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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2018

What Tax Practitioners Need to Know about IRS' Use of Big Data Analytics?

With the budget reductions and losses in staff over the past several years, the IRS has been forced to do more with less. Therefore, the IRS has turned to big data analytics to make up for its loss of personnel and the impact of the budget reductions.

Analytics entails the obvious benefit of efficiencies in mass data collection and the potential to locate tax evaders.

For more on Date Mining see our August 3, 2017 post IRS CI Forming 2 New International Criminal Units Driven By Data Mining! where we discussed that the use of data-mining technology is widespread and that the IRS Criminal Investigation unit which announced on August 2, 2017 that it is launching two groups that would centralize the unit’s national and international workloads and rely on data analysis to prioritize cases.

The IRS has indicated that it will continue to invest in data technologies to identify tax return errors and address issues with taxpayers as early as possible.

The IRS Has Indicated That It Will Continue to Invest in
Data Technologies to Identify Tax Return Errors and
Address Issues with Taxpayers As Early As Possible.

 

Knowing that the IRS is using public Internet data from websites such as Facebook, taxpayers should consider that their posts could impact their probability of audit. Posting family pictures at a resort's pool when the taxpayer is claiming a business trip deduction may provide unintended results. Embellishing online profiles and posting pictures of new purchases should be avoided. Less is the best strategy.

In addition, casual sales on eBay or Amazon are becoming quite commonplace and many taxpayers do not realize that these transactions should be reviewed for potential income tax consequences.

With the IRS obtaining credit, debit, and PayPal records, matching the transactions to taxpayers or small businesses is easy. If being audited, this is something that should not be discussed online.

Taxpayers Need to Be Very Cognizant of Their
Online Profile in the Age of Big Data Analytics.

 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

Magistrate Holds That Facebook Does Not Have a Right to Go to Appeals!

According to Law360, a California federal judge has granted the Internal Revenue Service’s motion to dismiss a $7 billion lawsuit brought by Facebook Inc. that alleged the IRS unjustly denied the social media company’s right to appeal the agency’s decision to adjust its taxes after an audit of its returns.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said in an opinion Monday that Menlo Park, California-based Facebook was incorrect in claiming a right to contest in the IRS Office of Appeals an IRS finding that undervalued intangible property the company transferred to its Ireland-based subsidiary by about $7 billion on its returns between 2008 and 2010, concluding there is no enforceable right to IRS Appeals for alternative dispute resolution.

“Facebook does not have an enforceable right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals or to compel the IRS to do so,” Judge Beeler said.
 
“Facebook therefore lacks Article III standing, because the deprivation of a nonexistent right to access IRS Appeals does not constitute injury in fact.”

Judge Beeler ruled that because as a matter of law Facebook has no legally enforceable right, the defects in the company’s complaint cannot be cured, so the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Facebook asserted that under the Administrative Procedure Act the IRS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to refer the tax case to IRS Appeals, and the company additionally sought mandamus, asking the California federal court to refer the tax case to IRS Appeals, according to court documents.

The agency said the case should be dismissed because Facebook lacked standing, and the IRS’ choice not to refer Facebook’s tax case was not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, the opinion said.

The only injury Facebook alleged was that “it was denied access to a statutorily mandated appeals process … But Facebook fails to establish that it has a legally protected right to take its tax case to IRS Appeals,” Judge Beeler said.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3), which was enacted in 2015 as part of the PATH Act, did not include an enforceable right to take tax cases to IRS Appeals, nor did it create new substantive rights, the opinion said. And even if IRC  § 7803(a)(3) granted new taxpayer rights, the company failed to establish which right it relied on, so the company lacks standing, Judge Beeler said.

Facebook had no enforceable right to take its case to IRS Appeals that predated IRC § 7803(a)(3), because the earlier applicable law, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, P.L. 105-206, granted rights to bring certain issues to IRS Appeals such as those relating to levies and liens, which did not mean Facebook had a right to be heard before IRS Appeals, the opinion said.

Other courts have held that taxpayers in situations similar to Facebook’s did not have an enforceable right to take their tax cases to IRS Appeals, and Facebook does not cite anything in the past or present law that compelled a contrary conclusion, Judge Beeler said.

IRC § 7803(a)(3) did not create a new right to IRS Appeals, the opinion said.

“The statutory TBOR enacted as part of the 2015 PATH Act did not grant new enforceable rights,” Judge Beeler said. “If a right did not exist before the enactment of the TBOR, the TBOR did not create it as a new right.”

IRC § 7803(a)(3) simply imposed an obligation for the IRS commissioner to ensure the agency’s employees are familiar with preexisting taxpayer rights, and the legislative history confirmed this plain reading of the statutory language, she said.

And even if the statute created a new enforceable right to IRS Appeals, Facebook failed to show that the specific independent forum must be IRS Appeals, the opinion said.

The court additionally found the IRS’ decision not to refer Facebook’s tax case to IRS Appeals was not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was not a final agency action, Judge Beeler said.

“Neither of the agency actions that Facebook challenges is a final agency action,” the opinion said. “The court therefore may not determine Facebook’s APA claims and must dismiss them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

The court also rejected Facebook’s mandamus claim because the company had no legal entitlement to the relief it sought, Judge Beeler said.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?  

     

     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

IRS Provides for Overpayments to be Applied to Taxpayer’s Remaining 965 Installment Liability?

According to Law360, Internal Revenue Code Section 965 as enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposes a one-time transition tax on the deferred earnings and profits of certain foreign corporations owned by U.S. persons. This provision was enacted as a result of the United States transitioning to a quasi-territorial tax system.

As a way of lessening the impact of this acceleration of income tax on previously untaxed foreign earnings, Congress allowed the Section 965 tax liability to be deferred and paid over an eight-year period with the first installment due on April 17, 2018.

However, in regulatory guidance issued just three days before that due date, the Internal Revenue Service announced that it would apply a taxpayer’s overpayment of regular tax to the overall unsatisfied installment liability. The IRS updated the FAQs to address overpayments made by a taxpayer and In FAQ 13, the IRS declared that any estimated tax payments made for the 2017 tax year that exceeded the regular tax liability would be used to satisfy the unpaid transition tax deferred under Section 965(h). Further, FAQ 14 reflected that any excess of regular tax for the 2017 tax year and the first installment paid by the taxpayer would not be refunded to the taxpayer or credited to the 2018 tax year. Rather, the excess would be applied to the unsatisfied liability under Section 965.
This IRS position, which is inconsistent with the plain language of Section 965 and congressional intent, creates problems for both individual and corporate taxpayers.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants sent a letter to the commissioner of the IRS requesting that the IRS reconsider FAQ 13 and 14, so that taxpayers can apply an overpayment from the 2017 tax year to the 2018 or receive a refund.

It is possible the IRS may change its position or withdraw FAQ 13 and 14. Absent such action, a taxpayer can assert that the IRS has exceeded its authority in administering the collection of the Section 965 tax in a situation where a taxpayer has elected to pay it in installments.

A challenge to this IRS position could be made by filing a protest that an overpayment from the 2017 tax year should be applied to the 2018 or be refunded, as opposed to being used to offset the unsatisfied Section 965 liability. Presuming the IRS refused to do so, the taxpayer could challenge this decision in U.S. Tax Court, since at that point the Section 965 tax has already been collected, using the U.S. District Court or U.S. Court of Federal Claims to seek a refund of the overpayment may also be an option.

Have a International Tax Problem?


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

Time to File OVDP Refund Requests Based Upon Colliot?

On May 22, 2018 we posted A Taxpayer Victory on a FBAR Penalty Case - FBAR Limited to $100M!  where we discussed the Colliot case, where a U.S. District Court found that a prior un-amended valid regulation, that caps penalties for willful violations of foreign bank account reporting at $100,000 controls even though under 31 U.S.C. § 5321, which Congress in 2004 had amended increased the maximum civil penalties for willful failure to file a FBAR to greater of $100,000, or 50 percent of the amount in the account.

For those taxpayers who made a voluntary disclosure and payment within the last two years the issue becomes, can they file for refund under this precedent, since OVDP provided that in no case will the penalties in the OVDP program be higher than the penalties provided under law?

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

Live Help