英文原文
The IRS Alter Ego Theory of Liability - Segal, Cohen & Landis, P.C. When a taxpayer has an outstanding tax liability, the IRS has authority, subject to due process considerations, to seize the taxpayer’s personal assets such as bank accounts, wages, and property to satisfy the tax debt. Under an alter ego theory of liability, the IRS will also have authority to seize assets of a third-party entity to pay the taxpayer’s tax debt when the entity is found to function as the alter ego of the taxpayer. Alter ego liability typically arises out of the relationship between a business owner and his or her corporation or a limited liability company where there is such unity of interest and control that they are no longer considered separate. Accordingly, the IRS will treat them as one and the same for purposes of tax collection. In effect, business accounts and assets may be vulnerable to IRS levy for the personal tax obligations of the business owner. This is confounding to many given that one of the main purposes of forming a corporation or limited liability company is to limit liability as between the business and its owners. This article explores the specific circumstances that give rise to an alter ego theory of liability in the context of tax collection and explains how a taxpayer might successfully challenge IRS tax liens and/or levies against third-party entities. The general principle behind the alter ego theory of liability in the context of tax collection, and other IRS theories of third party liability, is that when a taxpayer who has an unpaid tax liability transfers assets to a third party for the purpose of concealing or protecting those assets from the reach of the IRS, in the interest of equity and under certain circumstances, the IRS has authority to seize property of the third party in order to satisfy the debt of the taxpayer. The Internal Revenue Manuel section 5.17.14 Fraudulent Transfers and Transferee and Other Third Party Liability identifies the basis for 5 different kinds of third party liability: transferee theory, fiduciary liability theory, successor liability theory, nominee theory, and alter ego theory. The alter ego theory of liability asserts that the taxpayer and the alter ego are so intermixed that their affairs cannot easily be separated. They will be treated as one and the same for purposes of IRS collection. If the IRS determines that alter ego liability applies, it may seize any property that is held in the name of a third party (the taxpayer’s alter ego) for the purpose of satisfying the taxpayer’s tax debt. Alter ego liability can theoretically exist between the individual taxpayer and any other entity such as a corporation, a limited liability company, a trust/trustee, another individual), most commonly it is associated as between an individual and a corporation or limited liability company. Business owners often form separate legal entities such as corporations in order to protect their personal assets from the debts and obligations of the business and conversely to protect business assets from any personal liabilities. This legal protection afforded by the corporation requires that the owner(s) adhere to corporate formalities and guidelines which serve to maintain the separate and distinct identity and nature of the third-party entity. Under certain circumstances, the IRS can apply the alter ego theory of liability to treat the corporation’s assets as those of the owner and vice versa. This is commonly referred to as “piercing the corporate veil.” In effect, the IRS treats the corporation and the owner as one and the same (one is the alter ego of the other) thereby permitting collection from either. The IRS must find that there is such a unity of ownership and interest that the individual and entity are no longer separate. As per the IRM, the two elements of the alter ego doctrine include: Unity of ownership and interest; and, Fraud or inequity that would result from the failure to disregard the corporate entity. A finding of unity of ownership and interest be based on whether the taxpayer and third party have conducted themselves in an arms-length fashion that evidences the separate and distinct natures of each of the parties. For example, how they maintain records, how they have set up bank accounts, their transactions and history, as well as the transfer or sharing of property between them, will be relevant. Factors that courts will consider in determining whether there is sufficient unity of ownership and interest include the following: Whether funds were transferred between the taxpayer and the entity to suggest a commingling of assets; Whether the taxpayer and the entity maintained separate accounts, separate books, and separate records; For property in the name of the entity, whether the taxpayer’s money was used for the property; For property in the name of the entity, whether the taxpayer enjoyed the benefit and use of the property; Whether the taxpayer exercised control over the property; Whether there is a close family relationship between the taxpayer and the third party or the third-party entity’s officers; Whether the taxpayer treated the entity’s assets and property as his own; Whether the third party’s assets were used to pay taxpayer’s expenses; Whether there were unsecured, interest free loans between the third party and the taxpayer; Whether property was transferred between the taxpayer and the third party for little or no consideration; Whether the third-party entity had internal controls and adhered to corporate formalities. The IRS is precluded from filing a notice of federal tax lien against a third party under the alter ego theory of liability without obtaining legal review and direction from Area Counsel regarding the need for a supplemental assessment, a new notice and demand (which must occur before filing a tax lien), language to be included on the notice of federal tax lien filing. If the IRS files a notice of federal tax lien or notice of intent to levy against your corporation or other third party with which you are affiliated for the purpose of collecting your personal tax debt, you may challenge the tax lien and/or levy by requesting an appeal. You will have 30 days from the name of the notice to file a Collection Due Process Appeal and one year from the date of the notice to file an Equivalency Appeal. You will have an opportunity to challenge the basis for alter ego theory of liability on appeal at a hearing. While the request for Collection Due Process Hearing will prevent the IRS from proceeding with any tax levy pending the outcome of the appeal, the request for Equivalency Hearing may not. A tax attorney can help you ensure that the proper safeguards such as accounting practices and adherence to corporate formalities, are undertaken to protect against alter ego theory of liability. If a third-party entity with which you are affiliated has received a notice of tax lien or levy which aims to seize property in satisfaction of your personal tax liability, a tax attorney can advise whether you have a viable defense to alter ego liability and how to challenge the IRS collection activity in this regard. The experienced tax attorneys at Segal, Cohen & Landis have helped clients defend and resolve IRS assessments and related collection based on alter ego theory of liability by providing the following services: Review the accounts, transactions, books, and structure of clients and their businesses to determine that proper accounting practices and corporate formalities are in place; Determine to what extent a client may have a viable defense to alter ego theory of liability; File a Collection Due Process Appeal to challenge an IRS tax lien or levy against a third party; File an Equivalency Appeal to challenge an IRS tax lien or levy against a third party; Resolve outstanding liabilities via collection alternatives such as offer in compromise, installment arrangement, or not collectible status.
中文翻译
IRS替身责任理论 - Segal, Cohen & Landis, P.C. 当纳税人存在未缴税款时，美国国税局有权在正当程序考虑下，扣押纳税人的个人资产，如银行账户、工资和财产，以清偿税务债务。根据替身责任理论，当第三方实体被发现作为纳税人的替身运作时，国税局也有权扣押该实体的资产以支付纳税人的税务债务。替身责任通常源于企业主与其公司或有限责任公司之间的关系，当存在如此统一的利益和控制以至于它们不再被视为独立实体时。因此，国税局在税务征收目的上将它们视为一体。实际上，企业账户和资产可能因企业主的个人税务义务而面临国税局的扣押。这对许多人来说令人困惑，因为成立公司或有限责任公司的主要目的之一是在企业与其所有者之间限制责任。本文探讨了在税务征收背景下引发替身责任理论的具体情况，并解释了纳税人如何成功挑战国税局对第三方实体的税务留置权和/或扣押。在税务征收背景下，替身责任理论及其他国税局第三方责任理论的一般原则是，当有未缴税款的纳税人将资产转移给第三方以隐藏或保护这些资产免受国税局追索时，出于公平利益和特定情况，国税局有权扣押第三方的财产以清偿纳税人的债务。国内税收手册第5.17.14节“欺诈性转让及受让人和其他第三方责任”确定了五种第三方责任的基础：受让人理论、受托人责任理论、继任者责任理论、名义人理论和替身理论。替身责任理论主张纳税人和替身如此交织以至于它们的事务难以分离。在国税局征收目的上，它们将被视为一体。如果国税局确定适用替身责任，它可以扣押以第三方名义持有的任何财产（纳税人的替身）以清偿纳税人的税务债务。替身责任理论上可以存在于个人纳税人与任何其他实体之间，如公司、有限责任公司、信托/受托人、其他个人，最常见的是个人与公司或有限责任公司之间。企业主通常成立独立的法律实体，如公司，以保护其个人资产免受企业债务和义务的影响，反之保护企业资产免受任何个人责任。公司提供的这种法律保护要求所有者遵守公司形式和指导方针，以维持第三方实体的独立和独特身份和性质。在某些情况下，国税局可以应用替身责任理论将公司的资产视为所有者的资产，反之亦然。这通常被称为“刺破公司面纱”。实际上，国税局将公司和所有者视为一体（一方是另一方的替身），从而允许从任一方征收。国税局必须发现存在如此统一的所有权和利益以至于个人和实体不再分离。根据IRM，替身原则的两个要素包括：统一的所有权和利益；以及，如果不忽视公司实体将导致欺诈或不公平。统一的所有权和利益的认定基于纳税人和第三方是否以保持距离的方式行事，证明各方的独立和独特性质。例如，他们如何维护记录、如何设立银行账户、他们的交易和历史，以及他们之间的财产转移或共享，都将相关。法院在确定是否存在足够的统一所有权和利益时将考虑以下因素：资金是否在纳税人和实体之间转移以暗示资产混合；纳税人和实体是否维护独立的账户、独立的账簿和独立的记录；对于以实体名义的财产，是否使用了纳税人的资金；对于以实体名义的财产，纳税人是否享受了财产的利益和使用；纳税人是否对财产行使控制；纳税人与第三方或第三方实体的官员之间是否存在密切的家庭关系；纳税人是否将实体的资产和财产视为己有；第三方的资产是否用于支付纳税人的费用；第三方和纳税人之间是否存在无担保、无息贷款；财产是否在纳税人和第三方之间以很少或没有对价转移；第三方实体是否有内部控制并遵守公司形式。国税局在未获得地区法律顾问关于补充评估、新通知和要求（必须在提交税务留置权之前发生）、联邦税务留置权通知中应包含的语言的法律审查和指导的情况下，被禁止根据替身责任理论对第三方提交联邦税务留置权通知。如果国税局为征收您的个人税务债务而对您的公司或您关联的其他第三方提交联邦税务留置权通知或扣押意向通知，您可以通过请求上诉来挑战税务留置权和/或扣押。您将有30天从通知名称起提交征收正当程序上诉，以及一年从通知日期起提交等效上诉。您将有机会在上诉听证会上挑战替身责任理论的基础。虽然征收正当程序听证请求将阻止国税局在上诉结果待决期间进行任何税务扣押，但等效听证请求可能不会。税务律师可以帮助您确保采取适当的保障措施，如会计实践和遵守公司形式，以防止替身责任理论。如果您关联的第三方实体收到了旨在扣押财产以清偿您个人税务责任的税务留置权或扣押通知，税务律师可以建议您是否有可行的替身责任辩护以及如何挑战国税局在此方面的征收活动。Segal, Cohen & Landis的经验丰富的税务律师通过提供以下服务，帮助客户辩护和解决基于替身责任理论的国税局评估和相关征收：审查客户及其企业的账户、交易、账簿和结构，以确定适当的会计实践和公司形式是否到位；确定客户在多大程度上可能有可行的替身责任理论辩护；提交征收正当程序上诉以挑战国税局对第三方的税务留置权或扣押；提交等效上诉以挑战国税局对第三方的税务留置权或扣押；通过征收替代方案解决未偿债务，如妥协提议、分期付款安排或不可征收状态。
文章概要
本文介绍了美国国税局（IRS）在税务征收中应用的“替身责任理论”（Alter Ego Theory of Liability）。当纳税人未缴税款时，IRS有权扣押其个人资产，但如果第三方实体（如公司或有限责任公司）被认定为纳税人的“替身”，IRS也可扣押该实体的资产。文章解释了该理论如何源于企业主与实体之间的利益和控制统一，导致它们被视为一体，从而“刺破公司面纱”。文章还详细说明了适用该理论的条件，包括统一所有权和利益、欺诈或不公平因素，以及法院考虑的具体因素（如资产混合、独立记录等）。此外，文章提供了纳税人如何挑战IRS基于此理论的征收行动，包括上诉程序和税务律师的帮助。整体上，文章旨在教育纳税人关于替身责任的风险和应对策略。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容：想象一下，如果你欠了钱没还，收钱的人可以拿走你的玩具或零花钱。但如果你把玩具藏到朋友家，收钱的人发现你朋友其实在帮你藏玩具，他们也可以拿走你朋友的玩具来还你的债。这就是IRS的替身责任理论：当你的公司或生意和你自己分不清时，IRS会把你们当成一个人，拿走公司的东西来还你个人的税债。
TA沟通分析心理学理论评价：从沟通分析心理学角度看，替身责任理论涉及“成人自我状态”在税务准备和申报程序中的运作。纳税人通过成立公司或实体，试图在“成人自我状态”下理性地管理风险和资产，但IRS的替身理论挑战了这种分离，当“成人自我状态”未能维持清晰的界限（如混合资产、缺乏独立记录）时，可能导致责任混淆。这反映了在税务情境中，“成人自我状态”需要高度组织化和结构化以避免“污染”或“排除”，否则可能激活“父母自我状态”的权威干预（如IRS的征收行动）。文章强调了遵守公司形式和会计实践的重要性，这对应了“成人自我状态”的适应性和现实检验功能，以保持健康的人际和系统边界。
在实践上可以应用的领域和可以解决人们的十个问题：在税务和法律咨询领域，应用沟通分析心理学可以帮助人们更好地管理税务责任。具体可以解决以下十个问题：1. 帮助纳税人识别在税务申报中是否过度依赖“儿童自我状态”的逃避行为，转而激活“成人自我状态”进行合规规划。2. 指导企业主在设立公司时，通过“成人自我状态”确保公司形式独立，避免资产混合。3. 协助个人在税务争议中，使用“成人自我状态”理性应对IRS挑战，减少焦虑。4. 促进家庭企业中的清晰角色划分，防止“父母自我状态”的过度控制导致责任混淆。5. 支持税务律师在咨询中，帮助客户强化“成人自我状态”以维护法律边界。6. 教育纳税人关于税务责任的重要性，培养“成人自我状态”的长期规划能力。7. 在资产转移决策中，应用“成人自我状态”评估风险，避免替身责任触发。8. 帮助人们在上诉过程中，保持“成人自我状态”的冷静和逻辑性，提高成功率。9. 在团队合作中，促进“成人自我状态”的沟通，确保税务记录独立准确。10. 增强个人在税务管理中的自我效能感，通过“成人自我状态”实现财务健康。