#@$ IRS; NO INTEREST SUSPENSION BASED ON PARTNERS COMBAT SERVICE

[banana republican]

Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7508

Interest on the deliquent payroll taxes of a partnership whose principal is serving in a combat zone is *NOT* suspended for the period the partner serves in a combat zone.

A partnership whose principal partner was an individual serving in a combat zone requested abatement of interest on the partnership's payroll tax liabilities for two quarters. The payroll taxes were not timely filed because the individual was serving in a combat xone at the time the liabilities were due. The time period for filing and paying the partnership's payroll tax liability occurred *BEFORE* August 25, 2005, the effective date of the Katrina Emergency Relief Act (KETRA)of 2005 amendments to section 7508.

<snip>

The Office of the Chief Counsel further advised that even if the amendment under KETRA applies retroactively to permit the suspension of interest on payroll taxe liabilities, there could be no suspension of interest because the taxpayer is a partnership , and partnerships are not individuals who may serve in, or serve in support of a combat zone.

Chief Councel Memo (CCM 200613030)

**********************************

Ant this is how the *ies support our troups???????

[Stinky The Clown]

1. I share your outrage, but can also see the logic behind the ruling

A 'partnership' implies more than one person. And that leads to the (likely valid) assumption that the other partner(s) could have dealth with the filing.

That said, this is typical of how our loving leader thinks of those he loves to use as photo props. There are not many partnerships that are other than small - and quite likely **tiny** - businesses.

Who have no lobbying budget except the cost of gas to get to the polls.

...... oh yeah ..... I forgot.

[banana republican]

2. Most partnerships that I am familiar with

are small.

Often times they consist of a parent and their children in some sort of enterprise.

The parents have all the knowledge of how to run the business (hence are called principals) and the children are owners in training who most likely won't make it (most family owned businesses fail during the second generation).

I agree that the kids should have known about the taxes; however; how can you train someone to run a family business in three months or less.

However; the CCM says if you have any more questions you can call:

Please call [phone] if you have any further questions.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Your understandable ire is directed at the wrong

target. The IRS only enforces the tax laws and rules, it does not make them and it cannot, by law, make them. It is CONGRESS that is responsible for tax law/rules, NOT the IRS.

[banana republican]

4. That is not true

You are very WRONG in your statement. The IRS not only enforces the tax laws but it also makes them.

In many cases the the IRS code allows the director of the IRS to establish rules for implementing the CODE. (in this case disallowing interest payments the CCM). This is a CCM an opinion of the IRS legal department and not an IRS regulation or necessarily a part of the Code. IT IS AN OPINION WHICH THE IRS MUST FOLLOW UNTIL A REGULATION IS ESTABLISHED (a process which will take 2 or 3 years).

Since this is an interpertation on the part of the IRS it does not necessaraly mean that it is the LAW.

As a former member of the National Guard I feel that the least the IRS can do is to allow for a reasonable transition from civilian life to military life.