Understanding Tax Liens, Penalties and Interest For Back Tax Debt Owed to the IRS and/or State Taxing Authorities | Where the Rubber Meets the Road

"Why was a tax lien filed?" or "Can you abate the penalties?" are the two most common concerns I hear from potential clients.  While others (sales people) have no problem telling you that they will remove the tax lien and get rid of the penalties I will attempt to explain to you where the rubber meets the road.

If you owe the IRS more than $25,000 there is going to be a tax lien filed, period.  You can appeal the initial notice of federal tax lien but that doesn't prevent it from being filed.  It can be withdrawn if you are successful in appeals.   If you owe more than the threshold amount of $25K good luck with that.    

The IRS takes the position if you did the crime you must do the time.  That time is in the form of both the filing of a tax lien as well as penalties and interest.  While abating penalties is much more likely than releasing a tax lien if you owe more than $25,000, it certainly is not a given.   You must demonstrate reasonable cause existed in order to convince our good friends at the IRS to abate any penalties.  I talk about this in previous posts.

Everyone thinks they are special and entitled to a hook-up but the truth is excuses are like assholes, everyone has one.   You have to have something that happened to you outside of your control.  If there were medical reasons which strapped you financially and therefore were unable to make your estimated tax deposits that is one example.  If you decided it was more important for you to go build a house instead of pay the IRS then no, don't expect the IRS to agree to abate your penalties.

If you want honest help then call me, if you want to be greedy go to a large company like Tax Masters.  I like to help people like myself, honest and to the point. 


What I have Learned From My Clients Regarding the Scam Known As Tax Masters

They seen the flashy TV commercials of Patrick Cox's side profile telling taxpayers with back tax debt "We Solve Tax Problems".  They had been hoping that the claims of tax help were true. They took a leap of faith and decided to hire Tax Masters so long that they could feel help was there and they could start to sleep better at nights.  They would soon be awakened when their bank accounts were levied and no one from Tax Masters were calling them back.  Then they did their homework and found sites like mine.  They contacted me and found out the truth how there are many scams in the tax debt representation industry, with Tax Masters being the biggest of them all.

How companies can continue to operate like this is beyond imperceptibly.  Here is a synopsis of one man's experience of using Tax Masters.

Paying Tax Masters $4000 to prepare and negotiate an Offer in Compromise.  After several months went by and not Offer was submitted the taxpayer gets hit with a IRS bank levy.  After frantically contacting Tax Masters he finally receives a call back by one of their tax attorneys who says he will have the levy released and does.   The taxpayer is now told that he is in a currently not collectible status and does not need to worry about paying the IRS back.

"What about the Offer in Compromise I paid $4000 for?" asks the taxpayer.  Their attorney responds that she has no experience with preparing or working offers as she is in the "Levy Release Department" (which is ridiculous that an attorney in this industry does not know how to prepare an Offer in Compromise but that's another story) and they would need more money now that his fees have been used up working on the levy release.  Talk about adding injury to insult!

After conducing research the taxpayer contacts me and we agree to do business where I will file and negotiate an Offer in Compromise on his behalf.

Upon contacting the IRS I come to find that the taxpayer is not in a currently non collectible status but rather a modest installment agreement of $150 per month.   I mention this to my client and he tells me that Tax Masters told him that he does not have to make these payments and if he defaults the case will automatically go into currently not collectible status.  This is not accurate and proof that a law degree doesn't equal competence in dealing with IRS collection matters and why you are much better off going with an Enrolled Agent like myself or Jay Freeborne.

If my client was to default the payment plan (installment agreement) he would then be open to enforced collection action by the IRS such as bank levies, wage garnishments, etc.

This also complicates the Offer in Compromise we are working on as under the new law it states that a taxpayer on a payment plan must continue to stay current on that plan or the Offer will be rejected.  This is worth mentioning because the Offer process is not a quick, often times taking anywhere from 6-12 months.

Many people like the idea of hiring a big company with the belief that is safer than going with a one man show such as myself but the results sharply contrast such a belief.   I may not tell you what you want to hear but I will always tell you what you need to hear (and I lose many potential clients for it but it all balances out in the long-term as evidenced by the success of my company). 

If you are serious about hiring someone to represent you before the IRS please contact me directly at 720.340.4065 or email at


More Payroll Tax Debt for Businesses | Payroll Tax Law Changes Affecting Businesses Due To Health Reform Legislation


For owners of small businesses and their workers, there are some key provisions in which to pay attention. The major ones include: tax credits; excise taxes; and penalties. But whether a business will be affected by them depends on a variety of factors, such as the number of its employees and the amount of their wages.

I.     Tax credits to certain small employers that provide insurance. The new law provides small employers with a tax credit (i.e., a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax) for "nonelective contributions" (an employer contribution other than an employer contribution under a salary reduction arrangement) to purchase health insurance for their employees. The credit can offset an employer's regular tax or its alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability.

Small business employers eligible for the credit. To qualify, a business must offer health insurance to its employees as part of their compensation and contribute at least half the total premium cost. The business must have no more than 25 full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”), and the employees must have annual full-time equivalent wages that average no more than $50,000. The credit is reduced for employers with more than 10 FTEs but not more than 25 FTEs and the credit is also reduced for an employer to whom the average wages per employee is between $25,000 and $50,000.  Consequently, the full amount of the credit is available only to an employer with 10 or fewer FTEs and whose employees have average annual full-time equivalent wages from the employer of less than $25,000.
Years the credit is available. The credit is initially available for any tax year beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. Qualifying health insurance for claiming the credit for this first phase of the credit is health insurance coverage purchased from an insurance company licensed under state law. For tax years beginning after 2013, the credit is only available to an eligible small employer that purchases health insurance coverage for its employees through a state Exchange and is only available for two years. The maximum two-year coverage period does not take into account any tax years beginning before 2014. Thus, an eligible small employer could potentially qualify for this credit for six tax years, four years under the first phase and two years under the second phase.
Calculating the amount of the credit. For tax years beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, the credit is generally 35% (50% for tax years beginning after 2013) of the employer's non-elective contributions toward the employees' health insurance premiums. As mentioned previously, the credit phases out as firm-size and average wages increase. Tax-exempt small businesses meeting these requirements are eligible for payroll tax credits of up to 25% for tax years beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013 (35% in tax years beginning after 2013) of the employer's "nonelective" contributions toward the employees' health insurance premiums.
Special rules. The employer is entitled to an ordinary and necessary business expense deduction equal to the amount of the employer contribution minus the dollar amount of the credit. For example, if an eligible small employer pays 100% of the cost of its employees' health insurance coverage and the amount of the tax credit is 50% of that cost (i.e., in tax years beginning after 2013), the employer can claim a deduction for the other 50% of the premium cost.
Self-employed individuals, including partners and sole proprietors, two percent shareholders of an S corporation, and five percent owners of the employer are not treated as employees for purposes of this credit. Any employee with respect to a self-employed individual is not an employee of the employer for purposes of this credit if the employee is not performing services in the trade or business of the employer. Thus, the credit is not available for a household employee of a sole proprietor of a business. There is also a special rule to prevent sole proprietorships from receiving the credit for the owner and their family members. Thus, no credit is available for any contribution to the purchase of health insurance for these individuals and the individual is not taken into account in determining the number of full-time equivalent employees or average full-time equivalent wages.

II.    Excise tax on high-cost (Cadillac) health plans.  The new law places an excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage (often referred to as “Cadillac” health plans). This is a 40% excise tax on insurance companies, based on premiums that exceed certain amounts. The tax is not on employers themselves unless they are self-funded (this typically occurs at larger firms). However, it is expected that employers and workers will ultimately bear this tax in the form of higher premiums passed on by insurers.
The new tax, which applies for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, places a 40% nondeductible excise tax on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan to the extent that the annual premium exceeds $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. An additional threshold amount of $1,650 for single coverage and $3,450 for family coverage will apply for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions. The tax will apply to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, but not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). Stand-alone dental and vision plans will be disregarded in applying the tax. The dollar amount thresholds will be automatically increased if the inflation rate for group medical premiums between 2010 and 2018 is higher than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates in 2010. Employers with age and gender demographics that result in higher premiums could value the coverage provided to employees using the rates that would apply using a national risk pool. The excise tax will be levied at the insurer level. Employers will be required to aggregate the coverage subject to the limit and issue information returns for insurers indicating the amount subject to the excise tax.

III.   Penalties for failure to provide coverage for employees.  Under the new law, effective for months beginning after December 31, 2013, a large employer that does not offer coverage for all its full-time employees, offers minimum essential coverage that is unaffordable, or offers minimum essential coverage that consists of a plan under which the plan's share of the total allowed cost of benefits is less than 60%, is required to pay a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having purchased health insurance through a state Exchange with respect to which a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to the employee.
Who is subject to the employer mandate? Only an “applicable large employer,” defined as someone who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year, is subject to the requirement to offer coverage. Most small businesses, since they have fewer than 50 employees, are thus exempt from the employer requirement. In counting the number of employees for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, a full-time employee (meaning, for any month, an employee working an average of at least 30 hours or more each week) is counted as one employee and all other employees are counted on a pro-rated basis. However, even an employer with 50 or more employees isn't subject to the penalty for not offering coverage if the employer doesn't have any full-time employees who have a lower income that might qualify him or her to receive a subsidy when purchasing a health plan in the proposed state Exchange.
Penalty for employers not offering coverage. An applicable large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan for any month is subject to a penalty if at least one of its full-time employees is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a state Exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to the employee. The penalty for any month is an excise tax equal to the number of full-time employees over a 30-employee threshold during the applicable month (regardless of how many employees are receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000. For example, if an employer fails to offer minimum essential coverage and has 60 full-time employees, ten of whom receive a tax credit for the year for enrolling in a state exchange-offered plan, the employer will owe $2,000 for each employee over the 30-employee threshold, for a total penalty of $60,000 ($2,000 multiplied by 30 (60 minus 30)). This penalty is assessed on a monthly basis.

Penalty for employers that offer coverage but have at least one employee receiving a premium tax credit. An applicable large employer who offers coverage but has at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is subject to a penalty. The penalty is an excise tax that is imposed for each employee who receives a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction for health insurance purchased through a state Exchange. For each full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy through a state Exchange for any month, the employer is required to pay an amount equal to one-twelfth of $3,000. The penalty for each employer for any month is capped at an amount equal to the number of full-time employees during the month (regardless of how many employees are receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) in excess of 30, multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000. For example, if an employer offers health coverage and has 60 full-time employees, 15 of whom receive a tax credit for the year for enrolling in a state Exchange-offered plan, the employer will owe a penalty of $3,000 for each employee receiving a tax credit, for a total penalty of $45,000. The maximum penalty for this employer is capped at the amount of the penalty that it would have been assessed for a failure to provide coverage, or $60,000 ($2,000 multiplied by 30 (60 minus 30)). Since the calculated penalty of $45,000 is less than the maximum amount, the employer pays the $45,000 calculated penalty. This penalty is assessed on a monthly basis.  However, the penalty won't be imposed for any month with respect to any employee to whom the employer provides a free choice voucher as explained below.

Requirement to offer “free choice vouchers.” After 2013, employers offering minimum essential coverage through an eligible employer-sponsored plan and paying a portion of that coverage will have to provide qualified employees with a voucher whose value could be applied to purchase of a health plan through the state Exchange. Qualified employees would be those employees: who do not participate in the employer's health plan; whose required contribution for employer sponsored minimum essential coverage exceeds 8%, but does not exceed 9.8% of household income; and whose total household income does not exceed 400% of the poverty line for the family. The value of the voucher would be equal to the dollar value of the employer contribution to the employer offered health plan. Employers providing free choice vouchers will not be subject to penalties for employees that receive a voucher.

IV.   Simple cafeteria plans for small businesses. For tax years beginning after 2010, a new employee benefit cafeteria plan known as a Simple Cafeteria Plan will be available to any employer that employed an average of 100 or fewer employees on business days during either of the two preceding years. Under such a plan, an eligible small employer is provided with a safe harbor from the nondiscrimination requirements for cafeteria plans as well as from the nondiscrimination requirements for specified qualified benefits offered under a cafeteria plan, including group term life insurance, benefits under a self insured medical expense reimbursement plan, and benefits under a dependent care assistance program.

V.   Excise tax on medical device manufacturers. For sales after December 31, 2012, the sale of a taxable medical device by the manufacturer, producer, or importer will be subject to a tax equal to 2.3% of the price for which it is sold.  For purposes of this tax, a taxable medical device is generally any device intended for humans, except for eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids and any other medical device determined by IRS to be of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use. If the excise tax is paid on specified or listed uses or resales of articles it will be deemed to be an overpayment of tax for which a credit or refund may be claimed.

VI.  Tax credit for new therapies.  For expenses paid or incurred after December 31, 2008, in tax years beginning after that date, a two-year temporary qualifying therapeutic discovery project (QTDP) credit applies, subject to an overall cap of $1 billion, to encourage investments in new therapies to prevent, diagnose, and treat acute and chronic diseases (''qualifying therapeutic discovery project").  Generally, the QTDP credit is an amount equal to 50% of the aggregate amount of the costs paid or incurred in the tax year for expenses necessary for and directly related to the conduct of a "qualifying therapeutic discovery project." The QTDP credit as a component of the investment credit and, thus, of the general business credit, is subject to the rules that, generally, do not allow the general business credit against the alternative minimum tax, and limit the general business credit's allowance against the regular income tax.

VII.  Codification of economic substance doctrine.  The economic substance doctrine is a judicial doctrine that has been used by the courts to deny tax benefits when the transaction generating these tax benefits lacks economic substance. The courts have not applied the economic substance doctrine uniformly. For transactions entered into after March 30, 2010, and to underpayments, understatements, and refunds and credits attributable to transactions entered into after March 30, 2010, the manner in which the economic substance doctrine should be applied by the courts is clarified and a penalty is imposed on understatements attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance.