Case — Roth IRA Excess Contributions

Thanks for sharing!

TL Case Summ

THE QUESTION

Can the IRS assess penalties for excess contributions to a Roth IRA without making a corresponding adjustment to the taxpayer’s income tax?

THE DISPUTE

Taxpayer Says: It’s inconsistent for the IRS to treat the excess contributions differently for income tax purposes and excise tax purposes. The excise tax penalties should not be assessed.

Internal Revenue Service Says: The excess contributions fail the substance-over-form argument for both income tax and excise tax. Only the statute of limitations prohibits the assessment and collection of income tax deficiencies. There is no inconsistent treatment and the excise tax penalties should be allowed.

THE LAW

From Internal Revenue Code Section 4973: Imposes a six percent excise tax on excess contributions to IRAs. The tax applies each year until the excess contributions are eliminated from the taxpayer’s IRA.

From Hellweg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-58, 2011: The court rejected the IRS position that the transactions at issue were “valid for income tax purposes, [and] lack[] substance for excise tax purposes only.” The court concluded the taxpayers were not liable for excise tax under section 4973(a) because (1) that section compels consistent treatment of transactions for income tax and excise tax purposes, and (2) “the IRS position that * * * [the transactions at issue in Hellweg are] substantive for income tax purposes undermines his attempted use of the substance-over-form doctrine to recharacterize the transaction[s] for excise tax purposes.”

From Ohsman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-98, 2011: The court rejected the IRS position that the transactions at issue should be recharacterized for excise tax purposes only. The court concluded the taxpayers were not liable for excise tax under section 4973(a) because the IRS “neglected to challenge the substance of the * * * [transactions at issue in Ohsman] for income tax purposes.”

THE CAUSE OF THE DISPUTE

When you contribute more money to a Roth IRA than is allowed under the Internal Revenue Code, you’ll have to pay a 6% penalty on the excess until you remove it. In addition, you’re required to file Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans, for each year the excess contributions remain in your account.

The excise tax cannot be determined without taking your income tax into consideration. Since the two are entwined, a transaction must be treated consistently for both excise tax and income tax purposes.

In this case, the taxpayer used what’s now considered a “listed tax avoidance practice” to get around the limitations on Roth contributions. The transactions in question took place from 1998-2001, prior to the issuance of an IRS notice (Notice 2004-08) that challenged them on a substance-over-form basis.

The IRS did not become aware of the excess contributions until 2007, when conducting an audit of the taxpayer’s 2005 tax return. Because the statute of limitations had run on the years the excess contributions took place (and no fraud was asserted), the IRS did not make any income tax adjustments to those years.

However, because the taxpayer had not filed Forms 5329 as required to report the excess contributions and the excise taxes due, the statute of limitations did not apply for those returns. The IRS issued a notice assessing excise taxes, failure to file penalties, and failure to pay penalties for the years the excess contributions remained in the account (2002 through 2007).

The taxpayer says the excise taxes should not be assessed because the IRS made no income tax changes. The taxpayer argues that in two previous cases (see The Law section above), the tax court determined the IRS must treat transactions consistently for both income tax and excise tax.

The IRS says the treatment is consistent because both income tax and excise tax adjustments would have been made if the years in question had not been closed to income tax adjustments due to the statute of limitations.

WHAT WOULD YOU DECIDE?

Make your selection, then hover your mouse
over the link beneath “The Court’s Decision”

For the or for the

THE COURT’S DECISION

For a full explanation, hover your mouse over the link

View the full case in the window below, or download a complete copy of the PDF by clicking the “Download” link

Note: Taxing Lessons provides a summarized version of sometimes lengthy court decisions. The full case may include facts and issues not presented here. Please use the link provided to read the entire case.

Download (PDF, 70KB)

***

HL Carpenter, an experienced investor and a CPA, specializes in reader friendly articles on taxes and investing for individuals and small businesses, and publishes two newsletters: Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink. Visit TaxingLessons.com and HLCarpenter.com.

This information should not be considered legal, investment or tax advice. Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink Corp. do not provide legal, investment or tax advice. Always consult your legal, investment and/or tax advisor regarding your personal situation.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Taxing choices Image source: Free Picture © Semen Barkovskiy Dreamstime Stock Photos   How many options can you consider before you find yourself longing for simplicity? Whatever your answer, part of the desire for less complexity comes from not wanting to make the wrong choice. That's especially true ...
Decisions — Where’s your refund? Image source: By U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Where's your refund? Possibly helping to reduce the federal budget deficit, if you failed to file a return to get an overpayment back within the applicable time period. That's because the gov...
Case — Fun and games Image source: openclipart.org (public domain image) THE QUESTION Does an organization that offers a recreational activity to achieve a charitable purpose qualify as a charitable organization? THE DISPUTE Taxpayer Says: It operates for charitable purposes because it provides relief for the p...
Case — Carry On THE QUESTION Can an IRA deduction that is disallowed due to active participant status in an employer plan be carried forward and deducted in a future year? THE DISPUTE Taxpayer Says: The 2008 IRA contribution was an “excess contribution” and should be allowable as a deduction in 2010. Intern...
Sorry, wrong answer :(
Right answer!
For the IRS. In contrast to the two prior cases, the IRS does not take inconsistent positions for income tax purposes and excise tax purposes with respect to the taxpayer’s transactions. For both purposes, the IRS believes that under the substance-over-form doctrine those transactions should be recharacterized. However, for income tax purposes the applicable respective periods of limitations for taxable years 1998 through 2001 during which the transactions had taken place had expired by the time the IRS learned of those transactions. The IRS did not seek to undertake the useless action of determining any income tax deficiencies for taxable years 1998 through 2001 resulting from the transactions that the IRS was prohibited by law from assessing and collecting. We conclude we should not reject the respective excise tax deficiencies under section 4973(a) that the IRS determined in the notices resulting from the transactions on the ground that the IRS did not determine respective income tax deficiencies of the taxpayers resulting from those transactions.
Posted in Taxing Lessons Case Summaries Tagged with: