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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2018

US Appeals Court Held That IRS' Flat Rejection of Bearer Shares is Invalid

According to Law360, the Internal Revenue Service lost a fight in the D.C. Circuit on July 27, 2018 when the court ruled that it unreasonably interpreted tax law to prevent Marshall Islands-based Good Fortune Shipping from proving it was entitled to a tax break based on its ownership.

Good Fortune sought to exclude its U.S.-source gross transportation income in 2007 under Internal Revenue Code Section 883, which provides an exemption for companies with more than 50 percent ownership by residents of countries whose tax laws grant U.S. companies reciprocity, according to court documents.

However, the IRS in 2003 had issued a regulation excluding companies whose stock consisted of bearer shares, an unregistered form of stock certificate that does not identify the owner. During the 2007 tax year all Good Fortune shares were in bearer form, and the company was assessed $143,500 in 2007 taxes. The company filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court claiming the categorical exclusion of bearer shares was unreasonable. It lost and appealed.

A flat rejection of bearer shares is unreasonable, a D.C. Circuit panel ruled, calling bearer shares a legally valid form of ownership. While they make ownership is difficult to verify, it is not impossible, the panel added.

“If the IRS found that the transferable nature of bearer shares made substantiation impossible, we might conclude that the 2003 regulation reasonably implemented that finding,” the panel said. “But the IRS has never made (much less adequately supported) such an absolute claim of impossibility with regard to bearer shares.”

In 2010 the IRS amended its regulation and abandoned the categorical exclusion of bearer shares. Instead, it allowed bearer shares to show ownership if the shares could be represented by book entries with no physical certificates transferred, or if evidence of ownership was maintained by its issuer or a financial institution.
 
The IRS even allows bearer shares to prove ownership and qualify for favorable tax treatment in other contexts, such as in showing that a foreign corporation is not closely held in Section 884, the court said.
“If bearer shares were reliable enough under § 884, we see no reason why they wouldn’t have been reliable enough to justify their consideration under § 883,” the panel said.
 

“The IRS cannot reasonably rely on the risk of abuse to treat bearer shares as a form of second-class ownership in some contexts but not in others, especially without any contemporaneous explanation justifying the disparate treatment.”

 
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

The IRS is Issuing Notice CP508 C – Notice of Certification of your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department to Taxpayers!

On July 17, 2018 we posted, Don't Be 1 of the 362,000 Americans Waiting To Have Their Passports Revoked Because They Owe Back Taxes! where we discussed that the IRS issued Notice 2018-1 on January 16, 2018, which provides guidance for implementation of the new IRC 7345 and also discussed that the IRS webpage on Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Unpaid Taxes contains the following alert:
 

 
and that the  IRS as indicated that at least 362,000 Americans have “seriously delinquent” overdue tax payments and will be denied passports or passport renewals if they do not pay the money they owe, The Wall Street Journal reports.
 
Well the IRS has made good on this Admonition!
 
We have been notified by no less than 3 clients this week that they have received Notice CP508 C –  Notice of Certification of your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department.

 
We've also been contacted by one taxpayer, who contacted us in 2009 to resolve his tax issues, and we noted that we never were engaged, nor did the taxpayer ever address his tax problems until now; so it appears that this passport revoking penalty Has Teeth!
  
Passport Status
 

If your U.S. passport application is denied or your U.S. passport is revoked, the State Department will notify you in writing.  If you need your U.S. passport to keep your job, once your seriously delinquent tax debt is certified, you must fully pay the balance, or make an alternative payment arrangement to have your certification reversed. 

 

Once You’ve Resolved Your Tax Problem With The IRS,

The IRS Will Reverse The Certification Within 30 Days Of Resolution Of The Issue And Provide Notification To The State Department As Soon As Practicable. 
___________


WHO CAN AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT THEIR PASSPORT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS?

Travel

If you’re leaving in a few days for international travel, need to resolve passport issues and have a pending application for a U.S. passport, you should call 888 8TaxAid immediately! If you already have a U.S. passport, you can use your passport until you’re notified by the State Department that it has been revoked. 
If your Passport is Cancelled or Revoked, after you’re certified, you Must Resolve the Tax Debt by Paying the Debt in Full, making Alternative Payment Arrangements or Showing that the Certification is Erroneous.
  
The IRS will reverse your certification within 30 days of the date the tax debt is resolved and provide notification to the State Department as soon as practicable.
WHO CAN AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT THEIR PASSPORT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS? 
Those who discover they have not been in compliance with their US tax obligations, including filing of income tax returns or FBAR reports, may avail themselves of the IRS Streamlined Offshore Procedure, which does not include the draconian FBAR penalty for Non-US Domiciliary's.
If You Face This Problem, You Should Consult with Experienced Tax Attorneys, As There Are Several Ways Taxpayers Can Avoid Having the IRS Request That the State Department Revoke Your Passport.
 
 Want To Keep Your US Passport?
 
 
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

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

Live Help