Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: May 2018

A Taxpayer Victory on a FBAR Penalty Case – FBAR Limited to $100M!

According to Law360, the Internal Revenue Service went beyond the cap on civil penalties it can assess for undisclosed offshore bank accounts, a Texas federal judge has ruled, rejecting the agency’s argument that regulations limiting the amount are implicitly invalid.

The IRS had sued a Texas man to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid civil penalties, plus interest, for the taxpayer’s allegedly willful failure to report offshore accounts on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts forms for 2007 through 2010.

Even Though a Regulation from 1987 Limits the Penalty Cap for Willful Nondisclosure at $100,000, the Agency Had Argued That Congress Made Changes to the Law in 2004 That Gave the IRS the Authority to Exceed That Amount.

But U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks was not swayed, concluding in a decision filed on May 16, 2018 that there is little reason to believe the legislative amendment in 2004 “implicitly superseded or invalidated” the 1987 regulation under 31 CFR § 103.57, which was later renumbered as CFR § 1010.820.In granting partial summary judgment to the taxpayer, Dominique Colliot, Judge Sparks found that the section at issue is a valid regulation that caps penalties for willful violations of foreign bank account reporting at $100,000.

 
“Section 1010.820 Has Not Been so Repealed and Therefore Remained Good Law When the Fbar Penalties in Question Were Assessed against Colliot,” Judge Sparks Said.
“Consequently, the IRS Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously When It Failed to Apply the Regulation to Cap the Penalties Assessed against Colliot.”

According to the IRS’ December 2016 complaint, Colliot failed to report several foreign bank accounts, including Barclays in the U.K, UBS AG in Switzerland and Societe Generale in France. Accusing Colliot of willfully skirting FBAR requirements, the agency claimed he owed $917,447 in penalties, plus interest.

The IRS had calculated the penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5321, which Congress in 2004 had amended to increase the maximum civil penalties for willful failure to file a FBAR. Under the revised statute, willful violations can lead to a penalty that is either $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the foreign account, whichever is more.

However, Judge Sparks concluded that the regulations under CFR § 1010.820, promulgated under the prior version of 31 U.S.C. § 5321, remained unchanged. Thus, he said, the rules kept the maximum civil penalty for willful failure to file an FBAR at $100,000.

Judge Sparks added that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a branch of the Treasury Department, did not revise § 1010.820 to account for the increased maximum penalty now allowed under the changes to 31 U.S.C. § 5321.

“Nevertheless, the IRS did not let § 103.57 (now § 1010.820) constrain its enforcement authority, and since 2004, the IRS has repeatedly levied penalties for willful FBAR violations in excess of the $100,000 regulatory cap,” Judge Sparks said.

Judge Sparks Had Found the IRS’ Argument That 31 USC. §5321 Implicitly Supersedes Section 1010.820 Is “Foreclosed by the Unambiguous Text of §5321 (A) (5),” Which Says the Treasury Secretary Ultimately Has the Discretion to Assess Larger Penalties Than Those under Section 1010.820.

“And § 1010.820, a regulation validly issued by the Treasury via notice-and-comment rulemaking, purports to cabin that discretion by capping penalties at $100,000,” he said.

While Judge Sparks found the IRS cannot exceed the $100,000 penalty threshold, he declined Colliot’s bid to toss the case entirely, instead ordering the parties to provide additional briefing on the appropriate next steps.

Have Undeclared Income from an Offshore Account?
 
 
Want to Know Make Sure You Are Not Over Penalized 
If You Do Not Enter The OVDP Program?
 
 

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
 

for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact Us at:

Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243




Read more at: Tax Times blog

Taxpayer's Domain Name is Protected From Tax Levy!

In Chief Counsel Advice 201818015, the IRS has determined that an internet domain name is "intangible personal property" for purposes of the procedural levy protections afforded to certain property used by a taxpayer in his or her trade or business. 
After a tax has been assessed, IRS must, within 60 days, deliver or mail to the taxpayer a notice of the amount due and demand its payment before collection proceedings can be started. (Code Sec. 6303(a)). Any federal tax that has been assessed and that the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay after demand becomes a lien in favor of the U.S. on all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to the taxpayer. (Code Sec. 6321).

If a taxpayer who is liable to pay any tax, neglects or refuses to pay it within ten days after notice and demand, IRS may collect the tax by levy upon all property and rights to property (except exempt property) belonging to the taxpayer or on which there is a federal tax lien for payment of the tax. (Code Sec. 6331(a)).

Code Sec. 6334 sets out various categories of property that are exempt from levy, including, among other things, certain "tangible personal property or real property…used in the trade or business of an individual taxpayer." (Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B)(ii)).

However, the Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B) exemption for certain business assets does not apply if:

  1. An IRS director or assistant district director determines the taxpayer's other assets subject to collection are insufficient and personally approves a levy of such property in writing, or
  2. IRS finds that the collection of tax is in jeopardy. (Code Sec. 6334(e)(2)). 

CCA 201818015 concluded that an internet domain name is intangible personal property for purposes of Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B)(ii) and Code Sec. 6334(e)(2). Therefore, it's generally exempt from levy, unless one of the requirements set out above (involving director approval or a finding that collection is in jeopardy) is met.


Have and IRS Levy Problem?
 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Whistleblower Requests Deadline Extension to File With Tax Court

According to Law360, a tax whistleblower said the U.S. Tax Court should hear his untimely petition because the Internal Revenue Service letter declining his claim was vague and failed to tell him he could appeal, according to a brief filed Tuesday with the D.C. Circuit.

David Myers filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS in 2009 and received a denial letter in March 2013. Myers did not file with the Tax Court until January 2015, which dismissed his claim in 2017 for filing outside the 30-day time period set in Internal Revenue Code § 7623(b)(4).

“In this case, given that Myers' whistleblower claim had been pending for years, and given that he had not been provided his statutorily significant document that forms the predicate basis for Tax Court jurisdiction, the Tax Court should have ordered the IRS Whistleblower Office to issue Myers his ‘ticket to Tax Court,’” Myers' attorney, Joseph DiRuzzo, said in the brief.

Myers’ petition was not untimely because the 2013 notice of determination rejecting his whistleblower claim lacked “basic” information on his right to file a petition with the Tax Court, DiRuzzo said. The IRS did not explain why it disallowed the claim or state that he had 30 days to appeal to the Tax Court.

“The IRS Letters Were So Bereft of Information as to Not Qualify as a 'Determination' under Section 7623(b)(4),” DiRuzzo said. 
 

The IRS Whistleblower Office also failed to send Myers a preliminary denial or rejection letter and did not send its denial by certified mail, DiRuzzo said. A certified mailing is necessary to start the 30-day statutory period, he said.
 
Myers’ case was appropriate for equitable tolling, his attorney said. He filed pro se and only had 30 days to file his petition at the Tax Court, DiRuzzo said in the brief. The court has a majority of pro se litigants and a relatively small number of whistleblower cases, he said.
 
Want a Reward of Between 15- 30% of
Underpaid IRS Tax Liabilities for
Blowing the Whistle on a Tax Cheat? 
_____
____
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).


Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS Withholding on Crypto Cryptocurrency Coming Soon!

According to Law360, The Internal Revenue Service will begin this year to more strictly enforce the requirement to withhold taxes for cryptocurrency payments to nonresident aliens, an attorney who has represented clients in related matters said at a Saturday tax conference in Washington, D.C.

While the requirement to withhold 30 percent of payments to nonresident aliens is already in the tax code, the IRS will start more strictly enforcing that rule for payments that use cryptocurrencies, Bryan Skarlatos, attorney at Kostelanetz & Fink LLP, said at an American Bar Association Section of Taxation conference.

Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin operate as digital means of exchange and are not regulated by central banks. Internal Revenue Code Section 1441 requires that 30 percent of payments to nonresident aliens must be withheld for tax purposes.

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice is not working from scratch when it comes to understanding and prosecuting crypto-related crimes, Jason Poole, an attorney at the department's tax division, told the conference audience.

Because prosecutors have had a chance to learn more about cryptocurrencies by pursuing litigation such as the Silk Road money-laundering case, there is substantial institutional knowledge in law enforcement agencies to address all kinds of crypto-related matters, Poole said.

“There’s a lot of prosecutorial experience that we’re drawing on from the U.S. attorney’s offices and across DOJ,” Poole said.

Plus, the mainstreaming of these currencies provides criminal enforcement officials with the tools necessary to successfully prosecute cases, Poole said.

“You see a bigger ecosystem being built up around cryptocurrency, and with that, these kind of markets with the exchanges and other things, these are the bread and butter of a financial investigator and financial prosecutor of how to follow the money,” he said.

 
Need Tax Help With Crypto Currencies?

 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A. 
 
 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243). 

 
 
 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help