All of Georgia Now Eligible for Disaster Tax Relief

Hurricane Irma victims in the entire state of Georgia now have until Jan. 31, 2018, to file certain individual and business tax returns and make certain tax payments.

This includes an additional filing extension for taxpayers with valid extensions that run out on Oct. 16, and businesses with extensions that ran out on Sept. 15. It parallels relief previously granted to Irma victims throughout Florida and in parts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and Harvey victims in parts of Texas.

For taxpayers in Georgia, this relief postpones various tax filing and payment deadlines that occurred starting on Sept. 7, 2017. As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until Jan. 31, 2018, to file returns and pay any taxes that were originally due during this period.

This includes the Sept. 15, 2017 and Jan. 16, 2018 deadlines for making quarterly estimated tax payments. For individual tax filers, it also includes 2016 income tax returns that received a tax-filing extension until Oct. 16, 2017. The IRS noted, however, that because tax payments related to these 2016 returns were originally due on April 18, 2017, those payments are not eligible for this relief.

A variety of business tax deadlines are also affected including the Oct. 31 deadline for quarterly payroll and excise tax returns. Businesses with extensions also have the additional time including, among others, calendar-year partnerships whose 2016 extensions ran out on Sept. 15, 2017 and calendar-year tax-exempt organizations   whose 2016 extensions run out on Nov. 15, 2017. The disaster relief page has details on other returns, payments and tax-related actions qualifying for the additional time.

In addition, the IRS is waiving late-deposit penalties for federal payroll and excise tax deposits normally due during the first 15 days of the disaster period. Check out the disaster relief page for the time periods that apply to each jurisdiction.

The IRS automatically provides filing and penalty relief to any taxpayer with an IRS address of record located in the disaster area. Thus, taxpayers need not contact the IRS to get this relief. However, if an affected taxpayer receives a late filing or late payment penalty notice from the IRS that has an original or extended filing, payment or deposit due date falling within the postponement period, the taxpayer should call the number on the notice to have the penalty abated.

In addition, the IRS will work with any taxpayer who lives outside the disaster area but whose records necessary to meet a deadline occurring during the postponement period are located in the affected area.  Taxpayers qualifying for relief who live outside the disaster area need to contact the IRS at 866-562-5227. This also includes workers assisting the relief activities who are affiliated with a recognized government or philanthropic organization. It also includes tax professionals who, due to the disaster, are unable to meet a tax-filing or payment deadline for their clients who live or are located outside the disaster area.

Individuals and businesses who suffered uninsured or unreimbursed disaster-related losses can choose to claim them on either the return for the year the loss occurred (in this instance, the 2017 return normally filed next year), or the return for the prior year (2016). See Publication 547 for details.

The tax relief is part of a coordinated federal response to the damage caused by severe storms and flooding and is based on local damage assessments by FEMA. For information on disaster recovery, visit disasterassistance.gov.

For information on government-wide efforts related to Hurricane Irma, visit www.USA.gov/hurricane-irma.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

January 24, 2021
By Kara K. Gendron, Esquire, Mott & Gendron Law (Harrisburg, PA) The recent Supreme Court decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton1 will change the law in most Circuits. Prior to this case, there was a split among the circuits as to whether the post-petition retention of property taken pre-petition constitutes a violation of the automatic stay under §362(a)(3) of...
Members
February 28, 2021
By Joseph A. Bledsoe, III (“Jody”), Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of North Carolina (New Bern) In the aftermath of City of Chicago v. Fulton, discussions abound as to whether it is sufficient for a chapter 13 debtor to seek return of his vehicle, repossessed prepetition, via a motion for turnover. Most seem to believe a motion...
Members
memorialday
May 28, 2023
Memorial Day 2023 Honoring the Sacrifices of All Who Served
ahern_larry_regular
December 5, 2021
Introduction Following Part 1's review of the December 1, 2021 changes in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Part 2's digest of selected judicial decisions of interest for their procedural import . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members. Join Now Or Sign In Below: Username or...
Members
March 29, 2020
By Ken Siomos, Staff Attorney for Marsha L. Combs-Skinner (Newman, IL) A small part of the recently passed “Cares Act” is the ability of Chapter 13 debtors experiencing a “material financial hardship” as a result of the covid-19 pandemic to modify their plan to 84 months.i Many Chapter 13 Trustee’s are likely anticipating a series of Chapter 13 Plan defaults...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
June 18, 2023
The Ninth Circuit has now joined its sister Circuit in holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not permita Chapter 13 Trustee to retain the percentage fees collected on payments that a chapter 13 debtor made pre-confirmation in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §586 but, upon dismissal prior to confirmation of the plan, is obligated to return the fee to the debtor,...
Members
Hale-Andrew-Antico
January 29, 2023
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
April 24, 2022
Larry Ahern this week concludes a two-part examination of whether a Chapter 13 trustee may retain fees paid without a confirmed plan before dismissal. Part 1 analyzed McCallister v. Evans, a recent case accepting the trustee's position considering a division in the caselaw and analyzing relevant statutes. In this Part 2, he turns to the debtor's case, which has substantial...
Members
February 7, 2021
By Mark C. Leffler, Boleman Law Firm, PC, Richmond, Hampton, and Va. Beach, Virginia In order to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors . . .”, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) bars debt collectors from using any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt . . .” 15...
Members
September 8, 2019
By Angela M. Scolforo, Staff Attorney to Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee (Charlottesville, VA) In Hurlburt v. Black,1 the en banc Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned its prior decision in Witt,2 and held that Bankruptcy Code § 1322(c)(2) authorizes modification of some home mortgage loans through bifurcation and cram down. This enables debtors to cram down home mortgage...
Members