We previously posted on the Order by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, Dkt. No. 1:16-CV-944-LY (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017). In that Order, the court held that Treas. Reg. § 1.7874-8T was unlawfully issued. See here for our prior post. As expected by many, the government on November 27, 2017, appealed the Order to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The next steps are for the Fifth Circuit to set a briefing schedule and a date for oral argument. We will continue to follow this case and provide updates.
The IRS has never won a single litigated case arguing for foreign base company sales income (and has never litigated a foreign base company services income case). Courts have consistently rejected the government’s arguments to expansively apply the definition of Subpart F sales income in order to carry out asserted congressional intent. While the courts have acknowledged that the policies informed the rules, they have not permitted the policies to eclipse the plain language of the code, even where the taxpayer engaged in tax planning that took advantage of the rules and arguably frustrated the policies underlying the rules.
On Tuesday, November 21, a jury acquitted Bank Frey executive Stefan Buck of conspiracy to commit criminal tax evasion in the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned United States v. Edgar Paltzer and Stefan Buck, No 1:13-cr-00282-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).
In April 2013, an indictment was filed against Buck and a co-conspirator, Edgar Paltzer, alleging a criminal conspiracy whereby Buck, the head of private banking at Bank Frey, and Paltzer, a US citizen and lawyer, conspired with US taxpayers to move funds out of Swiss banks under investigation in the US, including Wegelin. The alleged criminal conduct included arranging for cash withdrawals and purchases of jewelry, opening new undeclared accounts, and filing false statements of beneficial ownership, among other actions.
Following up on our pro bono post last week, we wanted to highlight a recent article in the ABA Tax Times regarding tax impacts of natural disasters. The article discusses resources available to taxpayers and volunteers dealing with the after-effects of a natural disaster and emphasizes the need for tax assistance long-after the natural disaster occurs. If you have a few moments and/or are interested in ways you might be able to help, please take a quick look.
As we have written about before, there is a substantial need for pro bono assistance to low-income taxpayers throughout the country. A sample of some of the tremendous results obtained by pro bono volunteers can be found here. As strong proponents of pro bono, both in tax law and other areas of the law, we have seen firsthand the difference that a few hours of your time can make in the life of an individual that cannot otherwise afford to pay for legal representation.
The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation annually selects one individual or law firm as the recipient of the Janet Spragens Pro Bono Award. The award was established in 2012 to recognize outstanding and sustained achievements in pro bono activities in tax law. The ABA is seeking nominations for the 2018 recipient, which must be submitted by December 8, 2017. More information about the criteria for selection and a list of prior recipients can be found here. If you know of an individual or a law firm that would be a worthy nominee, please do not hesitate to submit your nomination to the ABA Section of Taxation. We note that all nominations are maintained in strict confidence by the Pro Bono Award Committee.
On November 8, 2017, Facebook, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Facebook) filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California asserting that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had improperly denied Facebook access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals. Facebook’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the IRS unlawfully issued Revenue Procedure 2016-22, 2016-15 I.R.B. 1, and unlawfully denied Facebook its statutory right to access an independent administrative forum. Facebook also requests injunctive relief from the IRS’s unlawful position, or action in the nature of mandamus to compel the IRS to provide Facebook access to an independent administrative forum. Continue Reading Facebook Goes to District Court to Enforce Access to IRS Appeals
Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 385 provides that the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is authorized to issue regulations to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated for purposes of the Code as stock or indebtedness. After decades of inaction, proposed regulations were issued on April 14, 2016. The proposed regulations were not well-received; the tax bar had serious and substantial comments to the proposed regulations. Among the most important critiques, there were criticisms for the potential overbreadth of the regulations’ application to foreign-to-foreign transactions, the lack of a de minimis exception for smaller companies and for the anticipated burden of the contemporaneous documentation requirements.
Treasury released final regulations under Code Section 385, which are effective as of October 21, 2016. Although the proposed regulations were changed in some respects, the final regulations retained strict documentation requirements.
In Executive Order 13789, the President called on Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens that impose undue financial burdens on US taxpayers, or otherwise add undue complexity to federal tax law. In response, Treasury indicated on October 2, 2017, that it would potentially revoke the documentation requirements under the proposed regulations. Continue Reading The Slow Death of the Section 385 Regulations
On November 6, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released two new International Practice Units (IPUs) relating to Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) for inbound and outbound tangible goods transactions. The IPUs provide a summary of the APA process, the types of APAs, and the interpretation and impact of an APA. The IPUs focus on the APA analysis for inbound distributors and outbound distributors. As we have previously noted, this high-level guidance to field examiners signals the IRS’s continued focus on international tax issues.
Wrapping Up October – and Looking Forward to November
As we wrap up October, you can view all of the topics we discussed over the last month and take a look at the upcoming tax controversy events where our lawyers will be speaking in November.
Upcoming Tax Controversy Activities in November:
November 10, 2017: Robin Greenhouse and Kevin Spencer are presenting “Alternative IRS Dispute Resolution Techniques” at TEI BW Chapter Tax Education Day.
November 16, 2017: Britt Haxton, Kristen Hazel, Justin Jesse, Alexander Lee, John Lutz, Sandra McGill, David Noren, Barry Quirke, Andrew Roberson and Mark Thomas are speaking at the TEI International Tax Forum, and covering evolution of hybrid mismatch rules base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), planning for tax reform, disclosures for global tax strategies, planning for 2018 and beyond, and the call for substance.
In light of the massive leak of the Appleby files this weekend (i.e., the “Paradise Papers” leak), it is increasingly important for US taxpayers to know the rules regarding reporting of their offshore financial accounts and assets. We have previously written on this subject here.
The latest document release from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists includes over 13.4 million files spanning a time period of more than 60-years, including a large cache from the Bermudan law firm, Appleby, and a fiduciary service provider, Estera. According to news reports, covered jurisdictions include Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Lebanon, Malta, the Marshall Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, and Vanuatu.
Practice Point: Voluntary disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service may still be an option for affected individuals and entities; therefore, all options should be considered when evaluating the consequences of this leak.