IRS Archives | Page 40 of 99 | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

IRS

E-Filing: Comments Provided to IRS Regarding Transmission Failures

by Roger J. Jones | Dec 26, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

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. (more…)

IRS Required to Obtain Supervisory Approval to Assert Penalties

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 21, 2017 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

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. (more…)

Prepare for Examination Season

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 20, 2017 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Tax Reform, Uncategorized

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.

Maintaining Confidentiality While Navigating Cross-Border Transactions

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 14, 2017 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Uncategorized

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. (more…)

Tax Court: Mailbox Rule Can Apply with Stamps.com Postage Label

by Jeffrey M. Glassman and McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 5, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Within the Internal Revenue Code (Code) is a rule commonly known as the “mailbox rule” or the “timely mailed, timely filed rule.” Under Code Section 7502(b), the date that an item—including a Tax Court petition—is postmarked and mailed can also be the date the item is considered filed. When an item is received after the filing deadline, the mailbox rule can make all the difference. There are, however, procedural requirements which must be satisfied. In Pearson v. Commissioner, the Tax Court, in a court-reviewed opinion, held that a Tax Court petition mailed with a Stamps.com postage label was timely filed under the mailbox rule.

Taxpayers generally have 90 days to file a petition with the Tax Court after receiving a notice of deficiency. In Pearson, the Tax Court received the taxpayers’ petition one week after the 90-day period expired, but the envelope in which the petition was mailed bore a Stamps.com postage label dated within the 90-day period. The administrative assistant who created the Stamps.com postage label supplied the court with a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that she went to a US Post Office the same day as the postage label date and mailed the petition. (more…)

Facebook Goes to District Court to Enforce Access to IRS Appeals

by K. Christy Vouri-Misso and Robin L. Greenhouse | Nov 13, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On November 8, 2017, Facebook, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Facebook) filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California asserting that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had improperly denied Facebook access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals. Facebook’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the IRS unlawfully issued Revenue Procedure 2016-22, 2016-15 I.R.B. 1, and unlawfully denied Facebook its statutory right to access an independent administrative forum. Facebook also requests injunctive relief from the IRS’s unlawful position, or action in the nature of mandamus to compel the IRS to provide Facebook access to an independent administrative forum. (more…)

Paradise Papers Revelations Highlight Importance of IRS Voluntary Disclosure

by Editorial Team | Nov 6, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

In light of the massive leak of the Appleby files this weekend (i.e., the “Paradise Papers” leak), it is increasingly important for US taxpayers to know the rules regarding reporting of their offshore financial accounts and assets. We have previously written on this subject here.

The latest document release from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists includes over 13.4 million files spanning a time period of more than 60-years, including a large cache from the Bermudan law firm, Appleby, and a fiduciary service provider, Estera. According to news reports, covered jurisdictions include Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Lebanon, Malta, the Marshall Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, and Vanuatu.

Practice Point: Voluntary disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service may still be an option for affected individuals and entities; therefore, all options should be considered when evaluating the consequences of this leak.

Tax Court Says IRS’s “Drift-Net” Argument to Expand Privilege Waiver Must Be Anchored in Principles

by Jeffrey M. Glassman, Kevin Spencer, Robin L. Greenhouse and Roger J. Jones | Nov 3, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

In Estate of Levine v. Commissioner, the US Tax Court (Tax Court) rejected an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attempt to expand upon the privilege waiver principles set forth in AD Inv. 2000 Fund LLC v. Commissioner. As background, the Tax Court held in AD Investments that asserting a good-faith and reasonable-cause defense to penalties places a taxpayer’s state of mind at issue and can waive attorney-client privilege. We have previously covered how some courts have narrowly applied AD Investments.

In Estate of Levine, the IRS served a subpoena seeking all documents that an estate’s return preparer and his law firm had in their files for a more-than-ten-year period, beginning several years before the estate return was filed and ending more than four years after a notice of deficiency (i.e., which led to the Tax Court case) was issued. The law firm prepared the estate plan and the estate tax return in issue. The law firm represented the estate during the audit, and after the notice of deficiency was issued, the law firm was engaged to represent the estate in “pending litigation with the IRS.” (more…)

Manafort Indictment Is a Good Reminder of FBAR Disclosure Requirements

by Kevin Spencer, McDermott Will & Emery, Roger J. Jones and McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 2, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On October 30, 2017, Paul Manafort Jr. was indicted for concealing his interests in several foreign bank accounts, as well as tax evasion and a host of other criminal charges. The indictment reminds us how important it is to follow the strict guidelines of the reporting regime that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of the Treasury have established to disclose foreign bank accounts.

Pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act, a US citizen or resident (a US Person) is required to disclose certain foreign bank and financial accounts which he or she has “a financial interest in or signature authority over” annually. This obligation can be triggered by direct or indirect interests; a US Person is treated as having a financial interest in a foreign account through indirect ownership of more than 50 percent of the voting power or equity of a foreign entity, like a corporation or partnership. The US Person is required to annually disclose the interest on FinCEN 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, which is commonly referred to as the FBAR. The disclosure requirement is triggered when the aggregate value of the foreign account exceeds $10,000. The form is filed with your federal income tax return.

The civil penalties for failing to timely disclose an interest in a foreign account can be severe, and in the case of willful violations, can reach up to 50 percent of the highest aggregate annual balance of the unreported foreign financial account each year. The statute of limitations for FBAR violations is six years, and the willful penalty may be assessed for more than one year, creating extreme financial consequences for FBAR reporting failures.

(more…)

IRS Criminal Investigation Division Expects Official “Stand Up” of National Coordinated Investigation Units in January

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 30, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

In early August 2017 (as we previously reported), the Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Criminal Investigation Division (CID), John D. Fort, announced that CID would be forming new National Coordinated Investigation Units over the next few months. In a recent conference, Fort has confirmed that these units will be fully operational in January, and they are already sending out referrals to field offices.

The units are intended to modernize CID’s investigative tools to rely more upon data analytics to harvest leads from information received through the Swiss Banking Program, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Panama Papers investigation, among other sources. The effort is also clearly intended to maximize the Division’s resources in light of budgetary concerns.

Fort also noted that CID has increasingly focused on tax evasion issues related to cryptocurrencies, and that the use of cryptocurrencies in money laundering operations has become much more mainstream in the last few years. We have also observed a number of developments in this area. For example, the Department of Justice Tax Division is currently engaged in an IRS “John Doe” summons enforcement action against a Bitcoin clearinghouse, seeking the names of Coinbase’s customers who engaged in certain types of potentially reportable transactions. See United States v. Coinbase, Inc., 3:17-cv-01431-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Practice Point: The new National Coordinated Investigation Units have the potential to reinvigorate and sharpen CID’s investigative efforts in the United States and for taxpayers abroad. Particularly in the area of undeclared offshore accounts, voluntary disclosure is strongly advisable; the world is getting smaller and smaller. Also, CID’s heightened focus upon Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may have far-reaching effects beyond criminal investigations. For example, as we have seen historically with the UBS and Jenkens & Gilchrist “John Doe” summons enforcement cases, among others, these summons proceedings can hold open statutes of limitations for assessment in civil audits as well.

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS