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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT