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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2018

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

Should Taxpayers Play It Safe By Report Their Bitcoin Accounts on the FBAR?

According to Law360,  Taxpayers who have offshore virtual currency accounts should report them on a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts form despite a lack of clear guidance from the Internal Revenue Service, as staying silent could be support for allegations of willful nondisclosure.

Cryptocurrencies, including popular digital tokens like bitcoin and ethereum, are widely traded and their transaction recording technology, called blockchain, has drawn interest from banks and other established financial firms. However, the industry is still a virtual Wild West in some ways, to the point where the IRS has not yet issued guidance covering all facets of the technology’s use, including whether taxpayers should report offshore cryptocurrency accounts on their FBAR forms.

Taxpayers facing this ambiguity,  along with the fast approaching April 17 deadline for filing FBAR and other tax form, should play it safe and include offshore cryptocurrency accounts in their reports, said Victor Jaramillo, who is of counsel at Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. He said taxpayers could land in hot water for not reporting virtual currency accounts that they think might qualify for an FBAR, but there’s little downside to disclosing them.

Penalties for not reporting, can be significant. If the IRS believes a taxpayer willfully avoided filing an FBAR, rather than unknowingly neglected reporting requirements, the agency can lodge a civil penalty that is either $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the foreign account, whichever is more.

However, even if a taxpayer decides to include an offshore cryptocurrency account on an FBAR form, the process is not necessarily clear-cut. Jon Brose, a partner at Seward & Kissel LLP, pointed to the volatile nature of cryptocurrency valuations.

“It may be difficult to fill it out accurately because it’s so volatile,” he said. “It may be difficult for you to know what your highest balance was, because there’s no reporting on this, there’s no tracking. You can take a guess.”


“I think it’s pretty clear that if you have an account in an exchange and if that exchange is located overseas, then I’d be hard pressed to think why you’re not reporting that on an FBAR if it meets the $10,000 threshold,” said Jaramillo, referring to the minimum foreign account amount that triggers the reporting requirement.

Jaramillo pointed to the John Doe summons that the IRS has served virtual currency exchanger Coinbase Inc. to investigate whether the company’s customers avoided paying taxes on transactions made through the company.

In 2014, the IRS issued guidance saying it would treat bitcoin and other virtual currencies as property, not currency, for federal tax purposes. The agency’s stance means that taxpayers realize a gain or loss on the sale or exchange of virtual currencies, which they must report with the rest of their taxes.

While the IRS currently does not have cryptocurrency guidance when it comes to FBAR forms, it would be “foolish” for them not to put something out, said Rita Ryan, an associate at Vacovec, Mayotte & Singer.

As for what potential guidance could look like, Anthony Tu-Sekine of Seward & Kissel cited a July 2016 Ninth Circuit ruling. In the decision, a three-judge panel found that a California man’s online poker accounts did not count as foreign financial accounts that required disclosure, but that an online transfer account he held with the U.K.-based company FirePay should have been reported on an FBAR.

The case, USA v. John Hom, lays out different factors that someone with an offshore virtual currency account could look at, Tu-Sekine said. First, there’s the location test, which Tu-Sekine said was “fairly easy” because an account simply must be located outside of the U.S. to be reportable.

However, the question of what kind of accounts are required for disclosure gets a little bit trickier, Tu-Sekine said. He noted that the analysis will depend on a number of factors, such as whether the taxpayer can send currency that will be exchanged for bitcoin or if the account only trades in cryptocurrency.

"It becomes really fact specific, but I think if it’s the kind of account where you can send your money and then buy bitcoin on that exchange, or send your bitcoin there and then maybe you can sell it at that exchange and then transfer it back to your bank account, I think you’re probably much closer to a financial account,” Tu-Sekine said.

Do You Have an FBAR Problem?
 
 
 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.  
 
 

for a FREE Tax Consultation
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243


Read more at: Tax Times blog

Oh God Why Can't The Pastor Live High and Pay No Taxes?

According to Law360, The leader of a religious group objects to the federal criminal charges in New Jersey that he and another church official evaded taxes on about $5.3 million they took from the organization, blasting the case as part of a system designed to oppress blacks and Hispanics.

“And I’m part of that oppressing, but God is not gonna let that go down,” Grant said as the crowd erupted in applause.

After they pled not guilty at an arraignment inside a federal courthouse in Newark, Jermaine Grant, head of the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, said outside the building that the charges are false, frivolous and “inconsistent with the facts of the case.”

Grant, 43, of Burlington Township, New Jersey, and Warrington, 48, of Teaneck, New Jersey, were each indicted last month on one count of conspiring to defraud the United States. Grant also was charged with five counts of personal income tax evasion.

The government has alleged that for nearly a decade, Grant and Warrington used their leadership positions to divert millions of dollars belonging to the religious organization and its members for Grant’s personal use and benefit. The two men allegedly concealed that income from the Internal Revenue Service, authorities said.

Grant and Warrington are accused of failing to report a total of $5,342,920 in income diverted from the church between 2007 and 2015, leading to a tax loss of $1,982,470 to the U.S., authorities said.
 

What Happened to the Vowel of Poverty
for Priests and Pastors? 

As part of the conspiracy, the two men created Black Icon Entertainment, or BIE, in part to portray Grant as an “entertainment industry mogul whose wealth was derived from his success in the industry and thereby conceal from ICGJC members that his lifestyle was supported entirely by the ICGJC and member donations,” according to the indictment.

“BIE conducted virtually no legitimate business and was funded almost exclusively by money taken from the ICGJC,” the indictment states. The two men each owned a 50 percent stake in the business, the indictment states.

Grant and Warrington caused the religious organization to transfer about $1.038 million in church funds to BIE, and falsely characterized some of those transactions as “loans,” the indictment states. They also used another roughly $1.35 million in church money to pay for BIE’s expenses, according to the indictment.

The Two Men Failed to Report the Nearly $2.4 Million Provided to Bie on the Company’s and Grant’s Federal Income Tax Returns, the Indictment States. 

Authorities Also Alleged They Used about $2.9 Million in Church Funds for Various Personal Expenditures Benefiting Grant and His Family Members.
The expenditures included buying luxury clothing, electronic products and home furnishings; purchasing and leasing real estate and luxury vehicles; and spending money on trips to Disneyland, according to the indictment.

Grant also used church funds to cover expenses related to some of his children’s private school education, “including daily transportation to the school in a chauffeured Mercedes Benz paid for with funds from an ICGJC bank account,” the indictment states.

 The case is USA v. Grant et al., case number 2:18-cr-00179, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Have a Criminal Tax Problem?
 
 
Want to do More Than Pray for HELP?  
 
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