IRS disallows deductions for fines, penalties

 

The IRS recently released Chief Counsel Advice (CCA202439015), concluding that a taxpayer’s deductions for payments made to a government agency and for certain customer debt forgiveness pursuant to a court order were disallowed fines or penalties under Section 162(f). The determination hinged on whether the payments could qualify for the exception under Section 162(f)(2)(A) for restitution payments or payments to come into compliance with the law.

 

Section 162(f)(1) generally provides that no deduction shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred to, or at the direction of, a government or governmental entity in relation to the violation of any law. An exception to the general disallowance rule is provided in Section 162(f)(2)(A) for amounts constituting restitution or paid to come into compliance with the law.

 

Under this exception, the general disallowance rule does not apply to amounts that meet both the following requirements:

  • The taxpayer establishes the amounts were paid or incurred as restitution or to come into compliance with a law (establishment requirement)
  • The amounts are identified in a court order or settlement agreement as restitution, remediation, or amounts paid to come into compliance a law (identification requirement).

The IRS issued final regulations under Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.162-21 in January 2021, implementing Section 162(f) and providing additional guidance regarding the identification and establishment requirements. However, the IRS stated that the final regulations do not apply to taxpayer’s payments and debt forgiveness because the court order became binding prior to the effective date of the final regulations.

 

The memorandum is very light on facts, but states that pursuant to a court order, the taxpayer in the CCA made payments to a government agency and the taxpayer’s wholly owned S Corporation forgave debt issued to customers presumably with respect to the taxpayer’s violation of governmental agency laws. In accordance with the terms of the court order, all amounts paid to the government agency were to be deposited into a fund administered by the government agency for equitable relief including consumer redress. Any amounts that were not used for equitable relief were to be deposited with U.S. Treasury as disgorgement. The facts do not provide any details regarding the debt forgiveness to customers.

 

The IRS concluded that the taxpayer’s payments and debt forgiveness did not meet the identification requirement because the court order did not specifically state that such payments and debt forgiveness constituted restitution, or an amount paid to come into compliance with any law. Further, the IRS asserted that the taxpayer failed to meet the establishment requirement because the taxpayer did not provide any documentation with respect to how the government agency used the amounts, nor with respect to how the debt forgiveness provided restitution to the victims harmed. Citing the Tax Court decision in Ziroli v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2022-75) the IRS reasoned that amounts paid to the government for its discretionary use do not constitute restitution and disgorged amounts deposited to a general account of the government do not constitute restitution. 

Grant Thornton Insight:

 

Although the final regulations do not apply to this taxpayer, the preamble to the final regulations in Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.162-21 states that “an order or agreement will also meet the identification requirement, despite not using the words ‘restitution,’ ‘remediation,’ ‘remediate,’ ‘come into compliance.’ or ‘comply,’ if the nature and purpose of the payment, as described in the order or agreement, are clearly and unambiguously to restore the injured party.” The memorandum does not provide analysis of why the debt forgiveness to the customers is not considered to restore the customers, and thus, unable to meet the identification requirement. Additionally, it is important to note that the taxpayer apparently failed the establishment requirement, not because the payments were not actually used for restitution, but because the taxpayer did not provide documentation to prove it. Taxpayers should be aware of this development and the importance that an order or agreement specifically identify a payment as a restitution, remediation, or an amount paid to come into compliance with the law to satisfy the identification requirement, and must provide documentation that establishes how the payments (or debt forgiveness) are restitution.

 
 

Contacts:

 
 
 
Content disclaimer

This content provides information and comments on current issues and developments from Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter covered. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. All relevant facts and circumstances, including the pertinent authoritative literature, need to be considered to arrive at conclusions that comply with matters addressed in this content.

For additional information on topics covered in this content, contact a Grant Thornton professional.

Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. Grant Thornton LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.

 

 

Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton Advisors LLC’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton Advisors LLC assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.

 

More tax hot topics