IRS Charitable Remainder Unitrust CRUT Audit

by Chris Moss CPA

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Are you planning on a large gift to charity after you die? The Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT) and the Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) as per IRS Code 664 are great tax strategies for charitable giving. The CRUT for example allows you to take an immediate charitable deduction on your income tax return, deferring the actual donation of the remainder of the trust until after your death, but at the same time allowing for you to live off the income of the trust while you are alive. Sounds too good to be true? It’s true, but unfortunately  the IRS  seems to be thinking otherwise, waiting perhaps patiently I might add, until you die only to commence a CRUT Audit with disastrous results for for your children and other heirs at the conclusion of the CRUT Audit.  So if you have already established a CRUT or are thinking about setting up a CRUT stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney to find out how to bullet proof your CRUT and related tax returns from adverse Government audit action when the IRS CRUT audit team arrives shortly after you have passed.

While the Joint Committee on Taxation has always favored charitable giving deductions, Congress strictly limits the deductibility of the Charitable Remainder of your CRUT on your personal tax return to the present value of the CRUT remainder using a current qualified appraisal, as defined in § 1.170A-13(c)(3), from a qualified appraiser, as defined in § 1.170A-13(c)(5). Section 664(d)(2)(D) requires that the valued remainder be at least 10% of the property’s net fair value on the date of contribution.  After the initial appraisal year IRS Regulations 1.664.1, and 1.664.3 generally with some exceptions allows you to pay to yourself annually not less than 5% of the net fair value of the trust corpus.  Sounds pretty easy, but as Arthur Schaefer’s Estate found out in Schaefer v IRS US Tax Court (2015) there are IRS traps surrounding CRUTS after you die which could make you turn over in the grave.

On February 21, 2006 Schaefer created a CRUT with a slight variation, an exception to the general rule as per Section 664(d)(3)(A). The exception allowed Schaefer to distribute only the trust income for the year but limited by a fixed percentage. Trusts created under this exception are called Net Income Charitable Remainder Unitrusts (NICRUTs). Additionally, 664(d)(3)(B) allowed Schaefer to distribute to himself the current trust income in excess of the fixed percentage to the extent that the aggregate amounts distributed in prior years were less than the aggregate of the fixed percentage amounts for those prior years. Trusts using this provision are Net Income with Makeup Charitable Remainder Unitrusts (NIMCRUTs) and this is the trust Mr. Schaefer created.

Sure enough after Schaefer died, and after the Estate tax return Form 706 was filed, the IRS came knocking on Schaefer’s Estate door and indeed audited and disallowed the NIMCRUT charitable deduction in its entirety because the trusts did not meet the requirements of Section 664(d)(2)(D) in that the value of each remainder interest be at least 10% of the net fair value of the property on the date of contribution claiming Schaefer used an incorrect valuation method.  Schaefer’s appealed to Tax Court in Schaefer v IRS US Tax Court (7/28/2015).

Judge Buch opined that while the legislative history is rather unclear on this matter, nevertheless Congress gave the IRS the power to issue administrative guidance on the subject of valuing a remainder interest in a NIMCRUT citing Rev. Rul. 72-395, sec. 7.01 superseded by Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2005-34, which includes all the relevant Revenue Procedures including Rev Proc 2005-52, 2005-53 and 2005-54 requiring the remainder interest of a NIMCRUT to be valued using the fixed percentage stated in the trust instrument, regardless of the fact that distributions are limited to trust income. The Court observes that Schaefer was using a rate that was less than stated in the trust instrument. When the Court converted the Schaefer rate to the fixed rate required by IRS regulations the Schaefer NIMCRUT remainder fell below the 10% threshold thereby terminating the entire NIMCRUT. IRS wins Schaefer loses.

A second IRS trap, as Joseph Mohamed found out, is the requirements for a “qualified appraisal” in Mohamed v IRS US Tax Court (2012). Mohamed set up a CRUT in 2003 worth millions with the remainder to go to the Shriners Hospitals for Children.  Mohamed filed his tax returns along with Form 8283 claiming millions of dollars of charity deductions. The IRS noticed this almost immediately and commenced a CRUT audit.  It turns out that Mohamed self-appraised his donations, albeit on the low side, but nevertheless, in violation of IRS regulations requiring a qualified appraisal by a qualified appraiser. Mohammed retained a qualified appraiser, while the audit was ongoing, to perform a qualified appraisal and even though the remainder asset value appraised higher than Mohamed’s charitable tax deduction, the appraisal was performed simply too late to do any good. The IRS invalidated the entire CRUT and disallowed the millions of deductions that Mohamed had claimed as a charity deduction.  Mohamed appealed to US Tax Court in Mohamed v IRS US Tax Court (2012).

The Court reluctantly ruled for the Government in that Mohamed did not comply with IRS regulations. Judge Holmes sadly opines that this result is harsh–a complete denial of charitable deductions to a couple that did not overvalue, and may well have undervalued, their contributions–all reported on forms that even to the Court’s eyes seemed likely to mislead someone who didn’t read the instructions. But the problems of bad appraisals of property was so great that Congress was quite specific about what the charitably inclined have to do to defend their deductions, and we cannot in a single sympathetic case undermine those rules. IRS wins Mohamed loses.

What does this mean for all of us who want to set up CRUT’s?  First, make sure you get a qualified appraiser to do a contemporaneously performed qualified appraisal of the remainder interest property that you are currently deducting as a charitable donation on Sch A of your Form 1040. Complete Form 8283 and attach the appraisal to the tax return in a PDF file at the time you file your tax return. Second, hire the best tax attorney you can find to give you a written opinion that your CRUT, CRAT, NICRUT or NIMCRUT complies with IRS Code 264 and IRS Revenue bulletin 2005-34 including Revenue Procedure 2005-52, 2005-53 and 2005-54.  Give that legal opinion to your children to hold on to as there is a good chance the IRS is out there patiently waiting for your passing. Finally, introduce your children to your tax attorney so they know what to expect after your pass. There is a good chance your Estate be subject to an IRS CRUT audit after your passing, and at least you can rest in peace knowing that your tax returns will survive with your Estate protected and safe from harm’s way.

Thanks for joining us on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Make sure to join us next time on TaxView when we will take closer look at where Domestic Asset Protection Trusts DAPTs and Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts SLATs are trending in 2015.

Kindest regards,

Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

by Chris Moss CPA

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Did you know if you are working and living abroad you can exclude from taxation your foreign income under IRS Section 911(a)? You just have to pass one of two tests: The Bona Fide Residence Test or the Physical Presence Test.  If youqualify under one of these two tests then you are good….that is, until the IRS comes to see you and commences aForeign Income Exclusion Audit. So if you are abroad, or plan to be, and are going to be earning income there, stay tuned to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney to see what tax traps the Government has waiting for you when the IRSForeign Income Exclusion Audit team comes knocking on your door.  Before you leave town learn how to create the facts and evidence you need to fight back an IRS Foreign Income Exclusion Audit….and win….on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney.

Americans earning income abroad have since 1926 been allowed to exclude from taxable income under 911(a) but only if they were a “bona fide non-resident” of the United States for at least a year.  To qualify as a “bona fide non-resident” though you also need to establish a residence in the foreign country which is not always the same as your permanent home or domicile and for IRS purposes you must make a valid and timely election under Regulations 1.911-7(a)(2).  This is easier said than done as Ms. McDonald found out in a just released decision from US Tax Court this week in Nancy McDonald vs IRS US Tax Court August 25, 2015 which illustrates how important it is to make a valid and timely election to take advantage of the foreign exclusion.

The facts are relatively complex in that McDonald was living abroad and did not file a tax return in 2009.  The IRS prepared a substitute tax return and then issued a notice of deficiency.  McDonald the filed the 2009 return two years late claiming foreign earned income exclusion.  The IRS audited and disallowed the exclusion claiming McDonald failed to make a valid election under 1.911-7(a)(2). McDonald appealed to US Tax Court in McDonald v IRS US Tax Court (8/25/2015) claiming she made a valid election or in the alternative the election requirements were unreasonable and not specifically authorized by law.

The Court notes the IRS promulgated regulations, even though Congressional law is silent on when and how to make the election.  You can chose from four alternative timing methods to make the election three of which involve Form 2555: 1. Attach From 2555 to your income tax return timely filed 2. Attach Form 2555 with your return filed by amendment. 3. AttachForm 2555 with your the original return filed within one year after the due date and 4. Attach Form 2555 with your return filed after the deadline provided that you owe no federal tax including the exclusion and file Form 2555 before the IRS catches you OR in lieu of Form 2555 print on the top of the tax return “filed pursuant to Section 1.911-7(a)(2)(i)(D).

McDonald argues that if she had simply included on the top of the first page the required statement she would have made a valid election and owe no tax, in effect, that her omission of this statement should be excused because only the regulations, not Congressional law make this a requirement and that the requirements are unreasonable.  Judge Gustafson opines “…it is true that the Code Section 911(d)(9) makes no mention of the timing of the election but rather provides the Secretary shall prescribe such procedures…” The Court therefore concludes that the regulation provides taxpayers with four alternative methods by which they can timely elect the exclusion. The fact that the Secretary could have chosen longer periods within which to permit the election is of no consequence, because the alternative methods with four varying periods are reasonable.  IRS Wins McDonald Loses.

So now that you have made a valid election, as Hermine Dinger found out, you must work for a foreign company or government that has no connection with an American company or business or US Military or US Military Agency.  Hermine Dinger thought she was able to exclude the income earned from ADD, the German authority of the Minister of Internal Affairs that administered payroll for civilian employees of the US Army.   The IRS audited and disallowed her exclusion.   Dinger appealed to US Tax Court in Dinger v IRS US Tax Court (8/ 6/ 2015) claiming she was paid by a German Government office.  The Court easily found for the Government finding that Dinger worked for the United States even though the ultimate source of her income was foreign.

Our final case illustrates how difficult it is to qualify living abroad under Section 911(a), as Joe Evans found out in Evans v IRS US Tax Court (1/20/2015).  Evans worked in Russia in the oil industry and filed tax returns from 2007-2010 prepared by Bradley Borden, a tax professional, claiming that his tax home was Russia.  The IRS audited all 4 years disallowing the foreign earned income exclusion claiming Evans was not a bona fide Russian resident. Evans appealed to US Tax Court in Evans v IRS US Tax Court (1/20/2015)

The Court notes that Section 911(d)(3) carves an exception out in that if a person has a home or an “abode” within the United States during his foreign residency Evans cannot establish that his tax home is in a foreign country, citing Jones v Commissioner 927 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1991).   Evans had invariably some connections with the foreign country in which he works, but if his ties to the United States are stronger, we have held that his “abode” remains in the United States citingHarrington v Commissioner 93. T.C. 297 (1989).  Unfortunately for Evans, he still was registered to vote in his home state of Louisiana, possess a Louisiana Driver’s license and had a Louisiana bank account.

Judge Lauber easily finds for the Government showing that Congress limited the benefits of Section 911(d)(3) to discourage folks from incurring duplicative costs of maintaining distinct US and foreign households citing again Jones v Commissioner 927 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1991).   IRS wins Evans loses.

In conclusion, if you are planning to work abroad and want to take advantage of Section 911(a) Foreign Income Exclusion, first, before you leave the United States make sure you retain the services of a tax attorney to plan out your tax strategy so that you not only legally elect the exclusion, but you have the contemporaneous evidence created to insert into your next tax return before you leave the country so that the Government will have on record your election.  Second, if in the very likely event you get audited by the IRS retain that same tax attorney to defend you so she can apply the law to your unique set of facts and circumstances that she helped create for you years earlier. Finally sit back and relax wherever you are in the world as you win your IRS Foreign Income Exclusion Audit with a bullet proof protected tax return.

Thank you for joining us on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney.

See you next time on TaxView.

Kindest regards

Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

All business owners at one time or another have had to make a choice between classifying a new worker as an employee or an independent contractor.  For most part in the 20th century these choices were easy to make. But in the 21st century a unique worker has begun to emerge that is somewhere between an employee and an independent contractor, the “Gig Worker” or what some may call the Gigs. While Judge Edward Chen O’Conner v Uber 3:13-cv-03826 ruled against the existence of Gigs, the California Uber case is far from over. Whatever the ultimate outcome in Uber, in my view Gigs are here to stay. What or who are the Gigs and how will they be evaluated during an IRS audit of your business? Stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney to see where Gig law is trending in the 21st century and what you need to do now to protect yourself from an IRS Gig Worker Audit.

So what is Gig and who are the Gigs?  It all started with Uber.  Not only are there now Gig Uber Drivers but Uber like Medicine Gigs called “healers”.  In the last few years we are being invaded and inundated by Gigs.  Unfortunately US tax law has not caught up with the rapid rise of Gigs, who in my view are simply independent contractors being directed by cell phone apps by you all out there to fulfill an immediate need, either providing a service, product or both.

Just so you know, Gig was coined in the early 20th century as slang for a paying musical engagement.  The Urban dictionary now defines Gig as a job that could now apply to contract work in the IT and computer field or any temporary or incidental employment.  However, the Gig has traveled or “Ubered” way beyond even Urban Dictionary’s definition.

In order to best define a Gig and understand the tax law of Gigs or lack thereof, let’s take a look at the 20th century worker.  These folks, our parents and grandparents all worked in a 9-5 job as their primary source of income.  Taxes were withheld and their work was reviewed by the “boss” at a company office.  Independents back in those days were according to the current IRS web site the tradesmen and professionals who earned income from many customers, clients, and patients, such as Doctors, Lawyers, and other self-employed contractors.

In my view Gigs are legally somewhere in the middle between Employees and Independent Contractors.  Gigs come to life when you all click on an Uber app and electronically signal or page a Gig driver to come to your location and drive you from Point A to Point B.  The Gig driver is star rated by the public and develops a “branding” based on those ratings.  Over a few months, each Gig develops a unique brand or “good will” based on their star ratings from folks around the world who have used their services. The legal status of Gig drivers, could be compared to the legal status of Gig Nurses, Gig Landscapers, Gig Fitness Trainers, Gig Pilots, and Gig Dog sitters to name a few.  The fact that Uber supplies the App to us to find us the Gig driver, or HEAL supplies the App to find us the Nurse healer, is not the point.  The point is Uber, HEAL, and all the other service Apps simply put the buyer and seller of the service together electronically, kind of like EBay does. The world wide customer base of the individual Gig “controls” how successful the Gig will be, just like EBay sellers are controlled by their star world wide ratings.

Would anyone claim sellers on EBay are employees of EBay?   The similar question was presented to Judge Chen inO’Conner v Uber 3:13-cv-03826, where the the the Court is grappling with whether Gig drivers found via the Uber app are employees. Unfortunately, because Congress and the Courts have been caught off guard by the rise of the Gigs, the Government during an IRS Gig Worker Audit may be unable to find that middle ground in existing tax law to allow you the business owner to have a no change audit.  So listen up on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney as you learn how whether or not you win comes down to one simple word: “control”.

The key issues in existing law is “control” over the worker, as in Jones v IRS US Tax Court 2014.   Facts are simple enough.  Jones an attorney hired Tarri’s Business Service (TBS) as an independent contractor owned by his wife Mrs. Jones.  They filed separate tax returns. The IRS audited and claimed TBS was really a disguised employee of Jones and should be classified as an employee.  Judge Goeke easily finds Jones for because Jones did not control the details of TBS work schedule, thereby making TBS an independent contractor.  In other words, Jones did not “control” TBS.  Jones wins, IRS loses.

The facts are just as simple in Central Motorplex v IRS US Tax Court (2014). Central Motorplex (CM) engaged in buying, repairing and selling used autos. Mr. Smith was contracted to pick up and deliver license plates and title certificate as an independent contactor.  The IRS audited and claimed Smith was an employee.  Judge Lauber easily found for the Government because CM assigned Smith tasks, supervised his performance and set his compensation.  In other words, CM was in “control” of Smith. IRS wins, CM Loses.

So what does this all mean for all of us out there who might be paying for Gig services?  While Judge Edward Chen opines in his Order of March 11, 2015 “…it is conceivable that the legislature would enact rules particular to the new so-called “sharing economy..,” the IRS, Congress and the Courts, have yet to recognize the legal significance of the 21st century Gig worker.  So first, for now, our best practice perhaps is to have your tax attorney create standard “Gig Contracts” showing you have absolutely no control over the Gigs.  The easiest way to do this is to allow your Gig to receive public ratings so the public  controls the Gig not your business.  Second, include the Gig Contract in a PDF file attached to your business tax return so that if you are audited years later you will have a document in the tax return supporting your Gig strategy. Finally have your tax attorney standing by with the contemporaneously created documentation, so that when the IRS Gig Worker Audit comes your way you can be confident you will win and save taxes.

Thanks for joining us on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

See you next time on TaxView

Kindest regards

Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney

Most of you know the IRS has a 3 years from the date you file your tax return to commence and complete an audit of your tax return and assess you additional tax owed to the Government.   What you might not be aware of is that the Government due to budget cuts now routinely asks you to extend the three year “statute of limitations” to give the IRS more time to complete the audit.  If the IRS asks you to sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Statute, what should you do?   If you do sign Form 872 you keep the period to assess the tax longer than required by the 3 year statute of limitations.  But if you don’t sign Form 872 the IRS in most cases immediately assesses you a tax and issues you  a 90 day Notice of Deficiency propelling the case into US Tax Court and into the hands of a high priced tax attorney. So if you are not sure what you would do, stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney to find out just how to handle a Government request to extend the statue of limitations in a way that best protects your family and saves you taxes.

IRS Code 6501 prohibits the IRS from “assessing a tax” on your income after your tax return has been filed for 3 years.  This three year statute of limitations enacted in 1918 has worked well for almost 100 years.  But recently agents have told me that due to Federal budget cuts reducing staff the IRS has insufficient time to complete your audit in an expeditious manner within the 3 year period.  So taxpayers are now routinely asked to consent to extend the 3 year statute on Form 872.   Further complications arise as a result of agents trying to comply with a very complex set of internal rules as per this IRS audit manual yet at the same time trying as best they can to finish up a taxpayer audit prior to the expiration of the 3 year window.

In order to best ascertain whether or not to extend the 3 year statute of limitations best practice is to review with your tax attorney how your audit is going.   If you have deductions that cannot be easily and timely documented, but nevertheless know you can at some point provide the necessary documentation the Government has asked for, and you believe the IRS agent is going to need more time to complete your audit examination, you would perhaps want to extend the statute to give the agent time to finish up and give you a no change audit.  On the other hand, if you have given the agent sufficient documentation to support your deductions and the audit is taking a long time to complete through no fault of your own, then you would not extend the statute as long as your tax attorney who prepared and filed your tax return could cost effectively litigate the case in US Tax Court.

Furthermore, for those of you being audited who might have underreported income, there should begin a series of confidential attorney-client privileged discussions with your tax attorney on whether or not you should agree to sign a statute extender on Form 872.  That is because as Williamson’s Estate found out in Williams v IRS US Tax Court (1996) there are exceptions to the 3 year statute, and of particular relevance to Judge Korner is Code Section 6501 (e) which extends the statute 3 more years to 6 years if there is an undisclosed 25% understatement of gross income on your tax return.  Citing Colony v Commissioner 357 US 28 (1958)  the Supreme Court said “Congress manifested no broader purpose than to give the Commissioner an additional 2 (now 3) years in cases where because of a taxpayer’s omission to report some taxable income, the IRS is at a special disadvantage.”  In Williams, the tax return did in fact disclose the understatement so Williams wins IRS loses.

But for other taxpayers who by accident or intention, there is a 25% understatement of gross income that has not yet been discovered by the ongoing IRS audit, best practice in this case might suggest for you not to sign Form 872 and allow the case go to US Tax Court as quickly as possible in the hope to have the audit end sooner than later.  This could have been the case in Connell v IRS US Tax Court (2004).

The facts in the Connell case are very simple.  Thomas and Sara Anne Connell had four small trusts which they used to underreport income on their personal return. This scheme was discovered by the IRS Criminal investigation division.  While a recommendation to prosecute was made by Criminal division, for reasons not known to the US Tax Court no criminal action was ever undertaken.  The IRS then issued Notices of Deficiency which were issued more than 3 but less than 6 years after the returns were filed.  Connell appealed to US Tax Court in Connell v IRS US Tax Court (2004) claiming they failed to report additional income, but they adequately disclosed this by filing the bogus trusts. 

Judge Gale easily brushes aside the Connell argument and rules for the Government citing Reuter v IRS US Tax Court (1985)  requiring that the actual tax returns themselves have to disclose the understatement not some other return or document.  In Reuter there was undisclosed S Corporation distributions.  In Connell it was the trusts.  In both cases the actual 1040 personal tax returns did not disclose the omitted income.  As Reuter points out “the legislative history of the 1954 changes made to section 6501(e)(1)(A) does not suggest looking beyond the face of the return to determine disclosure of an omitted item of income.  So in Connell as in Reuter, IRS wins, Connell loses.

Further complicating understatement of income issues are the growing popularity of larger partnerships as underscored in a recent 2014 report from the US Government Accountability Office to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security.  The report claims the IRS finds it very difficult to audit all these entities within the 3 year statute even if fully staffed with no budget cuts.  What happens if you should file your personal tax return with a K1 that as a result of an audit at the partnership level puts you at risk of a substantial understatement?  If you get audited personally should you agree to sign Form 872 even though you know you might have substantially overstated your basis on various sales from complex partnerships you have an ownership interest in causing you to have a substantial 25% understatement of income?

In fact, this very question was addressed by a divided US Supreme Court in,  US v Home Concrete and Supply LLC, US Supreme Court  566 US_____(2012) affirming 634 F 3d 249.   The facts in Concrete were simple, but existing Federal law as applied to these facts was anything but simple. Here are the facts:  Partnership tax shelters generated losses to Home Concrete.  The losses were a result of an overstated basis which in turn caused a substantial understatement of income.  The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether a basis overstatement on sold property can trigger the 6 year statute under 6501(e) and US Treasury regulation 301.6501(e )(1)(A).  The majority opinion given by Justice Breyer ruled that based on the facts in this case, Congress did not intend to make basis overstatement the same as substantial understatement of “gross”  income subject to the 6 year statute of limitations, thereby in effect overruling the US Treasury regulation.  The reason given by Justice Breyer: “taken literally, “omit” limits the statute’s scope to situations in which specific receipts or accruals of income are left out of the computation of gross income; to inflate the basis, however, is not to “omit” a specific item, not even of profit.”

But Justice Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan strongly dissented arguing that “there is a serious difficulty to insisting, as the Court does today, that an ambiguous provision must continue to be read the same way even after it has been reenacted with additional language suggesting Congress would permit a different interpretation. Agencies with the responsibility and expertise necessary to administer ongoing regulatory schemes should have the latitude and discretion to implement their interpretation of provisions reenacted in a new statutory framework.”   

So what can you do if the IRS asks you to sign Form 872?  Perhaps  you could do the same thing Home Concrete and their tax attorney did when they saw a gray area of the law:  You just might decide not to sign Form 872 and have your tax attorney take the case to US Tax Court and perhaps as did Home Concrete achieve ultimate victory in the US Supreme Court.  So first and foremost if you are asked by the Government to sign Form 872 retain the services of a tax attorney, hopefully the same tax attorney who prepared, filed and handled the audit of  your tax return in the first place, before you make a decision whether to sign Form 872 or not.  Second, make sure you always contemporaneously prepare the documents and records needed to support your tax return in the unlikely event of an IRS audit, and include summary documents in the tax return you file to create the facts and records you need to win an audit.  With a good set of records supporting your tax positions you will hopefully finish up the audit with no adjustments.  Finally, if the audit takes too much time, whether due to Government budget cuts, or for lack of records, make sure you have your tax attorney standing by to help you answer the soon to be asked question by your IRS agent:  Would you please sign Form 872 to extend the statute of limitations on your audit?  If the IRS asks you to sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Statute, what would you do?  Whether you win or lose may depend on how you answer this question.

Thanks for joining us on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney.

See you next time on TaxView

Kindest regards

Chris Moss CPA Tax Attorney