It can, on application, and the grounds are narrow: circumstances beyond your control, an action of the tax authority itself, or an inability to pay. What the application amounts to in practice is a documented chronology — what happened, when, what it prevented you from doing, and what you did once you could. Assertion carries almost no weight; these files are decided on records. It is also worth being clear at the outset about what is on the table: the penalties and the interest, and never the tax.
How do I fix taxpayer relief, penalties & interest?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
The grounds are circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control, actions of the tax authority, and inability to pay. The route chosen for the first year affects the relief available for every year behind it.
How this gets fixed
The grounds are circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control, actions of the tax authority, and inability to pay. The application is a documented chronology, and a second-level review is available where the first is refused.

The exception that catches people
Relief covers penalties and interest, never the tax itself, and it is limited by a look-back period that is running while the decision to apply is being deferred.
Where to go from here
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Taxpayer relief — penalties & interest. Whatever you have is enough to start the conversation, including nothing but the dates.
Reviewed for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. General guidance only. Your own facts decide the answer, so bring them to a call before relying on this.
Files that look like this one
Illness dated against the years the returns were missed
A client had two years of returns unfiled and a balance made up largely of penalty and interest. The events behind it were real but had never been set down in order. The work was to build a chronology from medical records, employer correspondence and bank statements, and to tie each unfiled period to what was happening in it. Where the gap continued past the illness, that continuation was explained separately rather than folded into the same ground. The engagement produced a filed application supported by a dated documentary record, with the outstanding returns filed alongside it.
Read how this one runsBalance split into tax, penalty and interest before applying
The client came in asking for the whole balance to be cancelled. It was not one balance. Separating the assessment into tax, penalties and accrued interest showed that part of what was owed came from a reassessment the client disputed on the merits, which relief cannot touch. The engagement produced two separate pieces of work on the right footings: an objection aimed at the part that concerned the amount of tax, and a relief application confined to the penalties and interest. Neither argument then had to carry the weight of the other.
Read how this one runsOldest years lost to the look-back while documents were gathered
This file arrived after a long delay in which the client had been trying to assemble a complete set of records. Scoping showed that the earliest years, which carried the largest part of the penalties, had moved outside the look-back period during that wait. The work was reordered accordingly: an application went in without further delay for the years still within reach, on the evidence then available, and was supplemented afterwards. The engagement produced a filed application covering every year still capable of relief, and a written note of which years had gone and why.
Read how this one runsSecond-level review answering the reasons for refusal
A first application, prepared elsewhere, had been refused. The refusal letter identified what had not been accepted: the chronology asserted a period of incapacity without anything to date it. Work began with that letter rather than with the original submission, and then with the records capable of filling the gap. The second-level review went in as a direct response to the stated reasons, with dated evidence attached to each disputed point. The engagement produced a reviewed decision on a properly evidenced record instead of a repetition of the first attempt.
Read how this one runsDelay caused by the tax authority documented from correspondence
Interest had accumulated on a balance while the client waited on the authority to process an adjustment requested in writing. The ground relied on was the authority's own handling, so the substance of the application was the correspondence file: what was sent, when, what was acknowledged, and what went unanswered. Reconstructing that record took longer than drafting the application itself. The engagement produced a chronology of the exchange, cross-referenced to the interest charged during each period of delay, and an application confined to that interest.
Read how this one runsInability to pay evidenced rather than asserted
A client whose income had fallen sharply was carrying penalties and interest they could not clear. Inability to pay is a recognised ground, but it is the ground on which assertion is least useful: it has to be shown with a household financial position — income, obligations, assets, and what is realisable. The work was assembling that position and presenting it against the balance. The engagement produced a documented financial picture filed with the application, and a clear separation between what relief was sought for and what the client undertook to settle.
Read how this one runsA Penalty Argued on the Facts Rather Than the Form
Reasonable cause is a documented story with dates, not an assertion of good intent. The engagement assembles what the client actually knew and when, and puts the sequence in writing alongside the filings it explains.
Read how this one runsCatching Up From Inside the United States
The domestic route suits a filer who was resident in the US through the missed years, and it differs from the offshore one in what it asks for and what it costs. Choosing between them before anything is filed is the whole engagement.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
Cross-border tax for sellers shipping worldwide: marketplace withholding, foreign registrations and inventory nexus handled before they become audits.
Marketplaces withhold, remit and report in their own right, so the tax position of a single sale is decided by where the stock sat, where the buyer was and which platform collected — not by where the company is registered. We reconcile the platform's own filings against the returns before either is submitted.
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
What people ask us about Taxpayer relief — penalties & interest
No. Relief reaches penalties and interest only. The underlying tax stands, and an application that is really an argument about the amount of tax belongs somewhere else — an objection, an amended return, or a correction of the assessment that produced the figure. Clients often arrive expecting the whole balance to be in issue, so the first useful step is splitting that balance into its parts: tax, penalty, interest. Once the split is on paper it is usually obvious which part an application can address and how much of the problem remains after it.
The category is doing work, not describing an atmosphere: serious illness, a death in the family, a disaster affecting records, and similar events that can be evidenced and dated. What makes an application succeed is the link between the event and the failure — that this illness, in these months, is why that return was not filed and that payment was not made. A gap continuing long after the event ended needs its own explanation. The chronology is built first, from medical records, correspondence and bank records, and only then does it become clear which ground it actually supports.
There is a look-back limit, and the important thing about it is that it moves. Each year that passes while the decision to apply is deferred can take the oldest year out of reach, so a balance left untouched for a long time may include penalties and interest that can no longer be relieved at all. That is why the scoping step on these files is to identify which years remain inside the window before anything is drafted. Waiting to gather one more document has cost people an entire year of the claim.
No. A refusal at the first stage can be taken to a second-level review, and that review is not simply a repeat of the first. It is the opportunity to answer the reasons given for the refusal, which is why the refusal letter is read closely before anything else: it usually shows which part of the chronology was not accepted, or not evidenced. Where the shortfall is evidential, the second application supplies the record that was missing. Where it concerns the ground relied on, the case may need to be put on a different footing entirely.
Settling the tax and dealing with the penalty and interest separately is often the sensible order, because interest continues to accrue on an unpaid balance while an application is considered, and a refused application then leaves a larger balance than the one you started with. That is a practical judgement rather than a requirement, and it looks different where the ground relied on is an inability to pay. In that case the financial position is the substance of the application, and it has to be documented rather than asserted.
A passive foreign investment company is a non-US company that is mostly passive by income or by assets — which describes almost every Canadian mutual fund and ETF. For a US owner the default regime taxes distributions and gains punitively with an interest charge for the years the value built up. Two elections fix it, and both need annual information the fund may not produce for you. Holding the same exposure through US-domiciled funds usually avoids the problem entirely. See PFICs and Canadian mutual funds.
The recipient is not taxed on a gift, and a foreign donor with no US-situs property is outside US gift tax — so often no tax arises on either side. What does arise is reporting: a US person receiving gifts above the annual reporting thresholds from a foreign individual, or from a foreign corporation or partnership at a lower threshold, files the information return for the year. The distinction between a gift and a distribution from a foreign trust matters here, because they are reported differently. See Form 3520.



