The Taxpayer Times

"Clear tax guidance for everyday taxpayers"

recent posts

about

Tax questions rarely arise in isolation. They tend to surface unexpectedly, in the middle of real-life situations, and the answers are often harder to find than they should be. This blog aims to explain tax topics that are often misunderstood or overlooked. Many areas of tax law feel confusing not because they are inherently complex, but because they are not always explained in a clear, practical way. The purpose of The Taxpayer Times is to break those topics down so readers can understand what applies to them and feel informed rather than overwhelmed by the law.

  • New Form 1099-DA & Digital Asset Reporting for 2025 Tax Returns

    Cryptocurrency reporting has become a recurring topic in recent filing seasons. In an earlier article, Crypto Transactions and Tax Returns, I discussed why digital asset activity often creates uncertainty on tax returns, particularly when taxpayers believe that transactions involving small dollar amounts do not require reporting or assume that no reporting is necessary because no information form was received from a broker.

    As part of the IRS’s ongoing efforts to address digital asset reporting, the Internal Revenue Service has introduced a new information reporting form: Form 1099-DA, Digital Asset Proceeds From Broker Transactions. Beginning with the 2025 tax year, brokers will use this form to report certain digital asset transactions to taxpayers and to the IRS.

    This form is new. It represents a change in how digital asset transactions are reported and tracked within the federal tax system.

    This article explains what Form 1099-DA is, why it was introduced, and how it affects the reporting of digital asset transactions for the 2025 tax year.

    What Is Form 1099-DA?

    Form 1099-DA is an IRS information return used to report gross proceeds from digital asset transactions handled by brokers. It is designed specifically for digital assets and is separate from existing information returns such as Forms 1099-B or 1099-K.

    The form applies to transactions involving digital assets such as cryptocurrency and other blockchain-based property when those transactions are facilitated by a broker. When a reportable transaction occurs, the broker reports the transaction to both the taxpayer and the IRS using Form 1099-DA.

    The purpose of the form is informational. It does not determine whether a transaction is taxable, nor does it calculate gain or loss. Instead, it provides transaction data that supports accurate reporting on the taxpayer’s income tax return.

    When Form 1099-DA Applies

    Form 1099-DA applies to digital asset transactions occurring during the 2025 tax year. Although the transactions occur in 2025, the form will generally be issued to taxpayers in early 2026, during the 2026 filing season.

    Taxpayers may receive one or multiple Forms 1099-DA, depending on the number of brokers or platforms used during the year. Each broker that has reportable transactions is responsible for issuing its own form.

    The introduction of Form 1099-DA does not change the longstanding requirement to report taxable digital asset activity. It changes how that activity is reported to the IRS by third parties.

    What Information Is Reported on Form 1099-DA

    For the 2025 tax year, Form 1099-DA focuses on gross proceeds from digital asset transactions. Gross proceeds generally represent the total amount received in a sale, exchange, or other disposition of a digital asset.

    For this initial reporting year, brokers are not required to report cost basis on Form 1099-DA. As a result, the form alone does not determine whether a transaction resulted in a gain or a loss.

    Taxpayers remain responsible for maintaining records that establish:

    • When the digital asset was acquired
    • How much was paid for it
    • When it was disposed of
    • The amount received upon disposition

    Those details are necessary to complete the taxpayer’s own gain or loss calculations on the tax return.

    How Form 1099-DA Fits Into the Tax Return

    Form 1099-DA is not filed with the tax return. Instead, it serves as supporting information used to complete the return accurately.

    Digital asset dispositions are generally reported on:

    • Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets
    • Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses

    The amounts reported on Form 1099-DA should be reviewed and reconciled with the taxpayer’s own records. Differences can arise due to timing, fees, transfers between wallets, or incomplete cost basis information.

    Receiving a Form 1099-DA does not automatically mean additional tax is owed. It does not mean the IRS has received third-party reporting related to the transaction.

    Why the IRS Introduced Form 1099-DA

    Digital Asset transactions have grown significantly over the past decade, but third-party reporting has not always kept pace. Form 1099-DA was introduced to create a standardized reporting framework similar to what already exists for securities and other financial transactions.

    By using a dedicated form for digital assets, the IRS can more consistently match information reported by brokers with information reported on individual tax returns. This aligns digital asset reporting more closely with existing information reporting systems used throughout the tax code.

    What to Watch Going Forward

    Form 1099-DA is the first step in a broader digital asset reporting framework. While cost basis reporting is not required for the 2025 tax year, future reporting requirements may expand as IRS guidance and regulations continue to develop.

    Taxpayers and practitioners should expect digital asset reporting to remain an evolving area of tax administration, particularly as digital assets become more integrated into financial activity.

    Disclaimer

    This article is for general information purposes only and is based on IRS administration guidance applicable to the 2025 tax year. It is not intended as tax advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional guidance based on individual facts and circumstances.

  • Tip Income and Overtime Deductions Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    For the 2025 tax year, Congress enacted several changes affecting individual income tax reporting. Among them are new deductions related to tip income and overtime compensation, enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    These provisions apply to 2025 income, meaning they affect tax returns filed in 2026. While they have received significant public attention, the statutory rules are narrower than many summaries suggest. Understanding how these deductions actually work is essential before assuming income is excluded from tax.

    This article explains what the law allows, how the IRS is administering it for the 2025 tax year, and where caution is still warranted.

    Tip Income: Still Reportable, Potentially Deductible

    The Act allows a deduction for qualified tip income earned during the tax year. The key point is timing and structure: tips must still be reported as income. The law does not remove tips from gross income. Instead, it permits a deduction that may reduce taxable income after it is reported.

    Only tips that are voluntarily paid by customers qualify. Amounts that function as mandatory service charges or employer-imposed fees do not meet the statutory definition of tips. The deduction is limited to occupations in which tipping is customary and subject to statutory dollar caps and income-based phaseouts.

    This deduction applies only for federal income tax purposes. Tip income remains subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes. Nothing in the Act changes payroll tax obligations or employer withholding requirements.

    Overtime Compensation: The Premium Portion Only

    A separate provision allows a deduction for qualified overtime compensation. This deduction is limited to the overtime premium, the amount paid above the employee’s regular rate of pay.

    For example, when an employee earns time-and-a-half, only the additional portion attributable to overtime qualifies. Regular wages do not.

    As with tips, overtime compensation must still be included in income. The deduction is claimed after income is reported and is subject to statutory limits and income phaseouts. It reduces taxable income for federal income tax purposes only and does not affect payroll taxes.

    IRS Administration for the 2025 Tax Year

    Because the tip income and overtime deduction provisions first apply to 2025 income, wage and income reporting forms were not fully redesigned to separately identify qualified tip income or the overtime premium portion.

    As a result, information returns issued for 2025 income may not clearly distinguish amounts eligible for the new deductions.

    For the 2026 filing season, the IRS has indicated that taxpayers may rely on reasonable and contemporaneous records to substantiate claims, including employer payroll records, pay statements, and other documentation showing how tip income and overtime compensation were calculated.

    Taxpayers should not assume that eligibility is determined solely by how income appears on a Form W-2 or other reporting statement. Careful review and documentation remain important when applying these new provisions to a 2025 return.

    Common Misconceptions

    The most frequent misunderstanding is the belief that tips or overtime are now “tax-free.” That is not what the law provides.

    The Act allows deductions, not exclusions. Reporting obligations remain unchanged. Another misconception is that employers will automatically apply the benefit. These deductions are claimed on the individual tax return, not through payroll adjustments.

    Assumptions based on headlines rather than statutory language increase the risk of incorrect filings.

    Why Careful Filing Matters

    For some taxpayers, these deductions may reduce federal income tax liability for 2025. For others, income limits, documentation issues, or a misunderstanding of what qualifies may limit or eliminate the benefit.

    As with any new tax law, accuracy matters more than speed. Filing based on incomplete information can lead to adjustments, notices, or disputes later.

    Understanding how the law is structured and how the IRS is administering it for the first year allows taxpayers to make informed decisions and avoid preventable problems.

    What to Watch Going Forward

    The tip income and overtime deduction provisions are new, and additional guidance is expected. Treasury regulations, updated IRS forms, and revised employer reporting requirements may clarify how these deductions are claimed in future tax years.

    Taxpayers should expect changes in how tip income and overtime compensation are reported on wage and income statements after 2025. Documentation requirements may also evolve as the IRS transitions from interim guidance to permanent rules.

    For the 2025 tax year, filings are based on existing forms and current IRS instructions. Future years may look different.

    Staying informed as guidance develops will be important, particularly for taxpayers who regularly earn tips or overtime.

    Disclaimer

    This article is for general information purposes only and discusses provisions affecting 2025 federal income tax returns filed during the 2026 filing season, based on statutory language and IRS guidance available as of the date published. It is not intended as tax advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for individualized tax analysis. Tax treatment may vary depending on specific facts, income levels, and future regulatory guidance.

  • Crypto & Tax Returns

    “What taxpayers often misunderstand about reporting cryptocurrency activity”

    Cryptocurrency transactions have become common enough that they now appear in tax conversations every filing season. Some taxpayers trade frequently. Others buy once or twice and forget about it. Many fall somewhere in between. What they often share is uncertainty about how those transactions affect their tax returns.

    That uncertainty is no longer abstract. Every year, the Internal Revenue Service asks taxpayers a direct question on the tax return: At any time during the year, did you receive, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of a digital asset? The term “digital asset” is broad and includes cryptocurrency, among other forms of digital property.

    In practice, the issue is rarely intentional noncompliance. More often, it is confusion. Taxpayers traded crypto during the year but did not receive a tax form in the mail. Nothing arrived that looked familiar or urgent. As a result, many assume there is nothing to report. That assumption is where crypto-related tax problems usually begin.

    Why Crypto Activity Shows Up on Tax Returns

    Cryptocurrency is not treated as currency for U.S. tax purposes. Instead, it is treated as property. This distinction matters because property transactions can create taxable events even when no cash changes hands.

    When crypto is sold, exchanged, or used to purchase goods or services, the transaction may trigger a gain or a loss. The tax return reflects the result of the transaction itself, not whether a taxpayer received a form. The obligation to report is tied to the activity, not the paperwork that follows it.

    This is often unexpected for taxpayers who associate tax reporting only with cash withdrawals or traditional tax documents.

    “I Didn’t Receive Anything” Is a Common Refrain

    One of the most frequent statements heard during tax season is, “I traded crypto, but I didn’t receive anything.” What taxpayers usually mean is that no tax form arrived, or that the platform they used did not provide a complete report.

    Some cryptocurrency platforms issue limited information. Others provide summaries that do not account for transfers between wallets or exchanges. In many cases, no tax form is issued at all. None of this eliminates the reporting requirement. The absence of paperwork does not mean the absence of tax consequences.

    The Real Challenge: Missing or Incomplete Records

    Crypto reporting becomes difficult when transaction records are incomplete or scattered across multiple platforms. Without accurate records, it is impossible to determine cost basis, gains, or losses with confidence. This creates delays, uncertainty, and sometimes the decision to abandon filing altogether.

    In some cases, the challenge is not the absence of records, but their volume. High-frequency crypto trading can generate hundreds, sometimes thousands, of transactions in a single year. When those transactions are tracked across multiple spreadsheets or exported files, preparing a tax return becomes far more complex than many taxpayers expect.

    This complexity often becomes apparent only after the filing process begins. What initially seemed manageable turns into extensive reconciliation work. When the time and effort required to prepare an accurate return become clear, the cost of preparation can come as a surprise. At that point, some taxpayers disengage rather than address the reporting issue directly.

    Why Crypto Activity Is Often Taken Lightly

    Many taxpayers do not view cryptocurrency transactions with the same seriousness as traditional financial activity. Because crypto platforms often do not issue familiar tax forms, the activity can feel informal or incomplete. Without a clear document in hand, it is easy to assume that nothing significant occurred from a tax perspective.

    In addition, crypto transactions frequently involve small amounts spread across many trades, which can make them feel insignificant when viewed individually. When activity is assessed this way, the broader tax impact is easy to underestimate. The result is not deliberate avoidance, but a misunderstanding of how these transactions are treated once they are reflected on a tax return.

    Understanding the Role of the Tax Return

    A tax return is not just a formality. It is a representation of a taxpayer’s financial activity for the year. When crypto transactions are involved, accuracy depends on having complete information before the return is prepared.

    When records are missing, the issue is not limited to compliance. Assumptions or omissions can create exposure that follows taxpayers long after the return is filed, often surfacing through notices, amended filings, or questions raised later.

    Closing Thoughts

    Cryptocurrency is no longer a niche topic in tax preparation. It is part of the broader financial landscape, and it deserves the same level of care as any other property transaction.

    Most crypto-related tax problems do not arise from complexity alone. They arise from assuming, underestimating, or postponing record collection until it is too late. Taking time to understand what belongs on a tax return, and why, can prevent far more difficulty than it creates.

    This article is intended to provide clarity, not instruction. Understanding how crypto activity fits into a tax return is the first step toward avoiding unnecessary confusion when filing season arrives.

    Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as tax advice. Tax situations vary based on individual facts and circumstances. Readers should consult a qualified tax professional regarding their specific situation.

  • DCAA Audit Series Part 4

    Types of DCAA Audits and How They Relate to One Another

    When people search for information about DCAA audits, they often encounter fragmented explanations. One article discusses pre-award audits. Another focuses on incurred cost submissions. A third mentions accounting systems or billing reviews. Read separately, each explanation feels incomplete. Read together, they can feel overwhelming.

    This confusion usually comes from a single assumption. The assumption is that a DCAA audit is one event. In reality, the term DCAA audit refers to a group of reviews, each designed to examine a specific aspect of government contracting at a specific point in time.

    Understanding this structure matters. It replaces anxiety with context. It also explains why different audits exist, why they occur when they do, and why the same contractor may be reviewed multiple times for different reasons.

    Why DCAA Audits Are Structured in Layers

    DCAA oversight is not built around a single question. It is built around a sequence of questions that arise as a government contract moves forward.

    Before a contract is awarded, the question is whether a contractor is capable of tracking costs properly. During performance, the question becomes whether costs are being recorded and billed correctly. After work is completed, the question shifts again to whether the costs claimed were allowable, supported, and calculated accurately.

    Each audit exists to answer one of these questions. No single audit is designed to answer them all.

    This layered approach explains why audits can feel disconnected when viewed individually, but logical when viewed as a whole.

    Pre-Award Audits and the Question of Readiness

    A pre-award audit occurs before certain types of government contracts are awarded. Its purpose is narrow and forward-looking.

    At this stage, the government is not examining past billing or completed work. It is evaluating whether the contractor’s accounting structure is capable of handling government requirements if a contract is awarded.

    The focus is on system design rather than results. Auditors examine how costs would be accumulated, how labor would be tracked, how indirect costs would be grouped, and whether unallowable costs can be identified and excluded.

    This audit exists because once a contract is awarded, the government relies on the contractor’s systems. The pre-award audit is a checkpoint meant to reduce uncertainty before that reliance begins.

    Accounting System Audits and Internal Structure

    An accounting system audit examines whether the contractor’s accounting system meets the standards required for government contracting.

    This type of audit is not primarily concerned with how much was spent. It is concerned with how costs flow through the system. The review focuses on whether direct and indirect costs are clearly distinguished, whether indirect cost pools are logical and consistent, whether labor distribution is tied to reliable timekeeping, and whether costs are treated consistently from period to period.

    Many issues identified in accounting system audits arise because systems were never designed with government oversight in mind. A system that works adequately for tax reporting or internal management may still fall short of government expectations.

    This audit exists to identify gaps before they affect billing or cost recovery.

    Incurred Cost Audits and Looking Backward

    An incurred cost audit reviews costs that have already been incurred and reported for a complete period, usually a fiscal year.

    Unlike earlier audits, this one is retrospective. The system has already been used. Costs have already been recorded. Rates have already been applied. The audit examines whether the results of that process align with applicable rules.

    Auditors review whether the costs claimed are allowable, whether they are supported by documentation, and whether indirect rates are calculated using appropriate bases and methods.

    One of the defining characteristics of incurred cost audits is timing. These reviews often occur long after the period under review has ended. This is why documentation, consistency, and record retention matter so much. The audit does not rely on explanation. It relies on records.

    Billing and Voucher Reviews During Performance

    While work is ongoing, DCAA may review billings submitted to the government. These reviews focus on whether amounts billed align with contract terms, approved rates, and recorded costs.

    Billing audits are usually limited in scope. They do not examine the entire accounting system or all cost categories. Instead, they focus on whether specific charges were calculated correctly and supported by underlying records.

    These audits exist because billing errors affect government payments directly. Even small inconsistencies can disrupt cash flow or lead to additional review.

    Targeted Audits and Focused Reviews

    Not all audits fall into standard categories. In some cases, DCAA conducts targeted reviews focused on a specific area of concern.

    These audits may examine labor charging practices, timekeeping controls, or a particular cost element that requires clarification. They are typically narrow in scope and tied to a defined objective rather than a broad evaluation of the contractor.

    Targeted audits often follow earlier reviews. They exist to resolve open questions, verify corrections, or examine areas where risk remains.

    Multiple Audits Are Not Unusual

    A common misunderstanding is that repeated audits indicate a problem. In government contracting, multiple audits are often part of normal oversight.

    Different audits occur at different stages and address different issues. A contractor may encounter a pre-award audit early on, followed by an accounting system audit, annual incurred cost audits, and occasional billing reviews.

    This progression reflects the structure of oversight rather than suspicion. Each audit stands on its own and serves a specific purpose.

    What Connects All DCAA Audits

    Although DCAA audits differ in timing and focus, they share common themes.

    Consistency matters. Costs must be treated the same way over time. Documentation matters. Records must support what is claimed. Systems matter. Accounting practices must reflect how the business actually operates.

    Most audit findings do not arise suddenly. They develop gradually, often from informal practices that were never examined closely until an audit required them to be.

    Looking Ahead

    Part 5 will examine common audit findings and explain why audits result in problems even when no intentional error exists. The focus will shift from audit types to patterns that appear across reviews.

    Understanding those patterns clarifies how decisions made long before an audit can shape what happens during it.

    Author’s Note

    This article is written for informational and educational purposes. It explains how DCAA audits are structured and why different types of audits exist. It is not intended as legal, accounting, or contracting advice, and it does not address the circumstances of any specific contractor.

  • Bankruptcy and Tax Dischargeability

    A Tax Debt Perspective for Overwhelmed Taxpayers

    A Note on Scope

    This article is written strictly from a tax debt perspective.

    While many people facing financial hardship are also dealing with credit card balances, mortgage delinquencies, car loan defaults, or other consumer debt, those issues are not the focus here.

    The discussion that follows is limited to federal and state tax debts and how those tax obligations may or may not be affected by bankruptcy. This article does not address how bankruptcy impacts non-tax debts.

    Why This Question Is Being Asked So Often Right Now

    Financial stress rarely arrives all at once. It builds.

    For many people, the past few years have brought job loss, reduced income, rising living costs, and mounting debt. Credit cards are maxed out. Car payments are missed. Mortgage payments fall behind. Survival takes priority.

    In those moments, income taxes are often the last concern.

    But tax obligations do not pause simply because life becomes difficult. IRS notices continue to arrive. Penalties and interest grow in the background. Eventually, fear returns, sometimes abruptly, when collection letters escalate or a federal tax lien is filed.

    That is usually when people begin asking a difficult question: If I file for bankruptcy, will my tax debt go away?

    Bankruptcy Is a Legal Tool – Tax Debt Follows Different Rules

    Bankruptcy is a powerful legal process. But when it comes to taxes, it does not operate the way many people expect.

    It is important to understand this distinction early:

    • Bankruptcy law determines when and how debts may be discharged
    • Tax law determines whether a tax debt qualifies for discharge at all

    These two systems overlap, but they do not replace each other.

    This article does not advise which bankruptcy chapter to file. Instead, it explains how tax debts are treated within bankruptcy, and why assumptions about taxes being wiped out often lead to disappointment or irreversible mistakes.

    The Biggest Misconception About Bankruptcy and Taxes

    One of the most common beliefs is that bankruptcy automatically clears tax debt.

    That belief is only partially true and often dangerously incomplete.

    Some income tax debts may be discharged in bankruptcy. Many cannot. The difference is not based on financial hardship, fairness, or how overwhelming the situation feels.

    Dischargeability depends on specific tax facts, including whether tax returns were properly filed, how long ago the tax was assessed, and how much time has passed since the tax became due.

    When these factors are misunderstood or overlooked, taxpayers often file for bankruptcy before their tax debts are even eligible for discharge. Once a bankruptcy case is filed, that timing cannot be reversed.

    Not All Tax Debts Are the Same

    Before dischargeability can even be considered, the type of tax debt matters.

    Tax obligations generally fall into different categories, including:

    • Federal and state income taxes
    • Payroll and trust fund taxes
    • Self-employment taxes
    • Penalties and interest tied to those taxes

    Some of these categories are treated very differently under bankruptcy law. Certain taxes are almost never dischargeable. Others may qualify only under narrow conditions.

    This is why broad statements like “taxes can be wiped out in bankruptcy” are misleading.

    Timing Rules Control Tax Dischargeability

    When income taxes may be dischargeable, timing becomes critical.

    Key factors include:

    • When the tax return was filed
    • Whether the return was filed voluntarily
    • How long ago the tax was assessed
    • How long the tax has been outstanding
    • Whether returns were filed late or not filed at all

    This is where many people unintentionally damage their own options. Delayed filing, unfiled taxes, or rushing into bankruptcy without reviewing tax history can eliminate discharge opportunities that might otherwise have existed.

    These timing requirements are technical, but they are predictable, and they matter more than most taxpayers realize.

    What Bankruptcy Stops and What It Does Not

    Bankruptcy can temporarily stop certain IRS collection actions. That relief is often meaningful, especially for people already under severe stress.

    However, bankruptcy does not automatically remove everything connected to tax debt.

    In particular:

    • Existing federal tax liens may survive bankruptcy
    • A lien can remain attached to property even if the underlying tax debt is later discharged
    • Bankruptcy does not rewrite tax records or erase filing history

    This distinction often surprises taxpayers who expected a complete reset.

    Why Tax Review Should Happen Before Bankruptcy Is Filed

    Bankruptcy should never be treated as a first step when tax debt is involved.

    Once a bankruptcy case is filed, key dates become set in stone. Tax filing history, assessment dates, and the age of the tax debt are locked in. If those factors were not reviewed beforehand, a taxpayer may lose the ability to discharge certain tax debts, even if those debts might have qualified with more time.

    This is especially important for taxpayers who filed returns late, have unfiled taxes, or are dealing with older tax balances. Filing for bankruptcy too early can permanently eliminate options that depend entirely on timing.

    A careful tax review before filing allows taxpayers to understand what bankruptcy can realistically accomplish for their tax debt and what it cannot before making an irreversible decision.

    When Bankruptcy May Help and When It May Not

    There are situations where bankruptcy may provide relief for certain tax debts. There are also situations where bankruptcy does little to resolve tax problems, even though it may address other financial issues.

    Bankruptcy is not a cure-all for tax debt. It is one tool among many, and its effectiveness depends entirely on facts that already exist before the case is filed, including the type of tax owed, filing history, assessment timing, and whether liens are in place.

    In many cases, the problem is not bankruptcy itself, but the assumption that it can override filing history or timing requirements that were never met.

    Preparing for a Smarter Bankruptcy Conversation

    Taxpayers considering bankruptcy should be prepared to ask informed questions about taxes, not just debt totals.

    Understanding whether tax years may be dischargeable, whether returns were properly filed, and whether liens exist can change the entire outcome of a bankruptcy decision.

    Bankruptcy attorneys and tax professionals approach cases differently. When those efforts are coordinated, taxpayers are better protected.

    A Final Word

    Financial collapse is exhausting. Fear increases when notices arrive and answers feel unclear.

    This article is not intended to encourage bankruptcy or discourage it. Its purpose is to explain how tax debt is treated in bankruptcy, so decisions are based on understanding rather than panic.

    Whether a tax debt can be discharged in bankruptcy depends on the filing history, assessment timing, and how long the tax has been outstanding. Bankruptcy is not a moral failure. Decisions made with accurate information are always better than those made under pressure.

    Understanding how tax debt fits into bankruptcy is one step toward regaining control, and for many people, toward sleeping better at night.

    Disclaimer

    The information in this article is provided for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Bankruptcy law and tax treatment depend on individual facts, including filing history, assessment dates, and the type of tax involved. Readers should consult qualified professionals before making legal or financial decisions.

  • How Federal Tax Liens are Removed and What Options Exist

    Introduction

    In the previous article, I discussed what a federal tax lien is, how it gets filed, and why taxpayers often feel caught off guard when they discover one. This article builds on that discussion by focusing on how liens may be addressed and what options exist after a lien has already been filed.

    Once people understand what a federal tax lien means, the natural follow-up is almost always the same: How do I remove it?

    This is where confusion often begins. Taxpayers quickly discover that there is no single process called “lien removal.” Instead, the IRS uses several different legal mechanisms, each designed to address a specific issue related to the lien. Some resolve the tax debt itself. Others address how the lien appears in public records. Some allow property transactions to move forward even though the lien still exists.

    The purpose of this article is to explain those options and, more importantly, what each option is actually designed to do. The goal is understanding, not instruction. Knowing how these options differ helps set realistic expectations and prevents costly misunderstandings.

    After a Lien is Filed, the Focus Shifts

    By the time a federal tax lien becomes a concern, the tax issue behind it is rarely new. The debt has usually existed for some time, often accompanied by unanswered notices, payment difficulties, or the belief that the matter could be addressed later.

    Once the lien is discovered, however, the focus shifts. The question is no longer only about owing taxes. It becomes about visibility, property rights, credit, and in some cases, professional consequences. This is especially true when the lien surfaces during a refinance, a property sale, a background check, or a licensing review.

    Understanding how lien-related remedies work requires separating emotional urgency from legal reality.

    What “Removing” a Federal Tax Lien Really Means

    One of the most common misunderstandings is the idea that all lien relief accomplishes the same thing. In practice, different lien-related actions solve different problems.

    Some options eliminate the government’s claim because the underlying tax debt has been resolved. Others do not eliminate the debt at all but change how the lien affects third parties. Some focus on specific assets rather than the lien as a whole.

    Using the word “remove” without clarification often leads to false expectations. Understanding the distinction between these outcomes is essential before considering any course of action.

    The Main Federal Tax Lien Options at a Glance

    The IRS recognizes several mechanisms related to federal tax liens:

    • Lien release
    • Lien withdrawal
    • Lien subordination
    • Discharge of specific property

    Although they are often mentioned together, they serve very different purposes. None of them should be viewed as interchangeable solutions.

    Lien Release and the Resolution of the Tax Debt

    A lien release occurs when the IRS releases its legal claim against a taxpayer’s property. This typically occurs because the tax liability has been fully paid or otherwise legally resolved.

    A release confirms that the government no longer has a secured interest in the taxpayer’s property. It marks the end of the lien’s legal effect. However, it does not erase the fact that the lien was filed in the first place.

    This distinction matters. A released lien shows closure, not absence. For taxpayers focused on public records or professional scrutiny, this difference can be significant.

    Lien Withdrawal and Public Record Impact

    Lien withdrawal is often misunderstood because it sounds similar to release, but the purpose is different. Withdrawal removes the notice of federal tax lien from the public record as if it were never filed, even though the underlying tax debt may still exist.

    Withdrawal focuses on how the lien appears to third parties rather than whether the tax debt has been eliminated. It is not automatic and is evaluated based on specific criteria. It is also not granted simply because a payment arrangement exists.

    Because withdrawal affects visibility, it is often of interest to taxpayers whose careers, licenses, or business relationships may be affected by public filings.

    Lien Subordination and Priority Issues

    Lien subordination does not remove a federal tax lien. Instead, it changes the order in which creditors are paid with respect to a specific asset.

    This option is most commonly associated with financing or refinancing situations. By allowing another creditor to move ahead of the IRS in priority, a transaction may become possible that otherwise would not.

    Subordination can be helpful in certain circumstances, but it does not eliminate the lien or the tax obligation behind it. Misunderstanding this point often leads to disappointment.

    Discharge of Specific Property

    A discharge removes a specific asset from the reach of a federal tax lien. This allows that particular property to be transferred without the lien attaching to it.

    Discharge does not eliminate the lien as a whole. It applies narrowly and is tied to a specific property. The tax debt and the lien continue to exist with respect to other assets.

    This option often arises in property sales and requires careful evaluation because it affects both the taxpayer’s assets and the government’s secured interest.

    Why the Right Option Depends on Context

    There is no universally correct lien solution. The appropriate approach depends on a broader picture that includes:

    • The nature and age of the tax debt
    • The taxpayer’s financial position
    • The type of property involved
    • Whether the issue is debt resolution or public visibility
    • Long-term personal or business considerations

    Focusing on a single option without considering these factors can lead to outcomes that fail to address the real concern.

    Professional and Career Considerations

    For some taxpayers, the most pressing issue is not property loss but professional exposure. Federal tax liens are public records, and their presence can raise concerns during background checks, licensing reviews, or government contracting processes.

    In these situations, understanding how different lien options affect public visibility becomes critical. What resolves a debt may not address reputational concerns, and what addresses visibility may not resolve the underlying liability.

    Why Lien Relief is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Process

    Even cases that appear similar on the surface can lead to different outcomes. IRS discretion, account history, documentation, and timing all matter.

    This is why broad claims about lien removal are often misleading. Realistic expectations and informed decision-making are essential.

    Closing Perspective

    Federal tax liens are serious, but they are not mysterious once their structure is understood. Different lien-related options exist because different problems require different solutions.

    The key is not simply removing a lien, but understanding what outcome is actually needed and which option is designed to accomplish that goal. Knowledge does not eliminate difficulty, but it does replace fear with clarity.

    For foundational guidance on how federal tax liens function within the collection process, official explanations published by the Internal Revenue Service provide important context.

  • DCAA Audit Series – Part 3

    SF 1408 Explained: What an “Adequate Accounting System” Really Means

    In the earlier articles in this series, I introduced what a DCAA audit is and what the government actually reviews. At this point, many contractors start hearing a specific phrase that feels more intimidating than it needs to be:

    “Do you have an adequate accounting system?”

    That question is commonly tied to SF 1408, a form used by the government to evaluate whether a contractor’s accounting system is capable of handling certain types of federal contracts.

    This article explains what SF 1408 really represents, when it comes into play, and what “adequate” actually looks like for small and growing government contractors.

    What Is SF 1408?

    SF 1408 is a pre-award accounting system evaluation tool. It is often used when the government or a prime contractor acting on the government’s behalf needs assurance that a contractor can properly track and support costs before awarding certain contracts.

    The form itself is not the goal. The system behind it is what matters.

    At its core, SF 1408 asks one question:

    Can this contractor’s accounting system reliably track, classify, and support costs charged to the government?

    This evaluation is commonly associated with the Defense Contract Audit Agency, but the underlying concepts are used broadly across federal contracting when cost visibility matters.

    When SF 1408 Typically Comes Up

    Not every contractor will face an SF 1408 review immediately. It most often appears when:

    • A contract involves cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour pricing
    • The government wants assurance that the billed costs can be supported
    • A prime contractor is vetting a subcontractor’s system
    • A contractor is transitioning from commercial work into government contracts

    For small contractors, this can feel sudden. One day, you are focused on proposals and capability statements. Next, you are asked whether your accounting system is “adequate.”

    Understanding what that means ahead of time removes much of the anxiety.

    What “Adequate” Really Means (In Practical Terms)

    An “adequate” accounting system does not mean:

    • Expensive software
    • A large accounting department
    • Complex processes designed for large defense contractors

    It means the system can do certain fundamental things consistently.

    Below are the core capabilities the government is looking for:

    1. Separating Direct and Indirect Costs

    The system must clearly distinguish:

    • Direct costs: expenses that can be tied to a specific contract or project
    • Indirect costs: general business expenses that support multiple activities

    The issue is not how many cost categories you use. The issue is whether similar costs are treated the same way every time.

    Problems often arise when costs shift between direct and indirect, depending on convenience rather than policy.

    2. Accumulating Costs by Contract or Job

    Your accounting system must be able to answer a simple question:

    How much did this specific contract cost us?

    That means:

    • Costs are tracked by job or contract
    • Labor, materials, and other expenses are assigned correctly
    • Reports can be generated without reconstructing history

    Even small contractors need job-cost visibility once government funds are involved.

    3. Tracking Labor Through Timekeeping

    Labor is often the largest cost component in government contracts.

    An adequate system must show:

    • Hours worked
    • Where those hours were charged
    • That time was recorded consistently and timely

    The concern is not how many hours were worked. The question is whether labor costs can be traced from timesheets to payroll to the accounting records.

    4. Recording Costs Accurately and Timely

    Timing matters.

    Costs should be:

    • Recorded in the correct period
    • Posted regularly, not months later
    • Supported by source documentation

    Delays and after-the-fact corrections create gaps that are difficult to explain during reviews.

    5. Supporting Government Billing Requirements

    Even if you are not billing the government yet, the system must be capable of:

    • Producing reliable cost data
    • Supporting future invoices
    • Withstanding review after costs are incurred

    An accounting system that only works for tax filing purposes often needs adjustments before it can support government billing.

    What SF 1408 Is Not

    Understanding what SF 1408 is not helps contractors avoid unnecessary stress.

    It is not:

    • A judgment of business success
    • A test of profitability
    • A requirement to mirror large defense contractor systems

    It is simply a structured way for the government to confirm that costs can be trusted.

    Where Small Contractors Commonly Struggle

    Most SF 1408-related issues arise from habits formed before government work begins.

    Common challenges include:

    • Mixing personal and business transactions
    • Inconsistent cost classification
    • Informal timekeeping practices
    • Systems designed only for tax compliance
    • Documentation that exists but is not organized

    None of these issues implies bad intent. They usually reflect growth outpacing structure.

    Preparing Early Makes Everything Easier

    Contractors who prepare early often find that SF 1408 reviews are far less disruptive than expected.

    Early preparation allows you to:

    • Address gaps calmly
    • Build systems intentionally
    • Avoid last-minute fixes under proposal pressure

    Most importantly, it shifts readiness from a reactive scramble to a controlled process.

    Looking Ahead in the Series

    SF 1408 touches multiple areas, but each deserves its own discussion. In the upcoming articles, we’ll take a closer look at:

    • Timekeeping systems and common pitfalls
    • Direct vs. indirect cost treatment in practice
    • Internal controls that make sense for small businesses
    • How systems break down as contractors grow

    Each topic will build forward, no backtracking, no repetition, so that contractors can develop understanding step by step.

    Key takeaway:

    SF 1408 is not about perfection. It is about whether your accounting system can consistently support the story your numbers are telling. When the structure is there, everything else becomes easier to manage.

  • Why Filing an S Corporation Tax Return Does Not Automatically Make Your Business an S Corporation

    Many business owners are surprised to learn that filing an S corporation tax return does not automatically mean their business is an S corporation.

    This confusion is far more common than people realize. I see it regularly when new clients come to me, believing their business is an S corporation simply because their prior tax preparer filed Form 1120-S. Most business owners rely on their tax preparer to handle the technical details, and the distinction between filing a return and having the proper tax status is rarely explained.

    As a result, S corporation status is often assumed rather than confirmed.

    To understand why this confusion is so common, it helps to look at why S corporation status is often recommended.

    The Practical Reason S Corporation Status is Often Recommended

    In practice, S corporation status is usually recommended because it can offer tax advantages compared to operating as a sole proprietorship and reporting business income on Schedule C as part of an individual Form 1040.

    When a business is taxed as a sole proprietorship, all net income is generally subject to self-employment tax. As profits grow, that tax burden can become significant. By contrast, S corporation status allows business income to be split between reasonable wages paid to the owner and remaining profits, which pass through without being subject to self-employment tax.

    This potential reduction in self-employment taxes is often the primary reason tax accountants raise the idea of S corporation status in the first place. For most business owners, this potential tax savings, not the underlying mechanics or required elections, is the starting point of the discussion.

    Legal Entity and Tax Classification Are Not the Same Thing

    One of the biggest sources of confusion is the assumption that a business’s legal entity automatically determines how it is taxed. It does not.

    A legal entity, such as an LLC or a corporation, is created under state law. Tax classification, on the other hand, is determined by the IRS and depends on elections that may or may not have been made. This is why simply knowing that a business is a single-member LLC does not answer how it should be taxed.

    Problems often arise when someone begins filing Form 1120-S without first making a valid S corporation election with the IRS.

    What Happens When You Apply for an EIN

    When a business applies for an Employer Identification Number (EIN), the IRS assigns a tax classification based solely on the information provided on the application. There is no analysis, no advice, and no discussion of what might be best for the business.

    If the applicant indicates that there is only one owner, the IRS generally treats the business as a single-member entity, which means the income is reported on Schedule C as part of the owner’s individual tax return. If the application indicates more than one owner, the IRS generally treats the business as a partnership and expects a partnership tax return.

    Many business owners do not realize that this classification decision is made at the EIN stage, and they are often unaware that the IRS is now expecting a specific type of tax return unless a separate election is later made.

    Why Some LLCs Are Treated as Partnerships

    Many business owners are surprised and often frustrated to learn that the IRS treats their LLC as a partnership. The confusion usually comes from the belief that “LLC” is a tax category. It is not.

    When an LLC has more than one owner and no tax election has been made, the IRS automatically treats it as a partnership for federal tax purposes. This classification is not a judgment about the business and does not mean the entity was formed incorrectly. It simply reflects how the IRS taxes multi-owner businesses by default.

    The IRS then expects the business to file a partnership tax return, even if the owners never thought of themselves as partners and never intended to operate as one. For many owners, this is the first moment they realize that their legal structure and tax treatment are not the same, and that the IRS has been following its own rules all along.

    Filing an S Corporation Tax Return Does Not Create S Corporation Status

    One of the most important points to understand is that filing an S corporation tax return does not, by itself, make a business an S corporation.

    A tax return is simply a reporting document. It tells the IRS how income, expenses, and other items are being reported for a particular year, but it does not establish tax status. S corporation status exists only if the IRS has received and approved a separate election.

    Without that approval, the business remains taxed under its default classification, even if an S corporation tax return is filed year after year. This distinction is often missed because filing the return feels official, but filing and eligibility are two different things.

    A Real-Life Example

    I saw this play out clearly with a new client who operated an HVAC business several years ago. He told me his prior tax preparer had filed an S corporation tax return the prior year, so he believed his business was an S corporation.

    He did not understand what S corporation status involved or that a separate election was required; he only knew that an S corporation tax return had been filed.

    Because he came to me late in the filing season, I filed an S corporation extension for the business. The extension was rejected. That rejection prompted me to file a Power of Attorney and review the IRS records directly.

    That is when the issue became clear: no S corporation election had ever been filed. Despite a prior Form 1120-S having been prepared, the business had never been approved as an S corporation. The filing of the return created the appearance of S corporation status, but the required election had never been made.

    How S Corporation Status Is Established

    S corporation status does not exist automatically and does not come from filing a tax return. It is created only when a business makes a formal election with the IRS, and that election is accepted.

    This election is made by filing Form 2553, Election by a Small Business Corporation. Filing an S corporation tax return does not replace this step.

    Once the IRS approves the election, it issues an approval notice confirming that the business is recognized as an S corporation. That approval, not the tax return, is what establishes S corporation status.

    Timing Matters: When S Corporation Status Must Be Elected

    Timing is critical. To be effective for the current tax year, Form 2553 generally must be filed by March 15 of that year.

    If the election is filed after that date, the IRS may treat the business under its default tax classification for the entire year, even if an S corporation tax return is filed. In some cases, late elections may be accepted, but approval is not automatic and should never be assumed.

    This is why problems often surface only when a return or extension is rejected or when the IRS account is reviewed more closely. By the time the issue is discovered, the business owner is often surprised to learn that S corporation status was never in place for the year they believed it applied.

    Why IRS Systems Sometimes Accept Returns Anyway

    One of the most confusing aspects of these situations is that S corporation tax returns are sometimes accepted by IRS systems even when no valid S corporation election exists.

    An “accepted” e-file status simply means the return passed basic processing checks. It does not mean the IRS verified that S corporation status was properly established. In many cases, the mismatch is not detected immediately.

    The issue may surface years later when an extension is rejected, when the IRS reviews the account more closely, or when records are examined in connection with another matter. This is why business owners often say, “But it was accepted every year.”

    Acceptance can create a false sense of confirmation, even though acceptance and eligibility are not the same thing.

    Real-Life Example: When the Problem Stays Hidden for Decades

    I encountered this in a long-standing client relationship that began years after the business was formed. The company had been operating since the early 2000s and had filed S corporation tax returns for decades under multiple accountants.

    When I took over the engagement, I filed their S corporation returns for several years, and each year the returns showed as accepted. Extensions were also accepted without issue. Based on those results alone, there was no obvious reason to suspect a problem.

    That changed when a later S corporation return was rejected. After filing a Power of Attorney and speaking directly with the IRS, it became clear that no S corporation election had ever been filed, not recently, and not decades ago.

    By that point, there was no documentation confirming when or whether an S corporation election had ever been made, prior preparers were no longer available, and correcting the issue was far more difficult than it would have been if it had been identified earlier.

    What Business Owners Should Check Now

    If you are considering S corporation status, it is important to understand that filing an S corporation tax return is not the step that creates that status. A separate election must be made and accepted before S corporation treatment applies.

    Likewise, if you believe your business is already an S corporation, it is worth confirming that the status was properly established rather than relying solely on how prior returns were filed. That confirmation typically comes from documentation showing that the IRS approved the S corporation election.

    When questions arise years later, verifying or correcting the status can become far more complex than it would have been at the outset. Taking the time to understand this distinction early or to confirm it now can prevent confusion and costly complications down the road.

  • DCAA Audit Basics: What the Government Actually Reviews

    All About DCAA Audits – Part 2

    This article is part of an ongoing series on DCAA audits for government contractors.

    In Part 1, DCAA Audit 101, I covered the foundation – what a DCAA audit is, when it applies, and why it matters. If you have not read that article yet, I recommend starting there first, because it provides the context that makes this series easier to follow.

    Part 1 link: http://www.taxsimplified.blog/2025/12/08/dcaa-audit-101/

    In the articles that follow, I’ll walk through the major areas DCAA evaluates, including accounting system requirements, timekeeping practices, cost classification, internal controls, and pre-award and post-award audits. Each topic will be addressed step by step, with an emphasis on clarity and practical understanding for small and growing contractors.

    With that context in mind, this article focuses on one core question contractors often ask after learning about DCAA audits:

    What does DCAA actually review during an audit?

    This is Part 2 of the DCAA Audit Series, and the focus shifts from what DCAA audits are to what DCAA evaluates once a contractor is subject to review.

    DCAA Is Evaluating Systems, Not Just Numbers

    One of the most common misunderstandings about DCAA audits is the assumption that the government is reviewing a contractor’s profitability, business decisions, or overall success.

    That’s not the purpose.

    DCAA evaluates whether a contractor’s accounting system and cost-tracking processes produce accurate, consistent, and supportable cost information in accordance with government requirements. The emphasis is not on perfection, but on reliability.

    In practical terms, the review often comes down to questions like these:

    • Can the contractor identify where costs came from?
    • Are costs recorded consistently?
    • Can transactions be traced from source documents to the accounting records?
    • Do written policies match actual practices?

    Understanding this mindset helps contractors view DCAA audits less as an inspection of outcomes and more as a review of structure.

    And this is where many small contractors feel surprised: the concepts are simple, but the implementation must hold up under review, even when the business is busy, and processes are informal.

    While these concepts are straightforward on paper, they become more challenging in practice, especially when systems must operate consistently over time, across contracts, and under real-world business pressure. Most DCAA issues arise not from misunderstanding the rules, but from gaps between what a contractor believes is happening and what the records actually show.

    The Core Areas DCAA Reviews

    Rather than focusing on individual transactions in isolation, DCAA evaluates several interconnected areas. Each supports the government’s need to rely on a contractor’s cost data.

    At a high level, DCAA evaluates the following:

    Accounting System

    The accounting system must be capable of:

    • Separating direct and indirect costs
    • Accumulating costs by contractor or job
    • Recording costs in a consistent manner

    This does not require sophisticated software, but it does require intentional setup. Many problems start when a contractor assumes the accounting system will “work itself out later.”

    Timekeeping Practices

    Labor costs are often the largest component of government contracts, which makes timekeeping a central focus.

    DCAA evaluates whether:

    • Time is recorded accurately and timely
    • Hours are charged to the correct cost objectives
    • Practices are consistent across employees

    The key issue is not how many hours are worked, but whether labor costs can be supported and traced. In practice, timekeeping is often where a contactor realizes that “we’re small” is not the same as “we can be informal.”

    Timekeeping problems rarely stem from a lack of knowledge; they arise when policies are not enforced consistently, corrections are informal, or practices drift as workloads increase.

    Direct and Indirect Cost Treatment

    Costs must be classified properly and consistently.

    DCAA looks at:

    • How direct costs are identified and charged
    • How indirect costs are grouped and allocated
    • Whether similar costs are treated the same way across contracts

    Inconsistency, more than the type of cost itself, often creates issues, especially when processes change depending on who is entering transactions or which contract feels urgent that week.

    Internal Controls

    Internal controls are not limited to large organizations.

    For small contractors, DCAA focuses on whether:

    • There is appropriate oversight of financial activity
    • Key processes are documented, even if simply
    • Management is involved in reviewing and approving costs

    The expectation is reasonableness, not complexity. A small business may not have layers of staff, but it still needs a system that demonstrates accountability.

    Policies and Procedures

    Written polices help demonstrate that practices are intentional rather than informal or reactive.

    DCAA reviews whether policies exist for areas such as:

    • Timekeeping
    • Expense reimbursement
    • Cost allocation
    • Accounting practices

    Policies should reflect what the business actually does, not what it hopes to do in the future. A short policy that matches reality is stronger than a long policy that no one follows.

    Writing a policy is often the easiest part. Keeping daily practices aligned with that policy, especially as staff, contracts, or priorities change, is where most compliance gaps appear.

    Supporting Documentation

    Every system relies on documentation.

    DCAA evaluates whether costs can be supported by records such as:

    • Timesheets
    • Invoices
    • Receipts
    • Payroll records
    • Accounting reports

    The focus is on traceability from original records to financial reports. If the documentation is missing or inconsistent, even honest work can become difficult to support.

    Why These Areas Matter Together

    None of these areas stands alone.

    Timekeeping affects labor costs. Labor costs affect indirect rates. Indirect rates affect contract pricing and billings. All of it flows through the accounting system.

    This is why contractors sometimes feel caught off guard, even if one area seems minor day to day, it may affect everything downstream once costs must be supported and explained.

    What This Means for Contractors

    Many DCAA audit issues do not arise because contractors misunderstand the requirements. They arise because systems that seemed adequate early on were never stress-tested under audit conditions, growth, or time pressure. What works informally in day-to-day operations often breaks down when costs must be explained months or years later.

    Contractors often begin government work using processes that worked well for commercial clients. Over time, those processes may no longer be sufficient.

    Recognizing what DCAA evaluates allows contractors to address gaps early, before audits, deadlines, or contract pressure create urgency. And if the goal is to grow in government contracting, building the right structure early usually saves time and cost later.

    Understanding the Rules Is Not the Same as Being Ready

    Learning how DCAA evaluates contractors is an important first step. Readiness, however, depends on whether systems are consistently followed, monitored, and documented over time. That distinction often becomes clear only when an audit is already underway.

    Author’s Note

    Clarity should not be mistaken for simplicity. While DCAA requirements can be explained clearly, meeting them consistently, across contracts, personnel, and reporting periods, requires structure, oversight, and sustained attention. Most challenges arise not from misunderstanding expectations, but from the cumulative effect of small gaps left unaddressed.

    Looking Ahead in the Series

    In upcoming articles, this series will explore these areas in more detail, including:

    • Accounting system requirements
    • Timekeeping expectations
    • Cost classification under government rules
    • Internal controls for small businesses
    • Pre-award and post-award DCAA reviews

    Each topic will be addressed step by step, with clarity and practical context.

    If You Missed Part 1

    If you are new to DCAA audits, you may find it helpful to start with Part 1: DCAA Audit 101, which explains the background and timing of DCAA audits before diving into what is reviewed.

    If you are preparing for government contracting growth or expect increased scrutiny, it helps to review these areas proactively because fixing systems under time pressure is always harder than setting them up intentionally.