User Fees for Processing Installment Agreements and Offers in Compromise, 72016-72018 [2013-28863]
Download as PDF
72016
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
minimal. Registrants that dispense (but
not prescribe) would incur nominal
additional security, inventory,
recordkeeping, and labeling costs, as
they have already established and
implemented the required systems and
processes to handle schedule III
controlled substances. For example,
pharmacies and institutional
practitioners may disperse schedule II–
V controlled substances throughout
their stock of non-controlled substances
in such a manner as to obstruct theft or
diversion of the controlled substances.
The inclusion of one additional
substance to this system would result in
little or no additional burden to such
practitioners. In addition, because DEAregistered dispensers must label all
schedule II–V controlled substances
dispensed, the requirement to label all
controlled substances containing
perampanel would not impose a
significant economic burden upon DEAregistered dispensers (as the
infrastructure and materials for doing so
would already be in place).
Accordingly, compliance would not
require significant manpower, capital
investments, or recordkeeping burdens.
Registrants who only prescribe
perampanel by oral or written
prescription would not incur any
additional security, inventory,
recordkeeping, or labeling costs as a
result of this rule, as they would not
physically handle perampanel.
Because of these facts, this rule will
not result in significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), on the basis of
information contained in the
‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ section
above, the DEA has determined and
certifies pursuant to UMRA that this
action would not result in any Federal
mandate that may result ‘‘in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year
. . . .’’ Therefore, neither a Small
Government Agency Plan nor any other
action is required under provisions of
UMRA of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This action does not impose a new
collection of information requirement
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). This action
would not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:14 Nov 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Congressional Review Act
[TD 9647]
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional
Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not
result in: an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign
based companies in domestic and
export markets. However, pursuant to
the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy
of this final rule to both Houses of
Congress and to the Comptroller
General.
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 300
RIN 1545–BL37
User Fees for Processing Installment
Agreements and Offers in Compromise
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
Administrative practice and
procedure, Drug traffic control,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
This document contains final
regulations that provide user fees
charged for processing installment
agreements and offers in compromise.
The final regulations affect taxpayers
who wish to pay their federal tax
liabilities through installment
agreements and offers in compromise.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations
are effective on December 2, 2013.
Applicability Date: These regulations
apply to installment agreements entered
into, restructured, or reinstated and
offers in compromise processed on or
after January 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning cost methodology, Eva
Williams, at (202) 803–9728; concerning
the regulations, Girish Prasad, at (202)
317–5429 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR
part 1308 is amended as follows:
Background and Explanation of
Provisions
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
SUMMARY:
This document contains amendments
to 26 CFR part 300. On August 30, 2013,
a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
144990–12) relating to the user fees
charged for processing installment
■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
agreements and offers in compromise
part 1308 continues to read as follows:
was published in the Federal Register
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b),
(78 FR 53702). The charging of user fees
unless otherwise noted.
for services provided by agencies is
authorized by the Independent Offices
■ 2. Amend § 1308.13 by redesignating
Appropriations Act (IOAA), which is
paragraphs (c)(11) through (c)(14) as
codified at 31 U.S.C. 9701. Under the
paragraphs (c)(12) through (c)(15) and
IOAA and OMB Circular A–25, 58 FR
adding new paragraph (c)(11) to read as
38142 (July 15, 1993) (the OMB
follows:
Circular), the charges must be fair and
§ 1308.13 Schedule III.
must be based on the costs to the
government, the value of the service to
*
*
*
*
*
the recipient, the public policy or
(c) * * *
interest served, and other relevant facts.
(11) Perampanel, and its salts, isoIn general, the amount of a user fee
mers, and salts of isomers ...........
2261
should recover the cost of providing the
service, unless the Office of
*
*
*
*
*
Management and Budget (OMB) grants
Dated: November 25, 2013.
an exception under the OMB Circular.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
The notice of proposed rulemaking
Deputy Administrator.
proposed to increase the fee under
[FR Doc. 2013–28778 Filed 11–29–13; 8:45 am]
§ 300.1 for entering into an installment
agreement from $105 to $120 and to
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
increase the fee under § 300.2 for
PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
restructuring or reinstating an
installment agreement from $45 to $50.
Under the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the fee for a direct debit
installment agreement remained $52,
and low-income taxpayers, as defined in
§ 300.1(b)(2), would continue to pay $43
for any new installment agreement,
including a direct debit installment
agreement. The notice of proposed
rulemaking also proposed to increase
the fee under § 300.3 for processing an
offer in compromise from $150 to $186.
Offers based on doubt as to liability and
offers from low-income taxpayers
continue to be excepted from a user fee.
The new fee rates for both installment
agreements and offers in compromise
will be effective January 1, 2014. As
explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the fees proposed (even
after the increase) were substantially
less than the full costs to the
Government of providing the services
and OMB has granted a waiver of the
full-cost requirement.
No public hearing on the notice of
proposed rulemaking was held because
no one requested to speak. One
comment was received. After
consideration of the comment, this
Treasury decision adopts the proposed
regulations without change.
Summary of Comment
Under the proposed regulations, the
reduced fee of $43 for low-income
taxpayers that request a new installment
agreement would remain unchanged.
This fee is substantially less than the
full cost to the IRS of processing a
request ($282) and the fee charged to
other taxpayers ($120). The commenter
commended the IRS for not increasing
the user fee for low-income taxpayers,
but maintained that any user fee
discourages low-income taxpayers from
entering into installment agreements.
The commenter recommended that the
fee be reduced to zero. The commenter
stated that many low-income taxpayers
do not have the means to pay the user
fee, even at the reduced rate. The
commenter stated that low-income
taxpayers often enter into installment
agreements to pay as little as $20–30 per
month based on their available net
income, and believed that an upfront
$43 fee makes it difficult for such
taxpayers to enter into the agreement.
The effect of the fee on low-income
taxpayers was considered in 2006 when
the installment agreement fee was last
updated. The IRS determined that the
fee should remain $43 for low-income
taxpayers because requiring the full rate
would be burdensome and many lowincome taxpayers do not have bank
accounts and cannot take advantage of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:14 Nov 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
the reduced fee for direct-debit
installment agreements.
The user fee is only charged if the
taxpayer enters into the agreement and
the fee is collected directly from the
amounts paid under the terms of the
installment agreement. When the IRS
grants an installment agreement, the IRS
asks that the taxpayer’s first payment be
at least the amount of the fee for the
agreement. In cases where the
installment payments are more than the
amount of the fee, a portion of the first
payment satisfies the fee and the
balance of the first payment is applied
toward the liability. In cases where the
installment payments are less than the
amount of the fee, the full amount of the
fee is sought and, in the case of directdebit installment agreements,
automatically deducted from the
taxpayer’s bank account. The IRS,
however, does not default an agreement
or otherwise penalize a taxpayer whose
first payment is less than the fee but
otherwise in the amount of the agreed
installments. Rather, the IRS applies the
first payment and successive
installments against the fee until the fee
is paid, and thereafter credits the
balance of the payments against the
liability. In all cases, the taxpayer does
not have to pay both the fee and the
installment agreement amount in the
first month and the taxpayer does not
have to pay the fee in full before the IRS
respects the installment agreement. The
reduced fee is, therefore, not a barrier to
an installment agreement. Nevertheless,
the IRS will be reviewing its procedures
in light of the comment and will
consider clarifying its communications
with taxpayers in accordance with that
review.
The commenter also questioned why
the fee was waived entirely for lowincome taxpayers making offers in
compromise but only reduced for lowincome taxpayers entering into
installment agreements. The Treasury
Department and the IRS believe it is
appropriate to charge a reduced fee for
a low-income taxpayer to enter into an
installment agreement but not to charge
a fee to low-income taxpayers for the
consideration of an offer in compromise
for two reasons. First, unlike the fee for
an installment agreement, which is
charged only when the taxpayer enters
into an installment agreement, the fee
for an offer in compromise is charged
for the mere consideration of the offer
and is not refunded if the offer is not
accepted. Therefore, the fee for an offer
in compromise could dissuade a lowincome taxpayer from making an offer
because the taxpayer cannot be assured
of reaching an agreement.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72017
Second, a low-income taxpayer
making an offer in compromise
ostensibly does not have the ability to
pay the tax liability in full. Section
7122(d)(3)(A) specifically provides that
the IRS should not reject an offer from
a low-income taxpayer based solely on
the amount of the offer, and requiring a
fee from low-income taxpayers could
result in a similar hardship in cases
where the taxpayer does not have the
ability to pay the fee. In contrast, the
vast majority of installment agreements
contemplate full payment of the tax
liability because the taxpayer has the
ability to do so over time. While there
are partial-payment installment
agreements—those that do not provide
for full payment of the liability—they
are rarely used.
The commenter also expressed
concern that, in order to avoid the fee
associated with an installment
agreement, a low-income taxpayer might
request to be put into currently-notcollectible (CNC) status rather than
enter into an installment agreement. The
commenter was concerned, moreover,
that without an installment agreement
the taxpayer would not pay the tax and
would instead incur substantial
penalties and interest. Generally, a
taxpayer who has the ability to pay his
tax liability over time (and thus is
eligible for an installment agreement)
will not qualify for CNC status. The IRS
places a taxpayer in CNC status on the
basis of hardship when it determines
that the taxpayer cannot pay the tax
debts after paying reasonable living
expenses. Even a taxpayer in CNC status
may, without an installment agreement,
pay the tax over time to help limit the
accrual of penalties and interest. To the
extent a low-income taxpayer has the
ability to pay his tax liability over time,
entering into an installment agreement
would be in his interest because it will
most likely reduce the overall amount
required to be paid on his tax liability.
Under section 6651(h), the penalty rate
on the balance owed is reduced while
an installment agreement is in effect.
Additionally, interest and penalties
accruing on an account will be
minimized if regular payments are being
applied to reduce the tax liability
against which penalties and interest are
calculated.
Finally, the commenter voiced
concern that the reduced fee of $43 may
prove to be too large in proportion to
relatively smaller balances owed. The
purpose of a fee, however, is to recover
the cost to the Government for a
particular service to the recipient, and
the cost to the Government does not
vary based on the amount of the balance
due. The reduced fee for low-income
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
72018
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
taxpayers is therefore appropriate,
regardless of the amount of taxes owed.
The commenter made two additional
recommendations. The commenter
recommended that the IRS implement
procedures to require IRS employees to
investigate whether a taxpayer making
an installment agreement is eligible for
the reduced fee for low-income
taxpayers. The commenter also
recommended that the IRS enhance
internal training and establish
procedures to better promote viable
payment plans and avoid unrealistic
installment agreements for low-income
taxpayers. These comments do not affect
the content of these final regulations,
but the IRS will, nevertheless, consider
them when updating the procedures for
entering into installment agreements.
The IRS notes, however, that as of
January of 2008, taxpayers meeting the
low-income criteria are identified
systemically based on the taxpayer’s last
return and the account is identified as
being eligible for the reduced user fee.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that these final
regulations are not a significant
regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563. Therefore, a regulatory
assessment is not required. It is hereby
certified that these regulations will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. This
certification is based on the information
that follows. The economic impact of
these regulations on any small entity
would result from the entity being
required to pay a fee prescribed by these
regulations to obtain a particular
service. The dollar amount of the fee is
not, however, substantial enough to
have a significant economic impact on
any entity subject to the fee. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice
of proposed rulemaking preceding this
regulation was submitted to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for comment
on its impact on small business and no
comments were received.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
regulations is Girish Prasad of the Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure
and Administration).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300
Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes,
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:14 Nov 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
Adoption of Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
PART 300—USER FEES
Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Valuation of Benefits
and Assets; Expected Retirement Age
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
■
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701.
Par. 2. In § 300.1, paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (d) are revised to
read as follows:
■
§ 300.1
Installment agreement fee.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Fee. The fee for entering into an
installment agreement before January 1,
2014, is $105. The fee for entering into
an installment agreement on or after
January 1, 2014, is $120. A reduced fee
applies in the following situations:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Effective/applicability date. This
section is applicable beginning January
1, 2014.
■ Par. 3. In § 300.2, paragraphs (b) and
(d) are revised to read as follows:
§ 300.2 Restructuring or reinstatement of
installment agreement fee.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Fee. The fee for restructuring or
reinstating an installment agreement
before January 1, 2014, is $45. The fee
for restructuring or reinstating an
installment agreement on or after
January 1, 2014, is $50.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Effective/applicability date. This
section is applicable beginning January
1, 2014.
■ Par. 4. In § 300.3, paragraphs (b)(1)
introductory text and (d) are revised to
read as follows:
§ 300.3
Offer to compromise fee.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Fee. (1) The fee for processing an
offer to compromise before January 1,
2014, is $150. The fee for processing an
offer to compromise on or after January
1, 2014, is $186. No fee will be charged
if an offer is—
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Effective/applicability date. This
section is applicable beginning January
1, 2014.
Approved: November 22, 2013.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2013–28863 Filed 11–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29 CFR Part 4044
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule amends the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s
regulation on Allocation of Assets in
Single-Employer Plans by substituting a
new table for determining expected
retirement ages for participants in
pension plans undergoing distress or
involuntary termination with valuation
dates falling in 2014. This table is
needed in order to compute the value of
early retirement benefits and, thus, the
total value of benefits under a plan.
DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General
Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005,
202–326–4024. (TTY/TDD users may
call the Federal relay service toll-free at
1–800–877–8339 and ask to be
connected to 202–326–4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) administers the pension plan
termination insurance program under
Title IV of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
PBGC’s regulation on Allocation of
Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29
CFR part 4044) sets forth (in subpart B)
the methods for valuing plan benefits of
terminating single-employer plans
covered under Title IV. Guaranteed
benefits and benefit liabilities under a
plan that is undergoing a distress
termination must be valued in
accordance with subpart B of part 4044.
In addition, when PBGC terminates an
underfunded plan involuntarily
pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it
uses the subpart B valuation rules to
determine the amount of the plan’s
underfunding.
Under § 4044.51(b) of the asset
allocation regulation, early retirement
benefits are valued based on the annuity
starting date, if a retirement date has
been selected, or the expected
retirement age, if the annuity starting
date is not known on the valuation date.
Sections 4044.55 through 4044.57 set
forth rules for determining the expected
retirement ages for plan participants
entitled to early retirement benefits.
Appendix D of part 4044 contains tables
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72016-72018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28863]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 300
[TD 9647]
RIN 1545-BL37
User Fees for Processing Installment Agreements and Offers in
Compromise
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that provide user
fees charged for processing installment agreements and offers in
compromise. The final regulations affect taxpayers who wish to pay
their federal tax liabilities through installment agreements and offers
in compromise.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective on December 2,
2013.
Applicability Date: These regulations apply to installment
agreements entered into, restructured, or reinstated and offers in
compromise processed on or after January 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning cost methodology, Eva
Williams, at (202) 803-9728; concerning the regulations, Girish Prasad,
at (202) 317-5429 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Explanation of Provisions
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 300. On August 30,
2013, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-144990-12) relating to the
user fees charged for processing installment agreements and offers in
compromise was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 53702). The
charging of user fees for services provided by agencies is authorized
by the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA), which is codified
at 31 U.S.C. 9701. Under the IOAA and OMB Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142
(July 15, 1993) (the OMB Circular), the charges must be fair and must
be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service to
the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant
facts. In general, the amount of a user fee should recover the cost of
providing the service, unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
grants an exception under the OMB Circular.
The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to increase the fee
under Sec. 300.1 for entering into an installment agreement from $105
to $120 and to increase the fee under Sec. 300.2 for
[[Page 72017]]
restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement from $45 to $50.
Under the notice of proposed rulemaking, the fee for a direct debit
installment agreement remained $52, and low-income taxpayers, as
defined in Sec. 300.1(b)(2), would continue to pay $43 for any new
installment agreement, including a direct debit installment agreement.
The notice of proposed rulemaking also proposed to increase the fee
under Sec. 300.3 for processing an offer in compromise from $150 to
$186. Offers based on doubt as to liability and offers from low-income
taxpayers continue to be excepted from a user fee. The new fee rates
for both installment agreements and offers in compromise will be
effective January 1, 2014. As explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the fees proposed (even after the increase) were
substantially less than the full costs to the Government of providing
the services and OMB has granted a waiver of the full-cost requirement.
No public hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking was held
because no one requested to speak. One comment was received. After
consideration of the comment, this Treasury decision adopts the
proposed regulations without change.
Summary of Comment
Under the proposed regulations, the reduced fee of $43 for low-
income taxpayers that request a new installment agreement would remain
unchanged. This fee is substantially less than the full cost to the IRS
of processing a request ($282) and the fee charged to other taxpayers
($120). The commenter commended the IRS for not increasing the user fee
for low-income taxpayers, but maintained that any user fee discourages
low-income taxpayers from entering into installment agreements. The
commenter recommended that the fee be reduced to zero. The commenter
stated that many low-income taxpayers do not have the means to pay the
user fee, even at the reduced rate. The commenter stated that low-
income taxpayers often enter into installment agreements to pay as
little as $20-30 per month based on their available net income, and
believed that an upfront $43 fee makes it difficult for such taxpayers
to enter into the agreement.
The effect of the fee on low-income taxpayers was considered in
2006 when the installment agreement fee was last updated. The IRS
determined that the fee should remain $43 for low-income taxpayers
because requiring the full rate would be burdensome and many low-income
taxpayers do not have bank accounts and cannot take advantage of the
reduced fee for direct-debit installment agreements.
The user fee is only charged if the taxpayer enters into the
agreement and the fee is collected directly from the amounts paid under
the terms of the installment agreement. When the IRS grants an
installment agreement, the IRS asks that the taxpayer's first payment
be at least the amount of the fee for the agreement. In cases where the
installment payments are more than the amount of the fee, a portion of
the first payment satisfies the fee and the balance of the first
payment is applied toward the liability. In cases where the installment
payments are less than the amount of the fee, the full amount of the
fee is sought and, in the case of direct-debit installment agreements,
automatically deducted from the taxpayer's bank account. The IRS,
however, does not default an agreement or otherwise penalize a taxpayer
whose first payment is less than the fee but otherwise in the amount of
the agreed installments. Rather, the IRS applies the first payment and
successive installments against the fee until the fee is paid, and
thereafter credits the balance of the payments against the liability.
In all cases, the taxpayer does not have to pay both the fee and the
installment agreement amount in the first month and the taxpayer does
not have to pay the fee in full before the IRS respects the installment
agreement. The reduced fee is, therefore, not a barrier to an
installment agreement. Nevertheless, the IRS will be reviewing its
procedures in light of the comment and will consider clarifying its
communications with taxpayers in accordance with that review.
The commenter also questioned why the fee was waived entirely for
low-income taxpayers making offers in compromise but only reduced for
low-income taxpayers entering into installment agreements. The Treasury
Department and the IRS believe it is appropriate to charge a reduced
fee for a low-income taxpayer to enter into an installment agreement
but not to charge a fee to low-income taxpayers for the consideration
of an offer in compromise for two reasons. First, unlike the fee for an
installment agreement, which is charged only when the taxpayer enters
into an installment agreement, the fee for an offer in compromise is
charged for the mere consideration of the offer and is not refunded if
the offer is not accepted. Therefore, the fee for an offer in
compromise could dissuade a low-income taxpayer from making an offer
because the taxpayer cannot be assured of reaching an agreement.
Second, a low-income taxpayer making an offer in compromise
ostensibly does not have the ability to pay the tax liability in full.
Section 7122(d)(3)(A) specifically provides that the IRS should not
reject an offer from a low-income taxpayer based solely on the amount
of the offer, and requiring a fee from low-income taxpayers could
result in a similar hardship in cases where the taxpayer does not have
the ability to pay the fee. In contrast, the vast majority of
installment agreements contemplate full payment of the tax liability
because the taxpayer has the ability to do so over time. While there
are partial-payment installment agreements--those that do not provide
for full payment of the liability--they are rarely used.
The commenter also expressed concern that, in order to avoid the
fee associated with an installment agreement, a low-income taxpayer
might request to be put into currently-not-collectible (CNC) status
rather than enter into an installment agreement. The commenter was
concerned, moreover, that without an installment agreement the taxpayer
would not pay the tax and would instead incur substantial penalties and
interest. Generally, a taxpayer who has the ability to pay his tax
liability over time (and thus is eligible for an installment agreement)
will not qualify for CNC status. The IRS places a taxpayer in CNC
status on the basis of hardship when it determines that the taxpayer
cannot pay the tax debts after paying reasonable living expenses. Even
a taxpayer in CNC status may, without an installment agreement, pay the
tax over time to help limit the accrual of penalties and interest. To
the extent a low-income taxpayer has the ability to pay his tax
liability over time, entering into an installment agreement would be in
his interest because it will most likely reduce the overall amount
required to be paid on his tax liability. Under section 6651(h), the
penalty rate on the balance owed is reduced while an installment
agreement is in effect. Additionally, interest and penalties accruing
on an account will be minimized if regular payments are being applied
to reduce the tax liability against which penalties and interest are
calculated.
Finally, the commenter voiced concern that the reduced fee of $43
may prove to be too large in proportion to relatively smaller balances
owed. The purpose of a fee, however, is to recover the cost to the
Government for a particular service to the recipient, and the cost to
the Government does not vary based on the amount of the balance due.
The reduced fee for low-income
[[Page 72018]]
taxpayers is therefore appropriate, regardless of the amount of taxes
owed.
The commenter made two additional recommendations. The commenter
recommended that the IRS implement procedures to require IRS employees
to investigate whether a taxpayer making an installment agreement is
eligible for the reduced fee for low-income taxpayers. The commenter
also recommended that the IRS enhance internal training and establish
procedures to better promote viable payment plans and avoid unrealistic
installment agreements for low-income taxpayers. These comments do not
affect the content of these final regulations, but the IRS will,
nevertheless, consider them when updating the procedures for entering
into installment agreements. The IRS notes, however, that as of January
of 2008, taxpayers meeting the low-income criteria are identified
systemically based on the taxpayer's last return and the account is
identified as being eligible for the reduced user fee.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that these final regulations are not a
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory
assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these
regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. This certification is based on
the information that follows. The economic impact of these regulations
on any small entity would result from the entity being required to pay
a fee prescribed by these regulations to obtain a particular service.
The dollar amount of the fee is not, however, substantial enough to
have a significant economic impact on any entity subject to the fee.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed
rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business and no comments were received.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Girish Prasad of the
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300
Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--USER FEES
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701.
0
Par. 2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraphs (b) introductory text and (d) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.1 Installment agreement fee.
* * * * *
(b) Fee. The fee for entering into an installment agreement before
January 1, 2014, is $105. The fee for entering into an installment
agreement on or after January 1, 2014, is $120. A reduced fee applies
in the following situations:
* * * * *
(d) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable
beginning January 1, 2014.
0
Par. 3. In Sec. 300.2, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 300.2 Restructuring or reinstatement of installment agreement
fee.
* * * * *
(b) Fee. The fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment
agreement before January 1, 2014, is $45. The fee for restructuring or
reinstating an installment agreement on or after January 1, 2014, is
$50.
* * * * *
(d) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable
beginning January 1, 2014.
0
Par. 4. In Sec. 300.3, paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text and (d) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.3 Offer to compromise fee.
* * * * *
(b) Fee. (1) The fee for processing an offer to compromise before
January 1, 2014, is $150. The fee for processing an offer to compromise
on or after January 1, 2014, is $186. No fee will be charged if an
offer is--
* * * * *
(d) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable
beginning January 1, 2014.
Approved: November 22, 2013.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2013-28863 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P