Financial Services Industry
Industry: Email Alert RSS FeedHouse Ways and Means Committee testimony: interest and penalty provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
Tax Executive, The, Nov, 1999
November 9, 1999
On November 5, 1999, Tax Executives Institute submitted the following statement to the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means in connection with a planned November 9 hearing on proposed changes to the interest and penalty provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The hearing, which was scheduled following the release of separate studies by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Department of the Treasury, was postponed owing to the press of other legislative business, but will likely be rescheduled in 2000. The Institute's testimony, which was to have been presented by TEI President Charles W. Shewbridge, III, was prepared under the aegis of the IRS Administrative Affairs Committee, whose chair is Robert J. McDonough, Jr. of Wang Global, Inc. Earlier this year, TEI submitted comments to the Joint Committee staff and the Treasury Department in response to their requests. Those earlier comments are reprinted in the May-June 1999 issue of The Tax Executive.
Most PopularCBS MoneyWatch.com Articles
Good afternoon. I am Charles W. Shewbridge, III, Chief Tax Executive for BellSouth Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia. I appear before you today as the President of Tax Executives Institute, the preeminent group of corporate tax professionals in North America. The Institute is pleased to provide the following comments on the Internal Revenue Code's interest and penalty provisions, with particular focus on the recommendations recently made by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Department of the Treasury. See Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Study of Present-Law Penalty and Interest Provisions as Required by section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Including Provisions Relating to Corporate Tax Shelters) (JCS3-99) (July 22, 1999) (hereinafter cited as the "Joint Committee Study"); Office of Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Report to the Congress on Penalty and Interest Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (October 1999) (hereinafter cited as the "Treasury Report").
I. Background
Tax Executives Institute was established in 1944 to serve the professional needs of in-house tax practitioners. Today, the Institute has 52 chapters in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Our 5,000 members are accountants, attorneys, and other business professionals who work for the largest 2,800 companies in the United States and Canada; they are responsible for conducting the tax affairs of their companies and ensuring their compliance with the tax laws. TEI members deal with the tax code in all its complexity, as well as with the Internal Revenue Service, on almost a daily a basis. Most of the companies represented by our members are part of the IRS's Coordinated Examination Program, pursuant to which they are audited on an ongoing basis. TEI is dedicated to the development and effective implementation of sound tax policy, to promoting the uniform and equitable enforcement of the tax laws, and to reducing the cost and burden of administration and compliance to the benefit of taxpayers and government alike. Our background and experience enable us to bring a unique and, we believe, balanced perspective to the subject of the Internal Revenue Code's interest and penalty provisions.
TEI has long believed that the Code's interest and penalty provisions are unduly complex and inequitable. The interest provisions can operate in an unfair manner and are difficult to administer, especially when taxpayers have overlapping periods of under- and overpayments. In many cases, the provisions have served as an inappropriate penalty (such as with the estimated tax penalty), rather than as recompense for the time value of money.
Moreover, the calculation of interest itself -- with its restricted interest provisions and requirements for compounding and netting -- is inordinately difficult and leads to errors by both the government and the taxpayer. Almost every TEI member can recount a protracted tale, if not a horror story, of convoluted, complicated, and ultimately incorrect interest calculations. For good reason, taxpayers doubt the IRS's ability to compute interest accurately, and they frequently incur significant expense in hiring outside consultants to review interest charges -- often without the benefit of a print-out of the IRS calculations. We recognize that much of the cause of the problem lies in the IRS's computer system (which is in the process of being replaced), but we believe the IRS can take immediate steps to assist taxpayers now -- for example, by providing copies of interest calculations.(1)
Moreover, the unfairness and complexity of the Code's interest rules have been exacerbated by the delay in issuing guidance. For example, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 mandates the use of interest netting when there are overlapping periods of under- and overpayments. A transition rule permits taxpayers to apply the ameliorative rules retroactively, but to avail themselves of this relief, taxpayers must file elections by the end of the year. Even though less than two months remain to qualify for transitional relief, the IRS and Treasury Department have not yet issued guidance on the mechanics of the election (e.g., what information must be included, especially in respect of the level of detail required). The delay in issuing the procedure is regrettable and feeds the perception that the IRS and Treasury continue to resist interest netting notwithstanding Congress's mandate.
- How to choose the right insurance carrier for your business
- Real Estate: Prepare your properties to weather what lies ahead
- Technology: Be prepared if part of your global supply chain goes missing
- 5 Rules for Immediate Annuities
- Death in the Family: 12 Things to Do Now
- Dumbest Things You Do With Your Money
- 6 Online Networking Mistakes to Avoid
- 401(k) Mistakes to Avoid
- 5 Economic Scenarios to Keep You Up at Night
- The Real ‘Best Places to Retire’
- Best Credit Cards for You
- 12 Tough Questions to Ask Your Parents
- The Real ‘Best Colleges’
- Home Buyer Tax Credit: How to Cash In
- Why You Shouldn't Bash Cash
- 8 Phony 'Bargains' and Better Alternatives
- Danger: 3 Debit Card Scams to Avoid
- 6 Myths About Gas Mileage
- 29 Fees We Hate Most
- Quick and Easy Ways to Boost Returns
- Best Stocks to Buy Now
- Lower Your Taxes: 10 Moves to Make Now
- New Jobs: 8 Lessons from Real-Life Career Switchers
- The New Job Market: Who Wins and Who Loses?
- Health Care Reform's Public Option: Everything You Need to Know
- Volunteer Work When Unemployed: Should You Work for Free?
- Whose Recovery Is This?
- Long-Term-Care Insurance: 4 Biggest Risks to Avoid
Content provided in partnership with
Most Recent Business Articles
- Multiple criteria evaluation and optimization of transportation systems
- Multi-criteria analysis procedure for sustainable mobility evaluation in urban areas
- A two-leveled multi-objective symbiotic evolutionary algorithm for the hub and spoke location problem
- Multi-criteria analysis for evaluating the impacts of intelligent speed adaptation
- The development of Taiwan arterial traffic-adaptive signal control system and its field test: a Taiwan experience
Most Recent Business Publications
Most Popular Business Articles
- 7 tips for effective listening: productive listening does not occur naturally. It requires hard work and practice - Back To Basics - effective listening is a crucial skill for internal auditors
- LIFO vs. FIFO: a return to the basics
- FAS 109: a primer for non-accountants - Financial Accounting Standards Board's "Statement 109: Accounting for Income Taxes"
- Too Young to Rent a Car? - 25-years-old the minimum age for car renting - Brief Article
- Design a commission plan that drives sales - Sales Commissions


