On April 17, 2018, the Taxpayer Advocate, Nina E. Olson, testified before a Congressional Oversight Committee regarding on-going challenges to the administration of an efficient and effective tax system. Ms. Olson runs the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), an independent office within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Taxpayer Advocate is appointed by and reports directly to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The office was created under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which became law on July 30, 1996. The office replaced the IRS Office of the Ombudsman. Continue Reading National Taxpayer Advocate Reminds Congress of IRS Deficiencies

The expiration of the time for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess tax can bring closure on prior tax and financial reporting positions for taxpayers. We have previously reported and written for the International Tax Journal about tax statutes of limitation both generally and in the international tax context. As a follow-up to those materials, we wanted to alert you that the IRS recently released a Practice Unit providing an overview of statutes of limitation on the assessment of tax. These materials are all good resources and starting points for taxpayers and practitioners with questions on statutes of limitation.

In a press release this morning, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Emin Toro to serve as a judge on the United States Tax Court (Tax Court). This is the latest in a wave of nominations to high-level tax positions within the government, as we have previously covered here and here.

Mr. Toro is currently a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Covington & Burling LLP. His practice focuses on the needs of multinational companies, including both tax controversies and counseling. Mr. Toro’s experience includes audits, administrative appeals, litigation and transfer pricing matters. He received his JD from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 2000 and clerked for the Honorable Karen LeCraft Henderson, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (2000–2001) and the Honorable Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court (2002–2003).

Wrapping Up March – and Looking Forward to April

Top March Posts You May Have Missed

White House Intends to Nominate Michael J. Desmond to High-Level Roles in the IRS and the Department of Treasury

The IRS May Be Coming for Your Bitcoins

Tax Court Judicial Conference This Week in Chicago

Upcoming Tax Controversy Activities in April

Our lawyers will present on key tax topics during the month of April. We hope to see you soon.

April 24, 2018: Todd Welty, Kristen Hazel, Elizabeth Erickson, John Lutz and Andrew Roberson will present “Taking Reasonable Positions and Retroactive Regulations” at McDermott’s Inaugural Tax Symposium in our Chicago office. The panel will address Gottesman, the ability of IRS to issue retroactive regulations, IRS authority issues, and impacts on return positions.

Led by our senior practitioners, our 2018 Symposium is a must-attend event for senior tax and employee benefits leaders seeking to optimize the opportunities and navigate the risks brought about by tax reform legislation.

April 30, 2018: Thomas Jones will present “Captive Insurance Tax Reform Update” at the Captive Insurance Council of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC. Captive Insurance has undergone a number of changes since the tax reform movement and our partner Tom Jones will cover the new regulations that your organization should be aware of.

The Tax Act created two new foreign tax credit limitation baskets – one for foreign branch income (new section 904(d)(1)(B)) and one for any amount includible in gross income under section 951A (i.e., GILTI) – however, it failed to amend section 904(d)(2)(H)(i) to reflect these changes to section 904(d)(1). As a result of this oversight, section 904(d)(2)(H)(i) currently instructs the taxpayer to treat foreign taxes imposed on amounts that do not constitute income under US principles as imposed on income described in the foreign branch income basket. In light of legislative history and Treasury regulations, such a failure to amend the Code appears to be a drafting error. This article addresses the relevant case law that, on balance, supports applying section 904(d)(2)(H)(i) as if its language and cross-reference had been properly amended.

Access the full article.

Tax controversy practitioners are undoubtedly aware of the gradual movement over the years to conform certain Tax Court procedure rules (Tax Court Rules) to those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In many ways, this makes sense to ensure uniformity of tax cases regardless of whether a taxpayer litigates his tax dispute in a refund forum in the US District Court or the US Court of Federal Claims, or prior to payment of tax in the Tax Court. Below we note a few important areas of divergence between the different rules, and point out situations where the Tax Court Rules do not address a particular matter. These matters were discussed at the recent Tax Court Judicial Conference held in Chicago last week.

Amicus Briefs

As we have discussed before, amicus briefs are not uncommon in other courts. However, the Tax Court does not have specific rules on the topic and, instead, permits each judge to decide a case-by-case basis whether to permit the filing of an amicus brief. Although the Tax Court has discussed standards for filing amicus briefs in unpublished orders, given the nationwide importance of many issues that arise in Tax Court litigation, it may be time for the court to issue specific rules addressing the issue. Continue Reading Are Changes Looming over the Tax Court’s Procedure Rules?

A shrinking Internal Revenue Budget (IRS) budget has meant that fewer agents are available to make sure that the tax laws are being enforced. We have reported previously about how Congress has decreased the IRS’s budget.  In 2017, the audit rate fell to its lowest levels in 15 years because of a shrinking IRS budget and workforce. Indeed, your chance of being audited fell to 0.6% in 2017, the lowest rate since 2002. Similarly, tax collection levies fell 32% from the prior year, and the IRS filed 5% fewer liens year-over-year. Detailed information from the IRS can be found here.

Practice Point. The decreased funding of the IRS in the wake of bipartisan disagreements seems to have quelled in recent weeks. We have seen movement to get the IRS more funding in the wake of tax reform but it remains to be seen whether some of those funds will be used to increase the enforcement functions of the IRS. We anticipate, however, an increase in enforcement activity as a result of some of the positions taken by taxpayers in anticipation of tax reform and the myriad of interpretive questions that are expected to result from the new tax laws.

On March 28, 2018, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published Proposed Regulation § 301.7601-1(b)(3)(i) and (ii) which permits the IRS to hire outside specialists to assist in determining the correctness of a taxpayer’s tax liability. The Proposed Regulation also contains an exception specifically prohibiting the IRS from hiring outside attorneys to review summoned information or question witnesses providing testimony under oath.

The participation of outside attorneys became controversial during the audit of a large technology company when the IRS hired an outside law firm to augment its own resources for the transfer pricing audit of the company. On October 16, 2017, in response to the requirements of Executive Order 13789, requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to review all regulations issued after January 1, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that they were considering proposing an amendment to Treas. Reg. § 301.7602-1(b)(3) in order to narrow the scope with respect to non-government attorneys. See our prior coverage here. Continue Reading New Proposed Regulations Limit Use of Non-Government Attorneys