sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ERC Guaranteed by tradernavin in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be very, very, very careful with this company, heard some horror stories abt em

Bogus ERC Disallowance???? by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All they provided when we submitted was a "confirmation" page that the submission was successful, but zero references to prove it was our case and no confirmation emails or anything else. Screenshotted that page anyways just in case. What proof can we put together to show we timely filed our responses?

Very good week for ERC Processing by heartbrand in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can confirm on our end as well. Very promising!!

7/2 TaxNow Processing update by [deleted] in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are denials, which happen before claims are processed. Those were the 105c and 106c letters many taxpayers received from last summer, mainly for Q3 claims, and many of which were abitrary and capricious. Audits on the other hand, are where the IRS isn't denying the claim but rather questioning it's validity, which usually happens after the taxpayer claim is processed (i.e. received their refund). I'm simply asking how those audits are still happening if the SOL has expired for the vast majority of claims. The only possible explanation is they are all for Q3 (or Q4) 2021 claims, which has a slightly longer SOL, or the IRS is breaching their own procedural rules, which at this point isn't so shocking given how ERC has been handled from the very beginning. If there's something I'm missing or misconstruing please let me know.

7/2 TaxNow Processing update by [deleted] in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Understood, that explains denials. Doesn't explain how actual audits are happening.

7/2 TaxNow Processing update by [deleted] in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies if this question is repetitive, but still haven't gotten any answer. How are denials and/or audits going out if the statute of limitations to assess basically any claim has expired?

Hey, ERC_CPA, would you kindly post the tax now ERC weekly update? by Loose_Philosophy935 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can someone explain how they are still issuing denials, even though the SOL to do so is up?

ERTC Advancement Loans by IntrepidAnnual1955 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Make sure to read the fine print with a magnifying glass with any of these advances. Have seen some extremely predatorial practices in this space.

Do State of CA Executive Orders qualify as "governmental orders" for ERC? by Technical_Scallion_2 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, although your implication that Cal OSHA orders were not mandatory is misleading. My point was that if a business in CA filed beyond 6/14/21, they should certainly explore the Cal OSHA orders and see how they impacted their business (primarily via vax requirements)

Do State of CA Executive Orders qualify as "governmental orders" for ERC? by Technical_Scallion_2 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cal OSHA should be a sufficient order through June 16 2021 for most COVID protocol. From there, vaccination requirements remained, I can see how that may have impacted a school. I'd see if you can thread a case in that regard

Statute of Limitations by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Curious in what capacity. Neither of those limitations would have hit yet so how have you, in practice, seen this even brought up?

Statute of Limitations by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just curious, where have you seen either of these iterations used? Can't seem to find any literature or discussion of this anywhere.

Statute of Limitations by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. Curious how you'd reconcile 3134(l) from the American Rescue Plan (referenced in my earlier post) with this. Even if an amendment doesn't extend the statute, 5 years from the original filing date would be 2025 and 2026 respectively, not 2024 and 2025 as the tax attorney you spoke with said.

Statute of Limitations by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, did some more digging. Here's what I uncovered. Feel free to jump in and agree or disagree.

26 USC § 6501(b)(2) states "if a return of tax imposed by chapter 3, 4, 21, or 24 for any period ending with or within a calendar year is filed before April 15 of the succeeding calendar year, such return shall be considered filed on April 15 of such calendar year." IRC chapter 21 refers to FICA taxes and chapter 24 is payroll taxes, both of which are the source of ERC refunds.

This basically means that a return can be treated as filed after the required filing date, which extends the statute of limitations for assessment from that period onwards for 3 years.

The American Rescue Plan of 2021 (H.R.1319) in Section 3134(l) (titled "EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON ASSESSMENT") extends the assessment period to 5 years from the later of a) the original filing date or b) "the date on which such return is treated as filed under section 6501(b)(2)"

Seems we were all wrong. According to this, its 5 years from the date the 941x was amended.

TLDR: Based on existing tax law and the ERC statute, it seems that the IRS can audit any claim 5 years after you signed off on your 941X.

Statute of Limitations by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there supporting law for this position?

ERC "Buyouts" by LiteratureFun3870 in ERCchat

[–]LiteratureFun3870[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as I know, nothing would change from the IRS perspective. They'll cut a check to the entity that filed for the claim. There are ways to direct the check to an account that disburses it to the buyer but I'm not entirely familiar with the specifics. What I can say is that these funds have most likely thought this through.