In article <gmfhnh$crv$2[at]snarked.org> ,
D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Politics. Congress could refuse to confirm him for any (or no)
reason.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Seth" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gmd2c2$kjf$4[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

Then why did he make any payments?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gmbgq6$72u$1[at]snarked.org> ,
D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

The later years were assessed in time. The earlier years weren't.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BA7BA6EA4E41spamtraplexregiacom[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

True. I assumed that, else he wouldn't have had to pay a cent, yet he has
been making payments.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

- quote -

As long as it's assessed within three years.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

honda.lion...[at]gmail.com wrote:
Re a certain high-profile someone failing to pay SE taxes and whether
he faced an IRS penalty beyond interest:
- quote -

Statement by Daniel Shaviro, a professor of taxation at New York
University School of Law, as quoted in the 2/2/09 NY Times:
"Internal Revenue Code section 6662 requires taxpayers to pay a 20
percent penalty for any underpayment of tax that reflects negligence
or disregard of rules or regulations. The I.R.S. waived penalties for
Mr. Geithner, and there’s no indication that Mr. Daschle will be
penalized."

I am not trying to imply anything here. For all I know the IRS rarely
imposes penalties unless it is extraordinarily crystal clear there was
negligence or disregard of rules or regs. Rather, this post is to get
facts out.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Seth" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gm5u45$h8r$3[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

Why is that a payment beyond the SoL? The limitation period on collections
is 10 years.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <ed07e251-65c8-4036-b3c6-1673a2bd4be2[at]z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
<lotax[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Why is motive relevant? I'm sure people who donate millions of
dollars to a college to get a building named after them are doing it
for ego rather than "charity and generosity", and I'm sure those
donations are deductible.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

Finally, someone asked the burning question! Well done, Seth. And my
answer is...
Mechanically, Section 170 allows the deduction for this "charitable
contribution" to the United States.
But wouldn't there be a problem with the taxpayer's *motive*? I mean,
this "gift" wasn't motivated by charity and generosity, it was
motivated by ambition and puppydog-like eagerness to serve...

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <b1da4080-9d76-4c78-ac14-f3367e2b28ca[at]35g2000pry.googlegroups.com> ,
<honda.lioness[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Is that considered a deductible donation to the US Treasury?

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <np5sn49qt26afbg6jo761uualn0g956ndl[at]4ax.com> ,
Gary <ghorne2000[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

The SS part, yes. The Medicare part, no.

- quote -

You just need to have the salaried jobs add up to the SS limit.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<russg...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

I vented a bit in my first (rejected) submission. I can see how doing
so might come off as political. Fact is I voted for Mr. Obama, and
support his moves in general, but like lots of folks I am surprised
that in this instance he and about 2/3rds of the Senate would
overlook... you know the rest. So I am really curious if people with
tax expertise see something I do not **on this particular point re SE
taxes**.

- quote -

In 2006 after an IRS audit, he paid $17k of SE taxes plus interest for
tax years 2003 and 2004. In late 2008, he paid $26k of SE taxes plus
interest for tax years 2001 and 2002. He legally was not obliged to
pay the taxes and interest for 2001 and 2002 but did for the reasons
you give above. This is from a "just the facts" type report linked at
the Senate Finance Committee web site.

I do not want to go on a political tear here. To promote fairness, I
do think taxpayers like the OP should have all the facts on the SE
tax. You owe it, you should pay it. You think you do not owe it, then
do not pay it, but know the consequences, including shortchanging your
personal Social Security and Medicare accounts.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<afn0255...[at]afn.org> wrote:
- quote -

I think this is quite possible but it is hard to say. I should have
noted that the quotation comes from a report from the U.S. Senate
Finance Committee. The Committee said it wanted to provide
transparency via providing copies of documents related to the
individual's tax situation. All that is said that may be relevant to
the FTP penalty is that (1) the individual was contacted in May of
2006 about owing SE taxes for 2003 and 2004; and (2) sometime in 2006
the individual paid the SE taxes plus interest for these two years.

At a minimum what I think we can conclude is that the SE taxes owed
for 2003 and 2004 were detected and then these taxes plus interest
were paid in less than eight months. Maybe the penalty was waived or,
as you say, maybe all monies owed were in fact paid within 21 days.

Back to what initiated this discussion. It seems if one makes a
mathematical or clerical error (IRS wording); failing to pay SE taxes
that with interest total less than $100k; is caught by an IRS audit;
and pays the taxes and interest due within 21 days (as you kindly
noted twice); then s/he will not be subject to any penalty.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 27, 12:24*pm, honda.lion...[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

Everyone knows who we are talking about. (I'm not sure why naming
names, or even roles is verboten here, even in the absence of any
editorialization -- but with a moderated newsgroup, you're stuck with
the gestalt.)

In any event, I was under the impression that $34k under discussion
was for unpaid SE taxes that The Nameless One decided not to pay
because they were for a period outside the time limit within which the
IRS could request them. He then decided to pay that money only after
it became clear that a legislative body would be going over his tax
records in minute detail.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

I believe the "waived penalties" quote was used in its
generic form by an uninformed writer. In the case of a
subsequent audit or amended return assessment, no penalty is
imposed if the previously unreported tax is paid within 21
days of notice and demand, so there would be no penalty to
waive. If the underpayment is determined to be fraudulent,
fraud penalty may apply.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

paultry <afn0255...[at]afn.org> wrote:
- quote -

tax:
much snipping for brevity; please look back
- quote -

Correction: The news reports I mentioned earlier say "The IRS waived
penalties... " So it sounds like your citations apply. To me the
question then becomes: Under what circumstances does the IRS waive
penalties for failure to pay SE tax? What is the IRS looking for to
exculpate someone from paying other than interest? And lastly, can one
present to the IRS a seemingly egregious instance of one taxpayer
initially not paying SE tax, and yet not being assessed IRS penalties,
and ask to be treated in the same way?

(I am avoiding naming anyone here--I have been cautioned by the
moderator to keep specific names out of this so as to avoid off-topic
political noise. Still, ISTM to be a curious tax case that arose
recently. The only consensus online seems to be that bloggers and
other commentators are scratching their heads about how this person
has been excused. Is it customary for the IRS to view failure to pay
SE taxes as really not a big deal? Maybe because it is the taxpayer's
loss insofar as future SS and Medicare are concerned?)

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

Failure to Pay Tax Penalty does not accrue on tax not shown
on the return until that tax is subsequently assessed by
adjustment, audit, amended return, etc.

See: IRM 20.1.2.4 and IRM 20.1.2.5

Failure to Pay Tax — IRC section 6651(a)(2) is imposed if
the tax shown on any return is not paid by the due date of
that return (excluding extensions.)

Failure to Pay Tax — IRC section 6651(a)(3) is imposed on
any tax required to be reported on a return that was not
reported on the return. The FTP penalty under IRC 6651(a)(3)
relates to amounts subsequently assessed (usually TCs 290
and 300), unlike the FTP penalty under IRC section
6651(a)(2) that relates to unpaid amounts showing due on the
return as originally filed. For subsequent tax assessments
after December 31, 1996, the FTP penalty under IRC section
6651(a)(3) begins 21 calendar days (or 10 business days if
the total balance due equals or exceeds $100,000) after
assessment (23C date.)

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Paul Thomas, CPA" wrote:

- quote -

If the original return was filed late, late filing penalty is assessed on
any deficiency. Late payment penalty doesn't apply to deficiency
assessments unless you don't pay within x days after it's assessed. (Used
to be 10--haven't looked in years.) Unless the deficiency is enough to get
you into the accuracy-related penalties, there's no penalty that applies.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<ghorne2...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

One way they are avoided is to arrange to have some of your
income in capital gains, dividends, and interest. Unfortunately
you cannot recharacterize income at will, and must treat
it according to circumstances, so for the average person
this doesn't help. Still, a worker avoids the 2.9% Medicare
tax on the gains on their stock grant, even if they've
maxed out on SE tax otherwise.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 27, 10:00 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Well I sure would appreciate a citation. I have several news reports
from last week on an individual who was caught not paying the SE tax.
The SE taxes that were eventually paid and the interest are reported
to the dollar in these reports. The interest is on the order of 4-5%.
The amount of SE taxes owed (before interest) was over $30k. The
articles say that the IRS charged no other fees (penalty or
otherwise).

The interest of course will vary over the years, since federal
interest rates change.

Not to discourage people from paying SE taxes. These taxes go into
one's personal Social Security and Medicare accounts, after all (with
some limits, depending). AFAIC, Social Security and Medicare are not-
so-bad supplemental retirement plans.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >