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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: July 2018

2nd Taxpayer Victory on a FBAR Penalty Case – FBAR Limited to $100M!

On May 22, 2018 we posted  A Taxpayer Victory on a FBAR Penalty Case - FBAR Limited to $100M! where we discussed that 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. The Texas federal judge ruled that the Internal Revenue Service went beyond the cap on civil penalties it can assess for undisclosed offshore bank accounts,  rejecting the agency’s argument that regulations limiting the amount are implicitly invalid.


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. 

The case was US v. Dominique G. Colliot, case number 1:16-cv-01281, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. 

Now a according to Reuters a second district court has determined that, despite a statutory change authorizing higher penalties, IRS couldn't impose penalties, for willfully failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Foreign Accounts (FBAR), in excess of the amounts provided in regs that were promulgated before the law change and that haven't been changed to reflect the increase. 

The taxpayers, Mr. and Mrs. Wadhan, failed to file or filed inaccurate FBARs for 2008, 2009, and 2010. IRS assessed penalties of $1,108,645 for 2008, $599,234 for 2009, and $599,234 for 2010.

The taxpayers brought this case, contending that the penalties for years 2008, 2009 and 2010 had to be capped at $100,000. The court held that IRS lacks authority to impose a penalty in excess of $100,000 as prescribed by 31 C.F.R. 1010.820.

 
The court said that both the pre-2004 version and the current version of 31 U.S.C. 5321 specifically grant the Secretary discretion to assess penalties. Both versions state that the Secretary “may assess” the described penalties. The statutory language is clear, and there is nothing in the legislative history offered by IRS that suggests that Congress intended to limit the discretion of the Secretary to determine what penalties should be imposed. 
 
For a statute to supersede a reg, it has to be clearly inconsistent with the reg. IRS argued that the different penalty caps in 31 U.S.C. 5321 and 31 C.F.R. 1010.820(g) demonstrate an inconsistency such that the statute trumps the reg. The court said that it was unpersuaded for several reasons:
 
First, the statute and the reg are not inconsistent on their face. The statute sets a higher cap than does the reg; the penalty cap in the reg is, in essence, a subset of the penalties that could be imposed under the statute. The statute does not mandate imposition of the maximum penalty, but instead gives the Secretary discretion to impose penalties below the statutory cap. This means that compliance with the lower cap set in 31 C.F.R. 1010.820(g) also complies with 31 U.S.C. 5321.
Second, there is a simple and straightforward interpretation that gives coherent meaning to both the statute and the reg in the exercise of statutory discretion, the Secretary limited the penalties that IRS could impose to $100,000 (plus the amount adjusted for inflation).
Third, although the penalty caps in the statute and reg differ, one cannot assume that the Secretary simply overlooked the difference between them. The difference has existed since 2004  essentially 14 years. During that time, the Secretary made regular adjustments to another reg, 31 C.F.R. 1010.821, that adjusted penalties to account for inflation. Among the penalties affected by this reg is that created by 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(C), for which the inflationary increases have been made at least five times in the last eight years, but at no time was the listed penalty cap raised above $100,000. The periodic revisions of the inflationary calculation required focus on the penalty cap, but it was never changed to comport with 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(C). This suggests that the Secretary was aware of the penalties available under 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(C) and elected to continue to limit IRS's authority to impose penalties to $100,000 as specified in 31 C.F.R. 1010.820.
Finally, IRS's reliance upon legislative history is misplaced. IRS argued that Congressional intent, as evident from the legislative history for the 2004 amendment to 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(C), shows that Congress intended the statute to supersede 31 C.F.R. 1010.820. The court then noted that, ordinarily, it does not resort to legislative history unless the text of a statute is ambiguous. And it said that there is no apparent ambiguity in 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(C) — it simply changed that maximum penalty that could be imposed.
The court went on to say that, even assuming that such legislative history is relevant, it does not support IRS's argument. The Senate Report discusses threats arising from offshore accounts in the context of adding civil penalties for non-willful violations, but there is no discussion about willful violations. Willful violations are mentioned only in the Conference Report, which states only that the increase in penalties is based on a Senate amendment and that the committee accepted the amendment. See H.R. Rep. No. 108-755 at 615 (2004) (Conf. Rep.). Although Congress favored higher penalties for FBAR noncompliance, there is nothing here that suggests that Congress believed that the maximum penalties for willful violations should be mandatorily imposed.
In conclusion, the court said that "although IRS believes that it is empowered by 31 U.S.C. 5321 to act, it is not. It is empowered by the Secretary who has discretion to determine what penalties are imposed. 1010.820 remains in effect until amended or repealed."
 
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

Senate Approves Charles “Chuck” Rettig as IRS Commissioner!

On January 24, 2018 we posted, Trump to Name Tax Lawyer Rettig as IRS Commissioner - Good Choice! where we discussed that Pres. Donald Trump plans to nominate tax lawyer Charles "Chuck" Rettig as IRS commissioner, Politico reported and that he will also have to deal with an agency weakened by sharply reduced staffing after budget cuts by Republican lawmakers in recent years. The IRS has lost more than 17,000 employees, almost 20 percent of its staff, since 2010.

Now according to Law360 The Senate Finance Committee Thursday approved Chuck Rettig to be the next commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, which means that the full Senate may now have the opportunity to consider his nomination.

Rettig is highly qualified to fulfill the role, and the committee would only be hurting the American taxpayer by voting against his nomination, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.

“If confirmed, I anticipate Mr. Rettig working with Congress to modernize the IRS’ infrastructure and technology to bring the agency into the 21st century, which he pledged to do in his nomination hearing,” Hatch said.
This appointment of Mr. Reddick to be the IRS Commissioner, coupled with a 2019 IRS budget increase, further enforces our conclusion that the IRS is Back!
The House Appropriations Committee on June 13, 2018 approved a $23.4 billion Financial Services and General Government funding bill for fiscal year 2019 that includes increased spending for IRS. The Spending Bill Allots $11.6 Billion to IRS,  Which is $186 Million More Than the 2018 Funding Level.

 

 The measure provides an additional $77 million as requested by the White House to help implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA; P.L. 115-97) signed into law in late 2017. Congress had already approved an additional $320 million in March 2018 for the same purpose.

 

 Looks Like the IRS is Back in Business!

 
Have a IRS Tax Problem? 

 


  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:

 

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

 

 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS Cost-Sharing Regulations Revived By Appeals Court

According to Law360, the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reversed a decision by the U.S. Tax Court that invalidated an Internal Revenue Service cost-sharing regulation in a dispute with an Intel Corp. subsidiary, saying the revenue agency did not exceed its authority in promulgating the rule.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the IRS is entitled to deference and was justified in issuing the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, despite comments from the public that opposed the regulation.

The Tax Court had sided with Altera Corp., an Intel subsidiary, in the case in July 2015 after finding that the IRS had ignored significant evidence and public comments while issuing its rule requiring cost-sharing agreements between related parties to include the costs of stock-based compensation.

“Treasury’s refusal to credit oppositional comments is not fatal to a holding that it complied with the APA,” Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote on behalf of the panel. “Treasury gave sufficient notice of what it intended to do and why; it considered the comments, but it rejected them.”

 The case is Altera Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case numbers 16-70496 and 16-70497, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Have a IRS Tax Problem? 
 

  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:

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


 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Understanding IRS Tax Audits – Part I

Careful advance preparation can help reduce the scope of a tax audit or examination and can lead to a more favorable outcome. Although a thorough understanding of the underlying facts and applicable law is a must, understanding IRS procedures is critical to preserving a taxpayer’s rights.

We summarize below and in Parts II & III, to follow later, some of the more important IRS procedural rules and guidelines governing civil IRS examinations and audits, including: how returns are selected for examination; a brief description of the types of civil examinations; an explanation of the tools available to IRS examining agents and revenue agents; dispositions in IRS audits or examinations and, if necessary, where to seek relief from an unfavorable result in an examination or audit.

Selecting Tax Returns for Examination

It is helpful to understand how tax returns are selected for examination. The IRS selects returns for examinations in several ways, some based upon objective criteria coded into a carefully protected computer program and others based upon old fashioned detective work.

The main computer program that the Service uses to identify returns for examination is the Discriminate Function System. The Discriminate Function (DIF) score is the product of a mathematical formula for identifying and selecting returns for examination. The program scores tax returns using a formula based on historic information obtained from specific examination programs. A high DIF score indicates a high potential for adjustment. The Service periodically conducts compliance studies to update and reformulate its basis for audit selection formulas.

Different types of taxpayers and returns are subject to different DIF formulas. While the specifics of the program are not public, certain items appear to cause a return to be selected for examination, such as participation in a tax shelter, large charitable contributions, home office deductions, large travel and entertainment expense or large automobile expense. Returns selected under the DIF program are then manually screened so that attachments to the return and other data that a computer cannot detect can be properly considered.

The Service also relies on information provided by third parties, such as banks, brokers and employers. Much of this information is required to be reported by payers of certain types of income on Forms W-2 or 1099. Referrals may also be made by other examining agents. For example, the return of a party related to another taxpayer being audited, such as the partners of a partnership being audited may also be selected for audit. The Service also may investigate tips regarding potential noncompliance, and select those returns for audit as a result. Examinations may also be triggered a variety of other ways, such as, by mathematical errors or missing information. Also, a claim for refund can trigger an examination.

Types of IRS Examinations

IRS civil examinations can take a variety of forms, depending upon the type of taxpayer, the complexity of the tax return and the initially determined scope of the exam. The simplest examinations conducted by the IRS are Campus Examinations. Campus Examinations are correspondence exams addressing simple problems like substantiation that can be resolved easily by correspondence and/or telephone. Area Office Examinations may be conducted for slightly more complicated issues such as small business returns and more complex non-business returns. Area Office Examinations may be conducted by correspondence, office interview or even by a field examination, depending on type and complexity of the return. In all cases, the taxpayer is asked to provide supporting documentation of questionable items. Business returns will always be examined in an office or field interview rather than a correspondence examination.

Examiners at the correspondence and office levels are much less invasive. The examining agents are required to process many cases and often have little time to completely familiarize themselves with the return. Indeed, the examiner may not have reviewed the taxpayer’s file and return until after the taxpayer has replied to all correspondence regarding the examination, and often not until the day of the interview. The scope of office examinations is generally limited to items on a checklist of issues contained in the Internal Revenue Manual. The examiners have little discretion and basically, are charged with verifying income and deductions based upon records provided. A taxpayer’s inability to produce adequate records may lead not only to disallowance of the disputed items for the year at issue, but also to audits of other years’ returns.

Field Examinations involve more complex issues. The examining agent will be a revenue agent, as opposed to an office auditor. He or she will be better trained and will have had more experience. A Field Examination consists of examination of a taxpayer’s books and records at the taxpayer’s place of business or where the books, records or source documents are maintained. The agent will review the taxpayer’s entire return and all documentation related to that return. The agent may be assisted by a technical specialist such as an “engineer agent” if the return presents a special issue such as valuation. Unlike, office auditors, revenue agents spend considerable time preparing for the examination. Prior to the examination, the revenue agent will review any prior examination reports from the same taxpayer. This may lead to scrutiny of recurring issues or inclusion of other years’ returns in the examination. Of course, the revenue agent will also look at the return for unusual or questionable items.

Taxpayer Rights During an IRS Audit

Taxpayers are guaranteed certain important rights during audits and examinations. Among these rights is the right to be provided certain information describing the examination process and other rights at the commencement of the examination. Examinations must be conducted at a reasonable time and place and taxpayers have the right to bring representation to any interview. Taxpayers have the right to record any interviews with the agent. Taxpayers also have the right not to be interviewed, except through the summons process, and must be notified of any summons to a third party and of their right to quash any such summons. Importantly, taxpayers have the right to have their tax information kept confidential.

Burden of Proof

Under prior law, there was a rebuttable presumption that IRS’s determination of tax liability is correct, and therefore (with some exceptions such as fraud), the burden of proof was on the taxpayer to show that the IRS’s determination was wrong. Under new law, the IRS has the burden of proof in any court proceeding with respect to a factual issue related to income, estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence relevant to the determination of the taxpayer’s tax liability. To be eligible, the taxpayer must prove that he or she complied with required statutory and regulatory substantiation and recordkeeping requirements; cooperated with reasonable IRS requests for meetings, interviews, witnesses, documents, and information; and (if not an individual) met certain net worth limitations. Cooperation generally involves: providing reasonable assistance to the IRS in accessing witnesses, information, and documents not within the taxpayer’s control; exhausting administrative remedies, including IRS appeal rights; and establishing the applicability of a privilege. Cooperation does not require that the taxpayer agree to an extension of the limitations period. The IRS continues to have the burden of proving fraud, irrespective of the new law.

To be continued... Understanding IRS Tax Audits - Part II

Have a IRS Tax Problem? 


  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
 
 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:

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

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help