Alternative Dispute Resolution Archives

More Changes to IRS Appeals Procedures

by Jean A. Pawlow | Nov 4, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, Settlements, Uncategorized

In a letter dated November 4, 2016, IRS Chief of Appeals Kirsten Wielobob provided some clarification regarding the authority of the Appeals Team Case Leaders (ATCLs) to settle cases, revisions to IRM section 8.6.1.4.4 permitting other IRS employees to attend conferences, clarifications to conference practices, and revisions to how Appeals handles section 9100 relief determinations. After a month of speculation, of interest to most taxpayers and practitioners is the news that, although settlement authority will remain with the ATCLs, Appeals will revise its procedures to make it clear that an Appeals Manager must review a case prior to an ATCL finalizing a settlement. In an apparent attempt to thread the proverbial needle, the letter indicates that the Appeals Manager “will not be accepting or rejecting settlements,” but if the ATCL and Appeals manager “disagree about a settlement,” the next higher level manager supervising ATCL Operations will resolve any disagreement. Although this procedure is contemplated in IRM section 8.7.11.3.1 (03-16-2015), the letter suggests that there will in fact be a procedural shift. It remains to be seen whether, as some have feared, this will lead to increased delays in resolving cases.

Tax Controversy Options

by McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 11, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Knowing your options for a US Federal tax controversy is helpful in creating a sound and efficient strategy. The attached chart depicts the typical options involved in a US Federal tax controversy, from the IRS’s examination of the return, through administrative appeals, litigation in Tax Court, Circuit Court appeal, and to ultimate assessment of tax.

Two Current Tax Controversies Utilize ‘Quick Peek’ Agreements to Resolve Privilege Disputes

by Joshua M. Ellenberg and Robin L. Greenhouse | May 31, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Court Procedure Matters, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Due to the enormous amount of electronic data stored by companies in the modern era, discovery requests can involve millions of documents which need to be reviewed prior to being turned over to the opposing party. In conducting their analysis of this overwhelming quantity of information, litigants must, amongst other things, detect and exclude any privileged material. Should a party inadvertently fail to do so before such records reach the hands of the opposing counsel, he/she will be deemed to waive privilege in many jurisdictions. Given the massive quantity of data, however, such mistakes are practically unavoidable.

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502 was enacted in 2008 in an attempt to combat the issue of inevitable human error and the costs associated with parties’ efforts to avoid it. FRE 502(d) allows parties to request the court to grant an order stipulating that a disclosure of privileged material does not waive any claims of privilege with respect to those documents. If the court agrees to enter the order, it is controlling on third parties and in any other federal or state proceeding.

FRE 502(d) has led to the possibility of “quick peek” agreements where the parties give over all or a portion of their documents to opposing counsel without any privilege review whatsoever so that the recipient can identify which material he would like to retain. The recipient, in turn, agrees not to assert a waiver claim on any document that the producing party intends to withhold from the requested documents as privileged. These arrangements can dramatically ease the temporal and financial burdens of conducting a privilege review because they allow the producing party to focus only on those documents desired by the recipient while at the same time preserving their right to claim privilege on such documents. (more…)

IRS Updates Appeals Procedures for Tax Court Cases

by Robin L. Greenhouse and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 25, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Guidance, Settlements, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On March 23, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Rev. Proc. 2016-22, 2016-15 IRB 1, which clarifies and describes the practices for the administrative appeals process in cases docketed in the Tax Court. The stated purpose of the revenue procedure is to facilitate effective utilization of appeals and to achieve earlier development and resolution of Tax Court cases.

Previously, the procedures for the appeals process of Tax Court cases was contained in Rev. Proc. 87-24, 1987-1 C.B. 720. In October 2015, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure updating the rules and requesting public comments. Three substantive comments were received and considered by the IRS, resulting in changes to the proposed revenue procedure. Rev. Proc. 2016-22 states that some of the suggestions that were not adopted may be addressed in other IRS guidance materials.

The general rule followed by the IRS is that all cases docketed in the Tax Court that have not previously been considered by IRS Appeals will be transferred to Appeals unless the taxpayer notifies IRS counsel that it wants to forego settlement consideration by Appeals. This rule is subject to certain exceptions, most notably if the case has been designated for litigation by the IRS. The revenue procedure also provides that “[i]n limited circumstances, a docketed case or issue will not be referred if Division Counsel or a higher level Counsel official determines that referral is not in the interest of sound tax administration.” Although no definition is provided, examples are provided of: (1) a case involving a significant issue common to other cases in litigation for which the IRS maintains a consistent position; or (2) cases related to a case over which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction. Referral to IRS Appeals will generally occur within 30 days of the case becoming at issue in the Tax Court, which can be either the date the Answer is filed by the IRS or a Reply (if required) is filed by the taxpayer.

The revenue procedure clarifies, and limits, the role of IRS counsel when a case is referred to Appeals. Unlike Rev. Proc. 87-24, the new revenue procedure provides that Appeals has sole discretion to determine whether IRS counsel may participate in any settlement conference and will consider input from the taxpayer on this point. It also clarifies that when a case is forwarded to Appeals for consideration, “Appeals has the sole authority to resolve the case through settlement until the case is returned to Counsel.” In the past, taxpayers were concerned about the ability of IRS counsel to disrupt a settlement reached with Appeals. If a settlement is reached with Appeals, IRS counsel’s involvement is ministerial in that counsel should only review any decision document signed by the taxpayer for accuracy and completeness before signing the decision document on behalf of the IRS and filing it with the Tax Court.

The new revenue procedure should also be a welcome development for estate tax cases given that there is no statutory provision to extend the [...]

Continue Reading

Preparing for a Tsunami of International Tax Disputes

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 14, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, IRS Audits, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Recently, we published a Special Report in Tax Notes International, “Preparing for a Tsunami of International Tax Disputes.” The article can be accessed here. While there is near-universal agreement that the number of tax disputes is going to increase, existing international tax dispute resolution processes remain in serious need of improvement. A global consensus must be reached on a process for resolving worldwide tax disputes that appeals to all stakeholders. This article focuses on recent attempts by the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD), United Nations (UN) and international tax community to achieve such a consensus.

In short, the predictability of tax base results is a serious concern for countries and multi-national enterprises alike. The only realistic solution is to design a dependable and independent treaty-based dispute resolution process that accommodates the needs of all stakeholders. A foundation for this process has been provided by the inclusion of arbitration in both the OECD and UN model income tax treaties and its successful implementation in a few countries. Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) have already evolved successfully in nontax government and commercial contexts. As with any such evolution, there have been both positive and negative experiences for countries and private parties. In the realm of international taxation, the development of these processes is in the early stages. It is important for all stakeholders in the tax arena to explore ways of using experiences from non-tax contexts to develop processes that can relieve emerging pressures relating to international taxation. To distinguish the international tax context from others, the new dispute resolution process could be referred to as the International Taxation Dispute Resolution Process (ITDRP), as suggested in the UN Secretariat Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Taxation released on October 8, 2015.

While the development of a successful ITDRP will inevitably take time and will no doubt be contentious, significant advancements have been made in the past few months that suggest it could soon be on the horizon. These include the initial Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) paper on dispute resolution, the January 2015 Dispute Resolution Conference in Vienna, the OECD Action 14 Final Report (released in October 2015) and the UN Secretariat ADR Paper.

Almost all stakeholders in the international taxation community agree that: (i) the number of disputes will increase; (ii) existing dispute resolution processes are in serious need of improvement; and (iii) a global consensus must be achieved so that global tax disputes can be resolved in a way that serves the interests of all stakeholders. In this regard, it may be fortunate for the tax community that it is arriving late to the ADR processes that have evolved in other areas over the past century. As the OECD and UN processes continue to evolve, it is hoped that lessons from these other areas can be drawn upon to develop an ITDRP that serves the interests of all parties.