How to reconcile final payment on installment sale for IRS form 6252?
Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number.  Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale.  I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS   Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.
"After much research, the answer is ""a"": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to ""substantial restrictions"" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction." "I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks.  Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a ""reconciled"" flag on each transaction.  This has 3 states:  n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature." "Context: My parents overseas (Japan) sent me a little over $100,000 to   cover an expensive tuition payment and moderate living expenses in   2014. They are not US residents, Green card holders or citizens. They did not remit the tuition payment directly to the school. I am a   resident (for tax). This is enough to answer yes. That's basically the set of requirements for filing: you received >$100K from a non-US person and you yourself are a US person. You have to report it, and unless it is taxable income - it is a gift. Taxable income is reported on the form 1040, gifts are reported on the form 3520. The fact that in Japan it is not considered a gift is irrelevant. Gift tax laws vary between countries, some (many) don't have gift taxes at all. But the reporting requirement is based on the US law and the US definition of ""gift"". As I said above, if it is not a gift per the US law, then it is taxable income (and then you report all of it regardless of the amount and pay taxes). Had they paid directly to the institution, you wouldn't need to count it as income/gift to you because you didn't actually receive the money (so no income) and it went directly to cover your qualified education expenses (so no gift), but this is not the case in your situation. Whether or not this will be reported by the IRS back to Japan - I don't know, but it was probably already reported to the authorities in Japan by the banks through which the transfers went through. As to whether it will trigger an audit - doesn't really matter. It was, most likely, reported to the IRS already by the receiving banks in the US, so not reporting it on your tax return (either as income or on form 3520) may indeed raise some flags." I called the IRS (click here for IRS contact info) and they said I do not need to get a new EIN.  I could have just filed the appropriate employer federal tax return (940/941) and then the filing requirements would have been updated.  But while I was on the phone, they just updated the filing requirements for my LLC so I am all good now (I still need to file the correct form and make the correct payments, etc. but I can use this same EIN going forward). Disclaimer: Don't trust me (or this answer) for tax advice (your situation may be different).  The IRS person on the phone was very helpful so I recommend calling them if you are in a similar situation.  FYI, I have found calling the IRS to always be very helpful. If you have not already hired another caterer, potentially your best solution might be to try and work out something with these folks. Presuming of course that they still have access to their equipment, dishware, etc, and to the extent that what you have paid might cover their labor, equipment use etc there might be some way for them to provide the services you have paid for, if you pay for materials such as the food itself directly . This presumes of course that it's only the IRS that they stiffed, and have not had most of their (material) capital assets repossessed or seized.  and you still trusted them enough to work out something. Otherwise as Duff points out you will likely need to file a small claims lawsuit and get in line with any other creditors. My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority.  I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did.  There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment.  I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts. "I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation.  However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you.  As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership.   This seems to be the most fair resolution.  If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me.  If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you.  If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down.  Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, ""Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,"" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money.   Stand firm.  ""I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?"" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs.  Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership.  Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized.  Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating.  Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them.  Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away.  They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay.  Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the ""walk away"" option.  Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth.  Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back.  They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is." I'd be surprised if this ended in a materially-damaging final settlement. It may take more than 5 years to resolve, unless a smoking gun is produced. If PWC and outside counsel really issued written opinions, it could get a lot messier. Especially when we tip over into another recession, the IRS will come under intense Congressional pressure to cut a nominal deal.