Kissing Frogs and Debt Relief

Thanks for sharing!

Frog Prince

Writing “paid in full” on the bottom of a check won’t relieve you of debts any more than kissing frogs will un-jinx a royal suitor. The first fairy tale stems in part from section 3-31 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a standard set of laws that governs US financial contracts.

Tax protesters routinely attempt to get the IRS to accept a smaller payment with this trick. What’s overlooked is the fine print—including the fact that there has to be a dispute, and both parties have to agree.

In the case of Kalil (T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-29), the taxpayer submitted a check for $552 for payment in full of tax obligations of more than $26,000. The IRS cashed the check—but that didn’t end the matter.

The court cited a case from 1929 (Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282), which states “the statutes which authorize conclusive agreements and settlements to be made in particular ways and with the approval of designated officers raise the inference that adjustments or settlements made in other ways are not binding.”

In the Internal Revenue Code, sections 7121 and 7122 prescribe the exclusive means for effecting a settlement or compromise binding on both the taxpayer and the IRS commissioner—and neither of them mention a check notated “paid in full.”

If you’re wondering, those sections don’t mention kissing frogs either.

Taxing Lesson: If it sounds too good to be true, it’s probably not part of tax law.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Canine silence Image source: wpclipart.com   In the Arthur Conan Doyle short story, Silver Blaze, fictional detective Sherlock Holmes solved the case by inferring intent from silence—the significance of a dog who didn't bark. In a tax court case this week (149 T.C. No. 2, Gregory), internal revenue ...
Decisions — Eat, drink, deduct Image source: Theodoor Rombouts , via Wikimedia Commons  Even if you don't eat like a hockey player, you may be interested in the tax court's take on the rules limiting deductions for meals. Under current tax law, meal and entertainment expenses are not deductible unless the expenses are...
Decisions — Worth the whistle Image source: Zephyris, via Wikimedia Commons   A taxpayer thinks his information is worth the whistle. The IRS says the information is not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in the taxpayer's face…or something along those Shakespearean lines. Who's right? In general, tax law pr...
Decisions — Foreseeing anticipation Image source: https://wpclipart.com/   According to Dr. Seuss, sometimes the questions are complicated, and the answers are simple. The good doc probably wasn't referring to tax law, but that doesn't stop tax practitioners from anticipating a simple answer before researching the question...
Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: ,