-00294-MSK (D. Colo. 5/17/10).

³⁴Boyajian, No. 04-4835 (KSH)(D.N.J. 10/16/06). The court noted that the defendant received 14 notices of unpaid tax and nonetheless paid other creditors.

³⁵In re Lee, No. 96-1-0698-PM (Bankr. D. Md. 5/29/97).

³⁶Bernabe, No. CV 10-02508 DDP (JEMx), (C.D. Cal. 2011). The court held that Bernabe nonetheless was a responsible person who had acted willfully in failing to pay the taxes.

³⁷Wells, No. 08-2110(NLH)(JS) (D.N.J. 10/21/09).

³⁸Keohan, 138 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 2001). See also Sananikone, 623 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2015).

³⁹For a case discussing willfulness in the context of Sec. 7202, see Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001).

⁴⁰Quinn, 566 Fed. Appx. 659 (10th Cir. 2014).

⁴¹Easterday, 564 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied(2009).

⁴²Godfrey, 748 F.2d 1568, 1576—77 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

⁴³Kobus, 103 Fed. Cl. 575 (Fed. Cl. 2012), citing Godfrey, supra note 42.

⁴⁴Sales tax collected from customers may mean amounts owed to a state are larger.

⁴⁵Sec. 7525(a).

⁴⁶Id.

⁴⁷Hawaii has what may be a unique criminal penalty for failure to remit sales tax. Under Haw. Rev. Stat. §238-6(f), a person who misappropriates collected sales tax “shall be fined more than five times the amount of money so embezzled or imprisoned at hard labor not more than ten years.”

⁴⁸Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977).

⁴⁹For more on parallel investigations, see Andreozzi, Andreozzi, and Hibschweiler, “The Threat of Parallel Investigations: When Civil Isn’t Civil,” 46 The Tax Adviser 608 (August 2015), available at www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2015/aug/threat-of-parallel-investigations.html# at fn.15.

⁵⁰First Nat’l Bank of Duncanville, 481 F. Supp. 633 (N.D. Tex. 1979).

⁵¹Elliott, T.C. Memo. 1997-294, aff’d per curiam, 149 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1998).

⁵²Hinsdale, T.C. Memo. 1984-361.

⁵³Sec. 166(d)(1).

⁵⁴In Meersman, T.C. Memo. 1993-47, the taxpayer was denied a deduction under Sec. 162(f) for Sec. 6672 payments; the court relied on the Sec. 162 regulations in concluding the trust fund payment was a nondeductible penalty. In Duncan, 68 F.3d 315 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit denied the taxpayers a nonbusiness bad debt deduction under Sec. 166 for amounts paid to the government pursuant to Sec. 6672, but it allowed a deduction for state withholding tax paid to Oregon, since state law disregarded fault and did not function as a penalty.

⁵⁵The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “A More Focused Strategy Is Needed to Effectively Address Egregious Employment Tax Crimes,” Rep’t No. 2017-IE-R004, available at www.treasury.gov.

⁵⁶“When a taxpayer makes voluntary payments to the IRS, he has a right to direct the application of payments to whatever type of liability he chooses. If the taxpayer makes a voluntary payment without directing the application of the funds, the IRS may make whatever allocation it chooses” (Muntwyler, 703 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted)).