Photo of Andrew R. Roberson

Andrew (Andy) R. Roberson focuses his practice on tax controversy and litigation matters. He represents clients before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Examination Division and Appeals Office and has been involved in more than 50 matters at all levels of the federal court system, including the US Tax Court, several US courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. Andy has experience settling tax disputes through alternative dispute resolution procedures, including Fast Track Settlement and Post-Appeals Mediation, and in representing clients in Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) audits. He also represents individuals in Global High Wealth Industry Group audits and in connection with offshore disclosure programs. Read Andy Roberson's full bio.

On July 31, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business and International (LB&I) division formally withdrew its Directive (LB&I-04-0118-005) instructing examiners on transfer pricing selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in Cost Sharing Arrangements (CSAS). See here for IRS Notice of Withdrawal.

The Directive was issued January 12, 2018, after the Tax Court’s opinion in Altera which invalidated Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(d)(2). The IRS appealed Altera and issued Directive LB&I-04-0118-005, which we previously discussed here. The Directive instructed examiners to “[s]top opening issues related to stock-based compensation (SBC) included in cost-sharing arrangements (CSAS) intangible development costs (IDCs) until the Ninth Circuit issues an opinion in the Altera case on appeal.” At the time, the IRS indicated that it would issue further guidance once Altera was finally decided. On June 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s decision.
Continue Reading

On July 19, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business & International (LB&I) division announced the approval of six new campaigns. As in the past, the IRS stated that “LB&I’s goal is to improve return selection, identify issues representing a risk of non-compliance, and make the greatest use of limited resources.” This brings the total number of campaigns to 59! LB&I’s campaign announcements and approved campaigns are available on the IRS’s website.

The six new LB&I campaigns are listed below, verbatim by title and description.

S Corporations Built in Gains Tax
C corporations that convert to S corporations are subjected to the Built-in Gains tax (BIG) if they have a net unrealized built-in gain and sell assets within 5 years after the conversion. This tax is assessed to the S corporation. LB&I has found that S corporations are not always paying this tax when they sell the C corporation assets after the conversion. LB&I has developed comprehensive technical content for this campaign that will aid revenue agents as they examine the issue. The goal of this campaign is to increase awareness and compliance with the law as supported by several court decisions. Treatment streams for this campaign will be issue-based examinations, soft letters, and outreach to practitioners.
Continue Reading

The IRS has released new informal guidance (“Questions and Answers”) regarding section 965, containing information on making successive installment payments, filing transfer agreements as a result of certain acceleration or triggering events, and other matters related to S corporation shareholders making the section 965(i) election.

Consistent with prior advice issued by the IRS (see coverage

The enactment of the Taxpayer First Act, H.R. 3151 (116th Cong.) (TFA) brings with it several changes to the procedures and operations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The TFA touches on the following subjects:

  • Establishing the IRS Independent Office of Appeals
  • Improving customer service
  • Changes to enforcement
  • Modernization of the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS
  • Cybersecurity and identity protection, technological changes, and expanded use of electronic systems
  • IRS hiring and disclosure changes
  • Provisions relating to exempt organizations
  • Changes to the penalty for failure to file
  • Determination of budgetary effects
  • Other miscellaneous provisions

This post does not discuss each subject, but rather focuses on changes to the IRS Appeals process.
Continue Reading

The concept of limited scope representation is not a new one in the legal arena. Rule 1.2(c) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.” This rule has been broadly embraced by states. The idea of limited representation in Tax Court cases has been floating around for years. It has mostly come up in the context of pro se taxpayers who appear at calendars calls. There may be one or more volunteers willing to assist the taxpayer but are unable to enter an appearance on the spot for various reasons (e.g., inability to conduct a conflicts search, uncertainty as to whether the taxpayer will be responsive in the future, inability to determine whether case has merit). In this situation, the volunteer is usually not allowed to speak on the taxpayer’s behalf to the Court to try to assist with resolving the case and handling procedural matters.

In 2018, Special Trial Judge Carluzzo and Special Trial Judge Panuthos invited suggestions for better assisting unrepresented and low-income taxpayers in the Tax Court. In response, the American Bar Association Section of Taxation recommended that the Tax Court consider amending its rules to permit counsel to enter an appearance for a limited time or purpose. At the time of the recommendation, approximately 69% of all Tax Court petitioners and 91% of petitioners in small tax cases were self-represented. The Section of Taxation pointed out that many self-represented petitioners before the Tax Court do not understand the law or court rules and therefore are unable to make an effective legal argument. This results in inefficiencies in the Tax Court, as well as inequality because the IRS is always represented by counsel.
Continue Reading

In Kearse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-53, the Tax Court held the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) abused its discretion as part of the taxpayer’s Collection Due Process hearing (CDP hearing) because the Appeals officer failed to properly verify that the assessment of the taxpayer’s unpaid 2010 liability was preceded by a duly mailed notice of deficiency.

The taxpayer, well-known to sports fans, was Jevon Kearse. Mr. Kearse, nicknamed “The Freak” for his athletic ability, played for 11 seasons in the National Football League and tallied 74 career sacks as a dominating defensive end. Based on the description of events by the Tax Court, Mr. Kearse’s attorneys outmaneuvered the IRS similar to the way Mr. Kearse had offensive tackles tripping over their shoestrings.
Continue Reading

A recent case decided by the US Tax Court reminds us that when you litigate a case in Tax Court, what happened during the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examination and Appeals bears very little relevance (if any) once you get to court. Generally, Tax Court’s proceedings are de novo, and the court looks solely to the IRS’s position in the Notice of Deficiency (Notice). The Revenue Agent’s Report and other statements made by the IRS before the issuance of the Notice are typically ignored.

In Moya v. Commissioner, 152 TC No. 11 (Apr. 17, 2019), the IRS determined deficiencies related to the disallowance of certain business expense deductions. The taxpayer did not assign error to the disallowance, but instead argued that the Notice was invalid because the IRS had violated her right to be informed and her right to be heard under an IRS news release and an IRS publication outlining various rights of taxpayers. Specifically, the taxpayer asserted that she had requested that her examination proceedings be transferred to California after she had moved from Las Vegas to Santa Cruz, and that the IRS had violated the her rights by providing vague and inconsistent responses to, and by ultimately denying, her request.
Continue Reading

When you do not pay your taxes, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the power to file a “lien” on your property under Internal Revenue Code section 6321. The lien attaches “upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” Practically, this means that the IRS is giving notice that you owe it money and its debt gets priority to most debts that occur after the lien notice is filed. Historically, the lien law has been interpreted strictly and “foot faults” can invalidate the lien. A recent case, however, provides that if the federal tax lien uses the incorrect name, the lien may still be established and enforceable.

The taxpayer and his wife purchased their home as joint tenants in 1975. The taxpayer became the sole owner of the property after his wife passed away. In July 2007, the taxpayer filed federal income tax returns for tax years 2000 to 2004. Based on those returns, the IRS assessed taxes, penalties and interest, which remained outstanding at the time of his death in July 2009. On August 9, 2010, the government recorded a notice of federal tax lien (the Tax Lien Notice) against the taxpayer with the appropriate recorder of deeds in an amount equal to the previously assessed amounts. The Tax Lien Notice omitted the second “l” in the taxpayer’s first name, and failed to include a legal description or permanent index number for the property. The Tax Lien Notice did identify the correct address.
Continue Reading

Most tax professionals are aware of the common-law “mailbox rule,” which provides that proof of proper mailing creates a rebuttable presumption that the document was physically delivered to the addressee. Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 7502 was enacted to codify the mailbox rule for tax purposes. Thus, for documents received after the applicable deadline, the document will be deemed to have been delivered on the date the document is postmarked. To protect taxpayers against a failure of delivery, Code section 7502 also provides that when a document is sent by registered mail, the registration serves as prima facie evidence that the document was delivered, and the date of registration is treated as the postmark date. In other words, if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims not to have received a document, the presumption arises that such document was delivered so long as the taxpayer produces the registration.

Continue Reading