TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
IRS Guidance
Subscribe to IRS Guidance's Posts

Deference Denied to IRS Notice Issued Post-Litigation

by | Oct 10, 2016 | , ,

Sometimes a loss in a discovery battle is really a win. That is certainly the outcome in Sunoco, Inc. v. United States, 2016 WL 334578 (Fed. Cl., No. 1:15-cv-00587, 10/6/16). In Sunoco, Judge Wheeler of the Court of Federal Claims denied Sunoco’s motion to compel production of the background file documents for Notice 2015-56 (Aug. 15, 2015). The court, however, denied the motion on the grounds that the requested documents are unnecessary because the Notice is not entitled to Skidmore deference.

Under Skidmore v. Swift, courts may give deference to an agency’s interpretation of its governing laws even when the agency does not use its rulemaking powers. In deciding whether to give deference to the agency’s interpretation, courts consider the interpretation’s “thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”  323 U.S. 134, 139-140 (1944).

In June 2015, Sunoco filed a complaint seeking refunds for federal income taxes relating to the tax treatment of the alcohol fuel mixture credit. Sixty-five days after the complaint was filed, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-56 taking a position contrary to Sunoco’s. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment. In its filings, the government claimed, among other things, that Notice 2015-56 was entitled to Skidmore deference. In response, Sunoco sought internal IRS documents relating to the issuance of Notice 2015-56 that it contended would assist the court in determining whether Skidmore deference was appropriate.

In denying Skidmore deference to Notice 2015-56, the court identified three factors – the timing of the Notice, the lack of authority and the inconsistency with prior IRS advice. The court found the Notice to be self-serving because it was issued when “it was actually litigating.” Additionally, the Notice provided no authority for its position, which the court would have expected considering its finding that the position conflicted with the Internal Revenue Service’s position in a Chief Counsel Advice issued two years earlier. Thus, the court denied Sunoco’s motion to compel on the ground that it was moot because Notice 2015-56 is not entitled to deference.

In situations where the government is claiming deference to agency pronouncements, taxpayers should consider requesting the background files. These files might shed light on the matters considered by the government and provide a defense to the deference argument.



read more

IRS Appeals – Changes Afoot?

by and | Oct 4, 2016 | , , ,

IRS Appeals cases within the Large Business and International (LB&I) division that involve a significant number of issues, a significant amount of money, or highly complex issues are typically assigned to a “team” of IRS Appeals officers. The Appeals Team Case Leader (ATCL), however, has “complete control” of the case, is “independent” from the IRS Examination Team and, except for certain coordinated issues, has settlement authority for all work assigned to the Appeals team. See I.R.M. 8.7.11.2 (09-25-2013). Currently there are 35 ATCLs.

Rumors are rampant, however, that the IRS may soon eliminate the ATCL’s settlement authority and require review and approval of settlements by an Appeals Team Manager (ATM), of which there are only a handful. On September 22, 2016, at an annual conference sponsored by the Internal Revenue Service and the New York Chapter of the Tax Executives Institute, Reinhard Schmuck, an ATCL for Area 9 in New York, confirmed that the IRS is considering changes to ATCL’s settlement authority. He indicated that the review was initiated in response to a report filed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that determined that in a sample of penalty Appeals cases, the case files did not always support Appeals’ decisions to abate penalties as required by Appeals criteria. See TIGTA Report Number:  2015-10-059 to the Internal Revenue Service Chief of Appeals (July 30, 2015). He cautioned, however, that the IRS had not made any final decisions.

Attendees at the conference, including former Appeals Officers and practitioners, expressed dismay at the proposed change because the LB&I Appeals process, which has worked well and instilled confidence in taxpayers, is not broken. This change may be a devastating blow to resolution at Appeals, and may cause a chilling effect on seeking redress at Appeals before heading to court. What is the use of spending a significant amount of time and effort to negotiate at Appeals if the decision maker is not even part of the negotiations?

What can we expect if the rumors ring true:

(1) Additional delays at Appeals;

(2) Unhappy ATCLs and ATMs;

(3) Unfair and unreasoned settlements;

(4)  Increased assertion of penalties; and

(5) Taxpayers avoiding Appeals and an increase in tax litigation.

The new procedures were rumored to be effective October 1. We do not have confirmation of a change in policy, but once the rumors are confirmed, we will report back.



read more

IRS Updates Rules Regarding Appeals Conferences

by , , , , and | Sep 22, 2016 | , , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has revised the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) regarding Appeals Conferences.  Below is a summary of material changes to IRM 8.6.1, effective October 1, 2016:

  • The IRM was revised to reflect that most conferences in Appeals will be conducted by telephone.  The revision also provides guidance for when in-person conferences are appropriate (e.g., when there are substantial books and records to review that cannot be easily referenced with page numbers or indices, or when there are numerous conference participants that create a risk of an unauthorized disclosure or breach of confidentiality).
  • IRM 8.6.1.4.1.2, In-Person Conferences: Circuit Riding was added.  If the assigned Appeals employee is in a post of duty that conducts circuit riding, circuit riding will be permitted when the address of the taxpayer, representative or business (for business entities) is more than 100 miles from a customer-facing virtual conference site or 150 miles from the nearest Appeals Office.  Area Directors have the discretion to deviate from these mileage limitations.  Circuit riding will also be allowed if the nearest Appeals Office cannot take the case due to high inventories or lack of technical expertise, or if there is no convenient alternative.
  • Language was added in IRM 8.6.1.4.4 to state that Appeals has the discretion to invite Counsel and/or Compliance to the conference.  The IRM notes that the prohibition against ex parte communications must not be violated and references Rev. Proc. 2012-18.
  • The definition of a new issue was updated in IRM 8.6.1.6.1(2).  The IRM retains prior language stating that a new issue is a matter not raised during Compliance’s consideration and adds that any issue not raised by Compliance in the report (e.g., 30-Day Letter) or rebuttal and disputed by the taxpayer is a new issue.

The revised IRM 8.6.1 is available here.



read more

Privileged Materials Provided Without Taxpayers’ Consent Should Not Waive Privilege

by and | Sep 16, 2016 | , , ,

In today’s tax environment and with the potential monetary awards to whistleblowers under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7623, taxpayers are facing the increased possibility that their confidential and privileged materials may be provided to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without the taxpayer’s consent. This raises serious privilege and ethical issues related to the attorney-client, work product and Code Section 7525 tax practitioner privileges.

In a welcome development, Drita Tonuzi, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), stated at a DC Bar Association event on September 8, 2016, that if someone who is not authorized to release a taxpayer’s documents turns them over to the government, they will first be reviewed to determine if the information is protected by federal laws or the Code. The Whistleblower Office will then redact confidential information before releasing it to examination agents. However, this leaves some unanswered questions.

Case law reflects that the unauthorized production of privileged materials by an ex-employee or by an employee without the authority to waive the privilege for the taxpayer should not be viewed as a waiver of the privilege. The problem is that taxpayers may not know that privileged materials have been provided to the IRS without the IRS’s consent and therefore would not be able to take steps to assert the privilege and request the return of such documents from the IRS. Taxpayers may want to make a request to the IRS at the beginning of an audit to provide it with a list of all materials received by third-parties so that the taxpayer can assess whether any privileged documents have been provided to the IRS without the taxpayer’s consent. If the IRS does not provide the list or refuses to acknowledge the taxpayer’s request, the taxpayer may have at least preserved its right to later assert privilege if it turns out privileged materials were provided to the IRS without the taxpayer’s consent.

If an IRS attorney receives privileged documents and does not return them to the taxpayer, this raises potential ethical issues. Attorneys who receive privileged documents where it is clear that such documents are privileged and were not intended to be disclosed by the taxpayer or the privilege was intended to be waived, may have a duty to not examine those materials and instead return them to the taxpayer. The IRS’s recent comment about reviewing and redacting what it believes is privileged before sending to the examining agent appears at odds with this duty.

In fact, since at least 2009, the IRS has demonstrated a growing awareness of the privilege concerns raised by whistleblowers that stand in a privileged relationship to a taxpayer, even while the IRS’s current policies have not fully addressed the problem. In August 2015, the Internal Revenue Manual was amended to provide that the IRS generally must assume that any “current employee whistleblower has access to information that may be subject to a privilege that has not been affirmatively waived by the taxpayer.” I.R.M. 25.2.2.4.4. That same section of the Manual and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

GAO Reports on IRS Guidance Procedures

by and | Sep 8, 2016 | ,

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report regarding how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) communicates tax guidance to the public.This report was prepared following bipartisan requests from members of both houses of Congress.

The GAO report: (1) analyzed documents that defined IRS guidance types; (2) reviewed the IRS’s policies and procedures for issuing guidance; (3) reviewed literature on the IRS’s issuance of guidance; (4) interviewed individuals at relevant government and tax practitioner organizations; and (5) reviewed IRS guidance issued during 2013 through 2015. Below is a chart included in the GAO report that illustrates various forms of guidance, and the weight that the IRS says attaches to each.

GAO blog post

The GAO found that the IRS uses many different forms of guidance to communicate its interpretation of tax laws to the public, but considers only the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) guidance to be authoritative. The IRS’s statement that only IRB guidance is authoritative could be considered an oversimplification. We previously wrote (here, here, and here) about how deference principles may apply to various forms of guidance.

The GAO found further that while the IRS has detailed procedures for identifying, prioritizing, and issuing new guidance, the IRS lacks procedures for documenting the decision about what form of guidance to issue.

(more…)



read more

3M Company, IRS File Reply Briefs in “Blocked Income” Case; Tax Court Orders Oral Argument

by | Sep 2, 2016 | , , ,

As discussed in an earlier post, 3M Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5816-13, involves 3M Company’s (3M) challenge to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) determination that Brazilian legal restrictions on the payment of royalties from a subsidiary in that country to its US parent should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s-length royalty between 3M and its subsidiary under Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2). The case has been submitted fully stipulated under Tax Court Rule 122. We discussed the parties’ opening briefs, filed on March 21, 2016, here. Reply briefs were filed on June 29, with the IRS filing an amended reply brief on August 18.

3M returns to its argument that Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2) is “procedurally invalid” because Treasury and the IRS failed to satisfy the requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA) when they promulgated the regulations. 3M notes that the IRS completely ignored this argument in its opening brief. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Encino Motorcars, discussed in more detail here, 3M points out that Treasury and the IRS made significant changes to the regulation, but offered no explanation for the changes. This, 3M argues, renders the regulation invalid. 3M observes that compliance with the two-step Chevron test would not save a regulation that is procedurally invalid, noting that such compliance is “a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a regulation to be upheld.”

(more…)



read more

IRS Begins Formal Assessment of CAP Program

by | Aug 29, 2016 | , , ,

On August 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that its Large Business & International (LB&I) division is in the process of assessing the Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) program. CAP is a real-time audit program that seeks to resolve the tax treatment of all or most return issues before the tax return is filed.  CAP began as a pilot program in 2005 with 17 taxpayers and has grown to currently include 181 taxpayers. In 2011, the CAP program was made permanent and expanded to include Pre-Cap and Compliance Maintenance. Pre-Cap provides interested taxpayers with a roadmap of the steps required for gaining entry into CAP, which as noted above is the standard real-time audit program whereby the IRS examines relevant transactions and proposed reporting positions before the tax return is filed. Cap Maintenance is intended for taxpayers who have been in CAP, have fewer complex issues, and have a track record of working cooperatively and transparently with the IRS. Under this phase, there is a reduced level of review with respect to the pre-filing review and the post-filing examination.

We previously wrote about the potential death of the CAP program. Based on the recent announcement, it appears that CAP is now on its deathbed. The recent announcement states that no new taxpayers will be accepted into the CAP program for the 2017 application season that begins in September 2016, which means that only taxpayers currently in the CAP and Compliance Maintenance phases may continue in the program. No new Pre-Cap application will be accepted and taxpayers currently in pre-Cap will not be accepted into the CAP phase. However, taxpayers currently in the CAP phase may be moved into the Compliance Maintenance phase, as appropriate. The announcement is not surprising in light of recent reorganization changes by the IRS and shifts to a “campaigns” approach, which we have written about here and here. The announcement explains that the CAP assessment is necessary given the IRS’s limited resources and constraints, combined with a business need to evaluate existing IRS programs to ensure that they are aligned with LB&I’s strategic vision. We will continue to monitor developments on this front, but for now any taxpayers that were planning on applying for the CAP program will no longer have that opportunity.



read more

Inversions and Debt/Equity Regulations Top Treasury’s 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan

by | Aug 16, 2016 | , , , ,

Yesterday, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released the 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan (Plan) containing 281 projects that are priorities for Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the period July 2016 through June 2017. The Plan contains several categories of topics, starting with consolidated returns and ending with tax-exempt bonds. The Plan also contains an appendix that lists more routine guidance that is generally published each year. Treasury and the IRS will update and republish the plan during the next 12 months to reflect additional items that have become priorities and guidance that has been published during the year. The public is invited to continue to provide comments and suggestions as guidance is written throughout the year. (more…)



read more

IRS UPDATES FATCA FAQs

by | Aug 15, 2016 | ,

On August 8, 2016, the IRS updated the “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) on the FATCA IDES Technical FAQs section at IRS.gov.

IDES stands for the “International Data Exchange Services” system that allows the IRS to exchange taxpayer information with foreign tax authorities. While the FAQs are focused primarily on technical issues, such as data preparation, testing and security, several of the revisions provide guidance on substantive FATCA reporting issues.

New Q:A18 clarifies that reports made by “Direct Reporting Non-Financial Foreign Entities” (NFFE) located in Model One IGA jurisdictions are to be made directly to the IRS rather than through their Host Country Tax Authority (HCTA). Generally when using IDES, files uploaded by a foreign financial institution (FFI) in a “M1O2” jurisdiction will be routed to the HCTA. The FAQ provides that “when a Direct Reporting NFFE applies for its Global Intermediary Identification Number(GIIN) through the FATCA Online Registration portal it must specify its jurisdiction as ‘Other’ if it is located in a M1O2 jurisdiction.” The GIIN assigned as a result of this registration option then instructs IDES to route transmissions directly to the IRS.

M1O2 stands for “Model 1, Option 2” which enables FFIs located in jurisdictions with Model 1 IGAs to report directly through IDES rather than to their HCTA, if such procedure is permitted by their HCTA.

The IRS also updated Q:C20, which deals with “nil” FATCA reports (i.e., FATCA reports in which no US accounts are reported). The revised FAQ confirms that generally, only Direct Reporting Non-Financial Foreign Entities and Sponsoring Entities’ reporting on behalf of a Sponsored Direct Reporting NFFEs are required to submit a nil report. Nil reports are optional for all other filers. The FAQ clarifies that while nil reporting may not be required by the IRS, it may be required by the local jurisdiction under that jurisdiction’s FATCA legislation, and reminds taxpayers to consult with local tax administration before filing FATCA reports.

The IRS continues to periodically update both the technical and substantive FATCA FAQs on its website to provide guidance to affected entities as compliance issues arise.



read more

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

US Tax Disputes Firm of the Year 2025
2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)
jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge