1099 Revenue Ruling

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MarkCTX
    Member
    • Mar 2012
    • 67

    #1

    1099 Revenue Ruling

    Wasn't there a recent revenue ruling that said if you do not issue 1099's when you are required to do so and you are audited, the expense deduction is denied? Anyone have that cite? Thanks for any help.

    Mark
  • BOB W
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2005
    • 4061

    #2
    I've been through such an audit and the auditor just required that the 1099s get issued. The first auditor wanted to disallow but then the second auditor said get the 1099s issued. This was 2 years after the tax return was filed.

    Bottom line, seems they could disallow, or at least threaten.
    This post is for discussion purposes only and should be verified with other sources before actual use.

    Many times I post additional info on the post, Click on "message board" for updated content.

    Comment

    • JohnH
      Senior Member
      • Apr 2007
      • 5339

      #3
      No, there is no such cite or ruling to be found. It is a rumor that some accountants like to bandy about, it think it's because they get too wrapped up in trying to do IRS's job for them.

      Bob W gave you an insight into first-hand experience and how it is supposed to be done if the tax preparer is interested in helping their client.
      "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

      Comment

      • MDEA
        Senior Member
        • Jun 2013
        • 189

        #4
        1099 Revenue

        Just had an audit did not do the return was not allowed deduction for expenses for 1099 's not issued. The problem was he did not have names or SS numbers.

        Comment

        • ATSMAN
          Senior Member
          • Jul 2013
          • 2415

          #5
          Was the payment in cash?

          No names, no ss#. How did he pay cash? Did he get a receipt?
          Taxes after all are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. - FDR

          Comment

          • JohnH
            Senior Member
            • Apr 2007
            • 5339

            #6
            I can understand no SocSec numbers. But no names? This was not a 21099 issue - he lost the deduction on the basis of no recordkeeping. He could just as easily been denied a deduction for materials purchases under these circumstances, and for good reason.
            "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

            Comment

            • MDEA
              Senior Member
              • Jun 2013
              • 189

              #7
              1099

              Paid cash kept no records. Original audit started by 1099K being greater than reported income.

              Comment

              • ATSMAN
                Senior Member
                • Jul 2013
                • 2415

                #8
                Originally posted by MDEA
                Paid cash kept no records. Original audit started by 1099K being greater than reported income.
                Hate to say it but it serves him right!

                The tax preparer who prepared that return and filed it may be guilty of malpractice!
                Taxes after all are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. - FDR

                Comment

                • MDEA
                  Senior Member
                  • Jun 2013
                  • 189

                  #9
                  1099

                  The preparer died this is one of three clients I have picked up.The other two were W=2's so they are fine,

                  Comment

                  • ttbtaxes
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2011
                    • 580

                    #10
                    Originally posted by ATSMAN
                    Hate to say it but it serves him right!

                    The tax preparer who prepared that return and filed it may be guilty of malpractice!
                    It's a tough one. Who among us looks at every transaction in a client's business to determine such as status? You can't. You use your trained eye to narrow down the odds of catching it but we can never be fully confident there isn't an item such as this unearthed.

                    Comment

                    • DaveO
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2005
                      • 1453

                      #11
                      It has been my experience that the auditor will threaten to deny the deduction if 1099 forms were not issued but if you can provide clear proof the payments were made they will relent. As other posters have noted, this guy lost because he paid in cash without good records. There is one compelling reason to issue 1099 forms. In the event of an employee classification audit you have no safe harbor if you have not properly issued 1099 forms. I had one of these where they determined he had misclassified nearly all his “subs”. We avoided all the late payment penalties on the taxes assessed because all the 1099 forms were properly issued. The audit covered two years and was complete two years after the last audit year. Re-classed payments were over $200,000 so the penalties would have been huge. Instead he paid the tax and went on.
                      In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
                      Alexis de Tocqueville

                      Comment

                      • Uncle Sam
                        Senior Member
                        • Jul 2006
                        • 1461

                        #12
                        1099 Issue

                        I have an S corp client who issues 1099s to outside contractors, some of them come from a temp agency (made to a business corp - no 1099 required).
                        However, client started making checks payable directly to the temp person for transportation reimbursement, not for compensation service fee.
                        I warned client about this - but she persisted in writing checks to individual payee - and I advised her that if she's going to do that, pay the temp
                        agency more money, and let the temp agency work out the reimbursement issue.
                        Came 1099 issuance this month, I put in "nondeductible business expense' the amount in excess of $ 600 paid to this person - as the person is
                        no longer working there and client never received her Soc Sec number or address.
                        I won't take chances on this issue - either client complies or no deduction - I don't want to give IRS another issue to pick up on audit.
                        I realize I shouldn't have even deducted the $ 600 amount.
                        Uncle Sam, CPA, EA. ARA, NTPI Fellow

                        Comment

                        • taxea
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2005
                          • 4292

                          #13
                          Seems to me I recall a penalty per 1099 when not issued
                          Believe nothing you have not personally researched and verified.

                          Comment

                          • Burke
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2008
                            • 7068

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Uncle Sam
                            I have an S corp client who issues 1099s to outside contractors, some of them come from a temp agency (made to a business corp - no 1099 required).
                            However, client started making checks payable directly to the temp person for transportation reimbursement, not for compensation service fee.
                            I warned client about this - but she persisted in writing checks to individual payee - and I advised her that if she's going to do that, pay the temp
                            agency more money, and let the temp agency work out the reimbursement issue.
                            Came 1099 issuance this month, I put in "nondeductible business expense' the amount in excess of $ 600 paid to this person - as the person is
                            no longer working there and client never received her Soc Sec number or address.
                            I won't take chances on this issue - either client complies or no deduction - I don't want to give IRS another issue to pick up on audit.
                            I realize I shouldn't have even deducted the $ 600 amount.
                            Yes, you are correct. The IRS will disallow the $600 if they pick it up in an audit. Practices like these by some companies, and their failure to stop it after I advised them, are the reason I dumped two of my S-Corp clients.

                            Comment

                            Working...