As taxpayers are (or should be) aware, federal income tax returns must be timely filed to avoid potential penalties under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6651. Historically, this meant mailing a tax return and, for returns filed close to the due date, ensuring that the “timely mailed, timely filed rule” applies (see here for our recent post on the “mailbox rule”). In recent years, there has been a push to electronically file tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). However, for one reason or another, the potential exists that an e-filed return may be rejected. Continue Reading E-Filing: Comments Provided to IRS Regarding Transmission Failures
On November 16, 2017, we participated in a panel discussion at Tax Executives Institute’s (TEI’s) Chicago International Tax Forum regarding base erosion measures under the (then proposed) House and Senate tax reform bills. The House proposed a new 20 percent excise tax on most related-party payments (other than interest) that are deductible or includible in cost of goods sold or depreciable/amortizable basis. The Senate proposed a base erosion minimum tax on certain outbound base erosion payments paid by a corporation to foreign related parties. The conference committee has since submitted a conference report to accompany the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that adopts the Senate’s proposed base erosion measure, with some changes. The base erosion minimum tax is equal to the excess of 10 percent of the modified taxable income of the corporation over an amount equal to the taxpayer’s regular tax liability reduced by certain Chapter 1 credits. The base erosion minimum tax could impact any multinational group in which foreign affiliates provide services, intellectual property, depreciable or amortizable property and other deductible items to related US corporations. It remains to be seen how the base erosion minimum tax will affect businesses in practice, and how countries with which the United States has a tax treaty will respond.
We have written several times about penalty defenses, including substantial authority, issues of first impression and tax reporting disclosures. Additionally, we previously covered the 2016 case of Graev v. Commissioner, where a divided US Tax Court (Tax Court) held that supervisory approval was not necessary before determining a penalty in a deficiency proceeding because the statutory language of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6751(b)(1) couched such approval in terms of a proposed penalty assessment. For those not well-versed in procedural tax lingo, an “assessment” is merely the formal recording of a tax liability in the records of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In cases subject to the deficiency procedures—i.e., where taxpayers have a right to contest the IRS’s position in the Tax Court—no assessment can be made until after the Tax Court’s decision is final. Continue Reading IRS Required to Obtain Supervisory Approval to Assert Penalties
The tax bar is abuzz with the talk of tax reform. Clients are in modeling purgatory, trying to calculate its effects and plan for the future. Public accounting firms are suggesting how to accelerate deductions in 2017 to take advantage of the massive tax rate decline in 2018. Now more than ever, there are substantial economic incentives to accelerate deductions in 2017 and defer income until 2018. Yes, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas and the end to what bodes to be a historic year for federal tax!
Not to be a Grinch, but consider the following as you prepare for year end. If you attempt to accelerate any deductions, make sure to have a complete, “audit-ready” file if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decides to test your position. Consider how you will protect against the assertion of any penalties; typically, your ticket to get of out penalty “prison” is to maintain proper substantiation and to establish a reasonable cause defense. An opinion of counsel is one method to meet your burden of establishing that defense. It is always better to be proactive and anticipate an IRS audit than to be reactive and try to compile the proper documentation after-the-fact.
The Senate and House bills include provisions that place limitations on interest deductions for corporations. McDermott Tax partners Alexander Lee and John Lutz discuss several implications for US and US-based multinational corporations, including companies that will be adversely affected by the changes, debt limitations and tax efficiencies of offshore debt, and the changes in lending and collateral packages under the repeal of Section 956.
A House-Senate conference committee has reached agreement on a compromise version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes substantial changes to the corporate and international business taxation rules. The stage now appears to be set for final passage and enactment of the legislation before the end of 2017.
Today, taxing authorities across the globe, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are increasing their efforts to gather and share sensitive taxpayer information, often aggressively seeking copies of tax advice, opinions and analysis prepared by counsel and other advisors. In some situations, tax advisors specifically draft their advice to be shared with third parties, but frequently the IRS seeks advice that was always intended to be confidential client communications—for example, drafts and emails containing unfinished analysis and unguarded commentary. Sharing this latter type of advice could be problematic for taxpayers because such advice could be used as a road map for examiners during an audit and may mislead the IRS regarding the strength or weakness of a taxpayer’s reporting positions.
Last month, we spoke to tax executives at Tax Executives Institute forums in Houston and Chicago about the IRS’s increased use of treaty requests to obtain US taxpayers’ documents and information from international tax authorities. Continue Reading Maintaining Confidentiality While Navigating Cross-Border Transactions
Coinbase Inc., a virtual currency exchange platform, was recently ordered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with 2013-2015 transaction data for thousands of Coinbase accounts. See United States v. Coinbase Inc., et al., No. 17-CV-01431-JSC, 2017 WL 5890052, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). The IRS, citing references to 5.9 million customers and more than $6 billion of bitcoin transactions on Coinbase’s website, identified a potential reporting gap, since only 800-900 taxpayers have identified bitcoin transactions on their tax returns in the past few years. (Coinbase’s website currently references 10 million customers and $50 billion in transactions.) Although the IRS narrowed the scope of the third-party record keeper summons it had originally issued to Coinbase under Code Sections 7602, 7603 and 7609 (aka, a “John Doe Summons”), the parties could not reach agreement on what was to be produced, and the government initiated enforcement proceedings earlier this year. Continue Reading Governments are Pulling Back the Crypto-Currency Curtain
McDermott Will & Emery recently published Issue 3, 2017 of International News, which covers a range of legal developments of interest to those operating internationally.
This issue focuses on the upcoming Brexit from the European Union and the changes in the US Administration; both subjects which have dominated headlines over the past year. This issue explores ways in which prepared investors and businesses can continue to function effectively during this period of uncertainty and change.
A number of provisions included in the Senate’s tax reform bill, H.R. 1 (the Senate Bill) would impact the insurance sector. Many of the provisions would affect only the life insurance industry. Others affect property & casualty (P&C) insurance companies. Still others affect both life and P&C insurance companies.