IRS Archives | Page 43 of 102 | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

IRS

International Practice Units – Competent Authority

by McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 10, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

In recent months, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has issued a variety of international tax practice “units” as part of its process to improve tax compliance from identified groups of business taxpayers. The overall process also includes short descriptions of respective “campaigns” and briefly describes the agency’s designated, tailored treatment or treatments for each campaign.

Most recently, it issued a unit on the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), commonly referred to as the Competent Authority Process under bilateral tax treaties (Doc Control No. ISO/P/01_07_03-01). The purpose of the unit is to provide IRS examiners (for the most part, the unit does not address foreign-initiated adjustments) with clear guidance on their responsibility in situations where proposed adjustments will be made in a context in which the taxpayer could potentially face double taxation, consistent with the most recent revenue procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2015-40. The unit also provides a helpful checklist for taxpayers in such situations.

The unit amplifies the guidance in Rev. Proc. 2015-40 with respect to both issues arising in Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) and Treaty Assistance and Interpretation Team (TAIT) (for non-transfer pricing issues). The discussion is consistent with current practice. Critical issues addressed include the following. (more…)

IRS Expands Section 355 Ruling Practice

by John Robert, Kevin Spencer and Macdonald Norman | Oct 6, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On September 21, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Revenue Procedure 2017-52 which introduces an 18 month pilot program expanding the scope of the IRS’s ruling practice with respect to distributions under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 355. Prior to Revenue Procedure 2017-52, the IRS had determined that it would not issue letter rulings on whether a distribution qualified for tax-free treatment under Code Section 355. See Revenue Procedure 2013-32. Instead, the IRS had limited its rulings under Code Section 355 to merely addressing “significant issues.” Id. Now, with the introduction of Revenue Procedure 2017-52, a taxpayer may obtain a “transactional ruling” that specifically addresses the general federal income tax consequences of a transaction intended to qualify as tax-free under Section 355.

Practice Point: A letter ruling is an excellent way for taxpayers to gain certainty with respect to a Section 355 transaction and to head off potential controversy with the IRS.

Treasury Releases Report on Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Oct 5, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On October 2, 2017, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) submitted a report (Report) to the President of the United States recommending the withdrawal, revocation or revision of eight Treasury Regulations in order to eliminate or otherwise mitigate the “burdens imposed on taxpayers.” This action springs from Executive Order 13789 issued by the President on April 21, 2017, calling on Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens that impose undue financial burdens on US taxpayers or otherwise add undue complexity to federal tax laws.

The Report is largely consistent with Treasury’s interim report dated June 22, 2017, but sets forth in greater detail the specific actions recommended by Treasury. However, the Report also stated that Treasury is considering possible reforms of several recent regulations not identified in its interim report, such as regulations under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 871(m) (relating to payments treated as US source dividends) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The Report also states that Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have initiated a comprehensive review of all regulations—regardless of when they were issued—that is coordinated by the Treasury Regulatory Reform Task Force and is a furtherance of executive orders adopting a PAYGO approach to regulations. (more…)

District Court Holds Anti-Inversion Regulation Unlawfully Issued

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Schulte | Oct 4, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

“[W]e are not inclined to carve out an approach to administrative review good for tax law only.” Mayo Found. for Medical Educ. & Research v. United States, 562 US 44, 55 (2011).

With this language, the US Supreme Court put taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) on notice that administrative law applies equally to tax law. Since this announcement, administrative law issues have figured prominently in several tax cases with the result that certain practices of the IRS and Treasury in issuing regulations have been called into question. (Please see our most recent post on the Administrative Procedures Act [APA] as applied to notices of deficiency issued by the IRS.) One such practice is the issuance of temporary regulations—without prior opportunity for comment by the public—that the IRS and Treasury treat as binding rules of law. One such example is the temporary anti-inversion regulations issued in April 2016 that address transactions that the IRS and Treasury believe are structured to avoid the purposes of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7874 and 367.

As is common practice by the IRS and Treasury, the regulations were simultaneously issued in both proposed and temporary form. The regulations include the rules described in prior Notices, as well as new rules designed to address issues not covered by the Notices. The regulations totaled more than 200 pages, addressing many issues in the area. (more…)

TIGTA Report: FOIA Procedures Need Improvement

by McDermott Will & Emery and Jeffrey M. Glassman | Oct 3, 2017 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On September 7, 2017, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a report about the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) procedures. After reviewing a statistically valid sample of FOIA requests, TIGTA concluded that the IRS improperly withheld information 14.3 percent of the time—or approximately 1 in 7 FOIA requests.

TIGTA also found that at the end of Fiscal Year 2016, there were 334 backlogged information requests. Below is a chart from the report showing the IRS’s recent history of backlogged FOIA requests.

TIGTA’s findings are consistent with our experiences with FOIA requests. It is not unusual for the IRS to make repeated requests for extensions to respond. We note further that, during an examination, the IRS is statutorily authorized to provide taxpayers access to their administrative file. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Manual confirms this at section 4.2.5.7 (June 15, 2017). Yet the IRS examination team often requires a FOIA request.

Practice Point 1: As a result of the IRS’s FOIA backlog, some taxpayers have resorted to filing lawsuits in federal district court to enforce their FOIA rights. Because the IRS must respond to court deadlines, taxpayers are sometimes able to force a more expedient response and move to the front of the response line.

Practice Point 2: Taxpayers should attempt to tailor their FOIA requests, only requesting the information in which they are interested. In theory, this could make the IRS’s job easier and, in turn, responses more timely.

Practice Point 3: If taxpayers intend to seek information from the government through the FOIA process, they should do so as soon as possible (e.g., at the beginning of the examination process) so that they may get the information in time to be useful.

IRS Valuation Expert for Michael Jackson Estate Case Almost Thrown Out!

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Oct 2, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On September 29, 2017, Judge Mark Holmes of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) issued an order in the estate tax valuation case brought by the Estate of Michael Jackson (the Estate). In the case, the Estate moved to strike the testimony of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) valuation expert witness on the grounds that he lied. The IRS acknowledged that its expert “did not tell the truth when he testified that he did not work on or write a valuation report for the IRS Examination Division in the third-party taxpayer audit.” Apparently, the expert had worked on the valuation of Whitney Houston’s Estate on behalf of the IRS, and failed to list the engagement in his report. He also omitted one publication that he wrote and one case in which he provided expert-witness testimony at a deposition.

The question for the Court was the proper remedy for the omissions, with sanctions ranging from striking all of the expert’s testimony (and thereby depriving the IRS of the only evidence in its favor on the key issues in the case) to discounting the expert’s testimony and weight to be given to his opinions. The Court decided to take the latter route.

The Court explained that striking expert testimony pursuant to Tax Court Practice and Procedure Rule 143(g) (governing expert witness reports) occurs when a putative expert omits information from the report without good cause for the omission. In this case, the Court explained that the IRS’s expert failed to disclose his valuation work on his long list of expert-testimony engagements attached to his resume, but ruled that the omission was merely a “clerical error.” However, the expert did provide false testimony at trial when he testified he did not work on or write a valuation report in the matter involving Whitney Houston’s Estate. The Court determined that there had to be some negative consequences for the expert’s false testimony, and settled on discounting his credibility and opinions.

Practice Point: The order in Estate of Michael Jackson, as well as the Tax Court’s prior opinion in Tucker v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2017-183, highlight a very important aspect of preparing an expert report for submission in Tax Court: it must be complete and accurate at the time of its submission. It is good practice to run a litigation database search (e.g., Lexis or Westlaw) on your expert’s testimony experience as a check on what the expert has listed in his report.

Is a Business Tax Reform Game Plan Beginning to Take Shape?

by McDermott Will & Emery, David G. Noren and Sandra P. McGill | Sep 22, 2017 | Uncategorized

Substantial tax reform is underway and the business community is intently awaiting details of this activity with the aim of positioning themselves to maximize opportunities and minimize any costs or risks that reform may present. How will a cut in the corporate income tax rate, the potential adoption of a “territorial” dividend exemption system or the elimination or altering of recent regulations impact companies?

Continue Reading

IRS Is Underutilizing Exchange of Information Capabilities

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 21, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is underutilizing exchange of information (EOI) capabilities with foreign countries. On September 11, 2017, TIGTA issued a report summarizing its evaluation of the IRS’s current efforts to improve tax compliance by using information obtained from foreign countries through the Exchange of Information Program agreements.

TIGTA’s three main conclusions were: (1) the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) recordkeeping is inadequate and the usefulness of the information is unknown; (2) the Mutual Collection Assistance Request Program (MCAR) may not be used to its full potential; and (3) the spontaneous exchange of information program requires a multitude of enhancements.

TIGTA made several recommendations to the IRS to maximize the use of information received and collection assistance available from foreign countries. The recommendations included:

(1) Conduct an outreach to examination and collection field functions to alert them on the availability and potential usefulness of automatic data provided by treaty partners that can be gained by requesting and obtaining access to an easy search tool;

(2) Expand upon the AEOI Program section of the Internal Revenue Manual (§ 4.60.1) to add recordkeeping requirements to track the incoming and outgoing records;

(3) Create procedures for AEOI personnel that: a) allow AEOI personnel to accurately track the data and/or record counts received by country; b) track the data by country that contractors upload to the AEOI database; and c) monitor the difference in received and posted record counts by country to identify and resolve upload issues in a timely fashion;

(4) Reinforce the IRS’s 2016 international collection strategy related to the MCAR Program to address the importance of issuing MCARs when warranted as an additional collection tool, and prioritize the timely processing of outgoing MCAR requests;

(5) Enhance revenue officers’ awareness of tools to explore international asset identification;

(6) Coordinate with Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy to identify additional countries with whom the United States could benefit by adopting MCAR provisions in a treaty; and

(7) Establish criteria for withdrawing issued outbound MCARs when the taxpayer has not fully paid.

The IRS agreed with TIGTA’s recommendations and plans to address those issues by implementing several corrective actions by the summer of 2018.

The final report entitled “Exchange of Information Capabilities Are Underutilized by the Internal Revenue Service” and the IRS’s response to an earlier draft is available here.

Practice Point: The information exchanged among tax administrations has increased significantly since the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The TIGTA report identified several areas in which the exchange of information is currently being underutilized by the IRS. The IRS is clued into these flaws and is focused on updates to maximize the value of the information. As we previously discussed, the IRS recently announced two new enforcement initiatives in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) to use FATCA [...]

Continue Reading

IRS Guidance Says IRS Can Disclose Confidential Taxpayer Information to Whistleblower with Impunity

by Kevin Spencer and Robin L. Greenhouse | Sep 20, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

Every taxpayer should be aware of the real risk that its own employees could disclose the taxpayer’s confidential and privileged information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a whistleblower fee. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7623, the IRS is permitted to pay a “whistleblower” who discloses information about a taxpayer who has violated the tax laws. The amount of the payment ranges from 15 to 30 percent of the recovery. We have previously reported about issues pertaining to whistleblowers.

While the flow of information is usually from the whistleblower to the IRS, there is also a risk that the IRS can disclose the taxpayer’s return information to the whistleblower. Code Section 6103(a) deems tax returns and return information as confidential and prohibits the disclosure absent an express statutory exception. Return information is broadly defined and includes the information received by the IRS, from any source, during the course of audit. There are several exceptions to this general rule. For example, Code Section 6103(n) authorizes that tax returns and return information may be shared with the IRS pursuant to a “tax administration contract.” The relevant regulations explain when the IRS may disclose information to a whistleblower and its representative.

A recent memo from the IRS’s Whistleblower Office provides the reasoning behind the IRS decision to enter into a whistleblower contract in order to share the taxpayer’s feeling empowered to share otherwise confidential protected information with whistleblowers. (more…)

Tax Court Announces 2018 Judicial Conference in Chicago on March 26-28, 2018

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Schulte | Sep 19, 2017 | Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On Friday, September 15, the Tax Court announced that it will be holding its 2018 Judicial Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on the campus of Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law on March 26-28, 2018. The press release provides:

The 2018 Tax Court Judicial Conference will be held in Chicago, Illinois, on the campus of Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law on Monday evening, March 26, 2018, Tuesday, March 27, 2018 (entire day), and Wednesday, March 28, 2018 (half day). The purpose of the judicial conference is to provide attendees with the opportunity to (1) review and discuss issues of material interest regarding the tax litigation process, (2) discuss ways in which the tax litigation process in the Court may be improved, and (3) network with fellow Tax Court practitioners. In addition to the Judges of the United States Tax Court, the Court intends to invite representatives from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, private practice, low-income taxpayer clinics, academia, Capitol Hill, and other courts. A variety of plenary and breakout sessions will address issues relevant to practice before the Court.

Applications to attend the 2018 Tax Court Judicial Conference will be accepted from September 15, 2017, through November 15, 2017. An application form is available on the Court’s website at https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/judicial_conference_application.pdf. Please note that space is limited, and the Court may not be able to extend an invitation to all those who apply.

We have attended the Tax Court Judicial Conference on several occasions and have spoken on panels at the conference. The material presented is extremely informative and provides a unique opportunity to personally interact with judges and fellow Tax Court practitioners. Applications are being accepted from now through November 15, 2017, either by email or regular mail. If you plan to attend, please send us an email so we can say hello!

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

EDITOR IN CHIEF

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS