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
Uncategorized
Subscribe to Uncategorized's Posts

Tax Court Issues Five Discovery Orders Addressing Admissibility of Expert Reports

by and | Jul 20, 2016 | , , , ,

On July 13, 14, and 15, 2016, Judge Laro of the US Tax Court (Tax Court) ruled on five taxpayer-filed motions in limine to exclude expert reports in Guidant LLC f.k.a. Guidant Corporation, and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner. At issue in the case are a number of IRS transfer pricing adjustments to the taxpayer-corporation’s income under Section 482.

In support of its adjustments, the IRS offered numerous expert reports to the Tax Court, and the taxpayer sought to exclude these reports. The taxpayer raised the following major arguments:

Argument: The IRS expert reports failed to contain opinions.

The taxpayer argued that three of the reports should be excluded because they did not comply with Tax Court Rule 143(g)(1), which requires that expert witnesses generally prepare written reports, and requires that expert reports include “a complete statement of all opinions the witness expresses and the basis and reasons for them.” In federal district court practice (under somewhat different rules), this requirement generally means that an expert must separately state, and clearly delineate, his or her expert opinions in a written report—usually in a “conclusions” or “opinions” section. In Tax Court, the requirement for a clear and concise written expert report is even more significant than in federal district court practice because, under Rule 143(g)(1), expert reports are treated as direct testimony of the expert (although, in many cases, additional expert testimony and cross-examination may be helpful or necessary).

(more…)



read more

Tax Court Judge Howard A. Dawson, Jr. Passes Away

by | Jul 18, 2016 | ,

US Tax Court Judge Howard A. Dawson, Jr. passed away on July 15, 2016. The longest-serving judge in Tax Court history, Judge Dawson was appointed to the bench in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy and remained in service as a Senior Judge at the time of his death. This morning, Chief Judge L. Paige Marvel released a statement acknowledging his passing and discussing his many accomplishments.



read more

IRS Issues Safe Harbors under Which the IRS Will Not Assert That a Corporation Lacks the Requisite ‘Control’ for Purposes of Section 355(a)

by | Jul 18, 2016 | ,

On July 15, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Rev. Proc. 2016-40. This revenue procedure provides safe harbors in which the IRS will not assert that a distributing corporation, D, lacks control of another corporation, C, within the meaning of Code section 355(a)(1)(A) when D acquires putative control of C through C’s issuance of stock and C subsequently engages in a transaction that actually or effectively reserves the effect of the stock issuance. In general, D can only distribute the stock of C to D shareholders in a tax-free spin-off under Code section 355 if D has control of C within the meaning of Code section 368(c) immediately before the spin-off. To satisfy the control requirement of section 368(c), D must have 80 percent of the vote and 80 percent of each nonvoting class of C stock. Historically, in situations in which D owned less than 80 percent of the stock of C, D would satisfy this requirement by having C recapitalize its stock into “high vote” and “low vote” classes of stock immediately before the spin-off. D would then distribute the “high vote” stock with more than 80 percent of the vote of all C stock to D shareholders in a tax-free spin-off under section 355. However, publicly traded corporations often dislike having multiple classes of stock with different voting rights outstanding. As a result, when C becomes an independent publicly traded corporation following the spin-off, it often seeks to recapitalize its “high vote” and “low vote” classes of stock into a single class with identical voting rights. Prior to 2013, the IRS issued a number of private letter rulings permitting C to engage in such recapitalizations following its first regularly scheduled board meeting after a spin-off without retroactively causing the spin-off to fail to be tax-free under section 355. In 2013, the IRS announced it would no longer issue such rulings while it studied the issue.

(more…)



read more

Tax Court Order Indicates That E-Discovery and Predictive Coding Are Here to Stay

by , , and | Jul 18, 2016 | , , , , ,

On July 13, 2016, Judge Buch of the US Tax Court denied an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) motion to compel the production of electronically stored information (ESI) by Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership and Beekman Vista, Inc., which was not delivered as part of a discovery response based on the mutually agreed-upon use of “predictive coding.” Predictive coding is an electronic discovery method that permits an efficient and effective approach when reviewing for relevance a large amount of data and documents. It is a relatively new discovery method that is gaining acceptance by courts around the country as an alternative to the costly and laborious physical review of data and documents. Judge Buch previously authorized the use of predictive coding in Dynamo Holdings, Ltd. vs. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 9 (2014).

The IRS and the taxpayers had agreed that the taxpayers would run a search for terms determined by the IRS on the potentially relevant documents. The taxpayers provided the IRS with samples of randomly selected documents from the universe of potentially relevant documents, from which the IRS identified the relevant documents. These selections were used to create a predictive coding model, which a computer can use to identify conceptually similar documents.  The IRS also selected a “recall rate” of 95 percent. A search method’s recall rate is the percentage of all relevant documents in the search universe that are retrieved by that search method. The higher the recall rate, the fewer relevant but retrieved documents there will be. The taxpayers then delivered to the IRS all of the documents retrieved using the predictive coding model that were not privileged. More documents were identified in the initial search for terms than were identified using the predictive coding model. The IRS filed a motion to compel production of the documents identified in the initial terms search that were not produced.

The Tax Court denied the IRS’s motion, explaining that document review results are never perfect. The court stated that the IRS was seeking a perfect response, but that the Tax Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the responding party make a “reasonable inquiry” when making a discovery response. The court explained that “when the responding party is signing the response to a discovery demand, he is not certifying that he turned over everything, he is certifying that he made a reasonable inquiry and to the best of his knowledge, his response is complete.”  The use of predictive coding does not change this standard, and the court held that the taxpayers satisfied the reasonable inquiry standard when they responded using predictive coding.

Practice Note: Due to the amount of data and documents generated by taxpayers in the normal course of business, discovery of ESI can be extremely burdensome and expensive for taxpayers.  Nonetheless, it has become commonplace to see discovery requests for ESI.  Although there is a substantial amount of guidance on this subject in other courts, the Tax Court has issued [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Expert “Hot Tubbing” in the Tax Court

by and | Jul 15, 2016 | , ,

The use of expert witnesses in litigation can be tricky.  Taxpayers want to avoid the perception that their expert is a “hired gun” who is merely their biased advocate.  The US Tax Court has repeatedly stated that such expert testimony is not useful or credible.

A technique that is common in Australia, and has been gaining traction in the Tax Court, is the use of concurrent expert testimony.  This technique—referred to as “hot tubbing”—involves expert witnesses engaged by the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conferring directly with the judge and engaging in conversation about the evidence in the case and their opinion.   (more…)



read more

IRS Finalizes Controversial Regulations Allowing Contractor Participation in Examinations

by and | Jul 14, 2016 | , , ,

On July 12, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finalized regulations allowing third-party contractors (i.e., outside economists, engineers, consultants and attorneys) to participate in audits of taxpayers.  The regulations are not limited to allowing outside parties to review taxpayers’ books and records, but extend to the full participation in summons interviews.  The final regulations replace proposed and temporary regulations issued in 2014.

The IRS’s position is highly controversial and several organizations submitted comments arguing against finalization of the regulations.  Additionally, the IRS’s position was the subject of a dispute between Microsoft and the IRS relating to the IRS’s use of the law firm of Quinn Emmanuel in an audit of Microsoft’s transfer pricing.  It appears highly likely that taxpayers will challenge the validity of the final regulations in court, and at some point a court will be required to decide the issue.  In the wake of the final regulations, taxpayers that are currently under audit should consider requesting that the IRS provide a list of all third-parties, including outside contractors that are being consulted with during an examination.  It is a good practice to request in writing a list of the third-parties that the IRS contacts during the course of an examination.



read more

Tax Court Clarifies the Rules and Grants IRS’s Motion to Compel Nonconsensual Depositions

by and | Jul 12, 2016 | , ,

On July 8, 2016, Judge Buch of the US Tax Court (Tax Court) granted the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) motion to compel depositions of six individuals in Dynamo Holdings Ltd. P’ship v. Commissioner.  That case involves the question of whether certain transfers between related entities are disguised gifts or loans.  The IRS has been attempting to take sworn testimony of individuals relating to its examination of Dynamo for several years, which was part of the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Clarke, 135 S.Ct. 2361 (2014).  That summons’s enforcement action is still proceeding. (See United States v. Clarke, lead case: 15-11663).  As a subject of the ongoing discovery disputes, the IRS filed a motion to compel the depositions of six witnesses from Dynamo in the Tax Court. We have previously discussed the Tax Court’s prior opinion in this case regarding the use of predictive coding in responding to the IRS’s discovery requests for electronically stored information.

The Tax Court recognized its longstanding position that nonconsensual depositions are an extraordinary method of discovery.  In ruling on the motion to compel depositions, the court explained the two requirements necessary under the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tax Court Rules) to consider such a motion and three factors to consider in deciding whether to grant such a motion.  To request nonconsensual depositions, the movant must show:  (1) the testimony that the movant seeks to obtain through the depositions is discoverable under Rule 70(b) of the Tax Court Rules; and (2) the testimony sought practicably cannot be obtained through informal consultation or communication, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or consensual depositions.

If the movant can establish the two requirements, the court will weigh the movant’s:  (1) basis for the deposition; (2) purposes of the depositions other than having a substitute for cross-examination; and (3) prior opportunities to obtain the information sought through the depositions.

Judge Buch found that the two requirements were met because the testimony sought was central to this case, and the IRS could only obtain the information through the examinations, which four of the six witnesses refused to attend.  Additionally, he found that all three factors weighed in favor of compelling the depositions because the information was directly related to the witnesses’ knowledge, which was hard to access through other means, and the IRS has not had a chance to obtain the information because of the witnesses’ refusals to appear when summoned.

Practice Note:  Historically, depositions in the Tax Court were rare.  Since the Tax Court Rules were amended in recent years, this discovery practice has increased dramatically.  In the last five years we have seen the IRS increasingly and routinely request depositions.  This discovery tool, although not at the level that is experienced in district court, is one of the IRS’s new techniques to solidify the taxpayer’s position prior to trial.  We expect this practice to continue for the foreseeable future.  What does this mean to taxpayers?  The costs of litigating in Tax [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court (Again) Rejects IRS Use of Secret Subpoenas

by | Jul 11, 2016 | , , ,

On July 8, 2016, Judge Mark V. Holmes of the US Tax Court issued an order in Ernest S. Ryder & Associates, Inc., APLC, et al., v. Commissioner, ordering the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to serve on the taxpayer all non-party subpoenas that he had issued in the case, together with all responses and documents that nonparties produced after receiving those subpoenas. The order mirrored a prior order issued by Judge Holmes almost a year ago in Kissling v. Commissioner, Dkt. No. 19857 (July 16, 2015).

In both cases, the IRS served subpoenas on third parties (77 subpoenas in the most recent case) and argued to the court that there is no Tax Court rule that requires him to notify taxpayers about whom he is subpoenaing in a Tax Court case, and he would prefer to keep his pretrial preparation secret. Although Judge Holmes agreed that the Tax Court’s rules do not specifically require notice of non-party subpoenas, he disagreed with the IRS that this absence creates an implication that secret subpoenas are favored. Reviewing the history of its rules on subpoenas and the close connection with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45, which requires notice to other parties before service of non-party subpoenas for the production of documents, information, or tangible things, Judge Holmes adopted the notification requirement of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45 as a modification to the pretrial order that governed the case.

In our experience, the IRS does not view Kissling as the law in the Tax Court and questions its value. It remains to be seen whether the Tax Court will formally adopt the notification requirement in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45 or will continue to permit each judge to determine how to deal with secret subpoenas. Unless and until the court amends its rules, issues an opinion on the issue, or the IRS voluntarily follows the approach set forth by Judge Holmes, taxpayers and their counsel should consider as part of their pretrial preparation in Tax Court cases requesting from the IRS notice of all subpoenas issued to non-parties along with copies of all subpoenas, responses and documents produced by the non-parties. This request should be noted as being continuing in nature. If the IRS asserts that no subpoenas have been issued, taxpayers can use this representation against the IRS if they later discover that non-party subpoenas were issued. If the IRS refuses to respond or produce the requested information, taxpayers can point to these two orders as persuasive authority (albeit non-precedential and non-binding) that notice should be provided and the information should be produced.



read more

Some Questions Posed by Declining Audit Rates and Audit Campaigns

by | Jul 8, 2016 | , ,

The IRS is spending increasingly less time auditing large companies. This is a good thing, right?  But wait, the IRS is starting to launch audit campaigns. And some large taxpayers are still being audited even if they are not caught up in a campaign. What could be some of the consequences of these dynamics?

A recent report confirmed that IRS audits of large companies have fallen steeply in recent years. The report conducted by TRAC (Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) (available here) analyzed IRS audit history of large companies from 2010 through 2015.  The study found the IRS spent 34 percent less time on average auditing companies with $250 million or more in assets (Big Corps) in 2015 than it did in 2010.  Audits of the largest companies are declining even more sharply: the IRS spent 47 percent less time auditing companies with assets of $20 billion or more (Giant Corps). Further, the total number of large businesses audited by the IRS’s LB&I (Large Business & International) Division in 2016 is 22 percent lower than it was last year during this time period.

Large taxpayers may take a deep breath once their continuous audit cycle becomes less continuous or stops altogether. This is understandable. But if you are a taxpayer that is audited, a number of important questions immediately come to mind:

  • Will we have good rapport with a new IRS audit team? We spent years building our relationship with the previous IRS team—has all that very important work gone out the window? Will I have the time to build rapport with the new IRS team, or will they be under such time pressure to audit discrete issues that we will have little opportunity to interact with the team and shape the audit plan?
  • Will the IRS team arrive with a preconceived idea of the “proper outcome”? Will information document requests (IDRs) be standardized? Will we be able to effectively negotiate the scope of IDRs? Or will the IRS team simply be fact-gatherers for a more centralized committee that makes decisions?
  • Will we be able to meet with actual decision makers? Or will the decision makers be a committee in the background that we never truly get to engage in a meaningful discussion? Will centralized decision makers take into account the specifics of our situation, or will we be “lumped in” with other taxpayers?
  • Will the IRS issue “fighting regulations” in an attempt to chill legitimate transactions? Will IRS audit teams attempt to apply these fighting regulations to transactions that predate the effective date of the new regulations? After all, doesn’t the IRS often contend that the new regulations are not really a change and simply reflect existing law?
  • Will fewer audits mean bigger adjustments? What institutional pressure is IRS Exam under to propose very large adjustments? What about penalties?
  • Will IRS Appeals exercise true independence and concede improper adjustments? Or will IRS Appeals simply “split the baby” based on inflated numbers? Will this combination of factors [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

IRS Updates List of Items Requiring National Office Review

by and | Jul 7, 2016 | , , , , ,

On June 30, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Chief Counsel Notice 2016-009, which can be found here. In the notice, the IRS updated the list of issues that require IRS National Office review (the List). The List indicates those issues or matters raised by IRS field examiners that must be coordinated with the appropriate IRS Associate office.

There are several new items on the List. Notably, corporate formations with repatriation transactions, certain spin-off transactions and transactions that may implicate Treasury Regulation § 1.701-2 partnership anti-abuse rules are now also included. Debt-equity issues pursuant to Section 385 continue to be on the List.

In addition, now included are issues designated for litigation and issues that for technical tax reasons will not be referred to the IRS Office of Appeals under Revenue Procedure 2016-22, Section 3.03 (also relating to issues designated for litigation). We discussed Revenue Procedure 2016-22 in a recent posting. (more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

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