ILNews

IBA: The Corporate Veil Wears Thin with the IRS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
By Adam D. Christensen, Dutton Legal Group LLC
 

christensen-adam-mug.jpg Christensen

The legal metaphor “corporate veil” is doubly a tantalizing legal term of art and an effective marketing tool to illustrate to potential clients the benefits of corporate formation.

But attorneys and their clients should not rely on this emblematic security blanket because the country’s most notorious creditor, the Internal Revenue Service, can slice it to shreds with devastating ease.

Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the IRS to assess the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (“TFRP”) against any responsible owner, officer, or other party responsible for collecting, accounting, or paying taxes held in trust by a business. The most common corporate trust fund taxes are employment taxes – withholdings and employee shares of Medicare and FICA – excise taxes, and sales taxes.

The amount of the TFRP is equal to the total trust taxes the business collected but willfully failed to turn over to the IRS. Depending on how far behind the business was on its trust fund taxes, the assessment can easily reach six figures or more.

As is the case with most IRS penalty assessments, “willfulness” is broadly defined to include truly nefarious actions (absconding to Tahiti with the taxes) and comparatively innocuous ones (using the taxes to pay other business liabilities such as wages themselves).

To review, the concept behind the “corporate veil” is that owners and officers of an incorporated entity (Inc., LLC, LLP, etc.) can shield themselves from personal liability for even the business’s willful actions, including contract defaults, most torts, and failure to pay debts, including taxes. When a lawsuit is filed against the business that includes its owners/officers as individual defendants, the daunting burden to “pierce the corporate veil” lies with the plaintiff. This burden is so great that, realistically, only plaintiffs with means or evidence of owner/officer malfeasance will be able to keep the individual defendants from being dismissed.

However, the IRS does not have to overcome this burden to assess the TFRP. This could mean massive personal liability assessments against owners, officers, and even accountants and corporate counsel, who exert control over the taxes held in trust by the business. Here is where the “corporate veil” unravels quickly.

When a business fail to pay its trust fund tax liabilities, an IRS Revenue Officer can be assigned to investigate in as little as 60 days. Once contacted by the Revenue Officer, the business will have a brief opportunity to pay its debts in full, usually 30 days. If it cannot, the Officer will move forward with TFRP assessment.

First, interviews are held between the Revenue Officer and any person involved in the operations of the business. Typically, this includes all business owners and officers. However, the IRS will also seek to assess the TFRP against in-house accountants and attorneys who exhibit “significant control” over the business’s finances. Indeed, in sole proprietorships and closely-held business, the IRS may demand to interview owner/officer spouses, even if the spouse is not affiliated with the business.

Though counsel may represent any individual at the TFRP interview, the IRS will insist on a face-to-face or telephone interview with the alleged responsible party. If the individual fails to agree to this arrangement, the IRS will use its summons authority to compel the individual’s participation.

If the Revenue Officer finds sufficient evidence to assess the TFRP against one or more individuals, the IRS will issue Letter 1153, giving the parties 90 days to petition the United States Tax Court to appeal the assessment. If no appeal is filed, the TFRP is assessed on day 91.

To be clear, no new liability is assessed by the TFRP. Rather, a portion of the business’s liability is shifted to the responsible individuals. However, to the blindsided business owner, this is small comfort given the federal tax liens that may be filed and the potential for IRS levy and garnishment actions. Even if the business closes, the TFRP remains. What’s more, the TFRP, unlike some personal income tax debts, is not dischargeable in a bankruptcy.

Despite the veil’s assumed protections, the only cure for the TFRP is to negotiate a payment plan with the IRS collections department to pay the underlying debt as well as the penalty, a painful process without a catchy metaphor.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT