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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2019

J5 International Tax Hunt Continues!

On July 17, 2018 we posted The J5 International Tax Hunt is On!, where we discussed that the tax authorities of the UK, US, Australia, Canada and Netherlands have set up a joint committee to improve international enforcement against tax crime and money laundering.

The first meeting of the so-called J5 Group (Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement) was held during July 2018 where plans where developed to detect cyber criminals and enablers of offshore tax crime.

Now the heads of a five-nation group that’s cracking down on transnational tax crimes said On June 5, 2019 that their first year of collaboration has sparked new cases and sped development of existing ones but hasn’t yet led to a prosecution.

However, Group Members Said They Have Been Involved In Over 50 Investigations Involving
"Sophisticated International Enablers Of Tax Evasion, Including A Global Financial Institution and Its Intermediaries Who Facilitate Taxpayers To Hide Their Income And Assets."

In addition, details of “many investigations are on the way” even though they can’t be shared publicly now, said the U.S. member of the group, Don Fort, chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation unit.

Fort and his four counterparts in the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement gave reporters in Washington, D.C., an update on their work since they formed the so-called J5 in July 2018.

IRS-CI J5


“A year in, there’s a lot of thirst for specific information, but to ruin the surprise for you now: We don’t have specific case information,” the IRS chief said.

Fort added that he and the other tax enforcers had spent the first of their two-day conference in the U.S. capital discussing the need for patience in developing criminal cases that cross borders and are inherently complex.

“I can speak for my own organization,” Fort said, referring to the IRS Criminal Investigation unit.

“The average amount of time it takes to bring a criminal case and refer that to the Department of Justice is about a year and a half.”

He added, “We’ve only been in existence a year, and many of those first months were spent setting up the infrastructure of the various groups” within the J5.Working within existing treaties and laws, J5 countries shared information and were able to open new cases, more rapidly develop existing cases in the enforcement process, and find efficiencies to reduce the time it takes to work cases.”

The group claims there have been more data exchanges between J5 partner agencies in the past year than the previous ten years combined. While working within existing treaties and laws, that shared information means that the members can open new cases more quickly, develop existing cases more rapidly, and find efficiencies to reduce the time it takes to work cases.

Hans van der Vlist, General Director FIOD, praised the group’s cooperation, saying that it is “becoming more effective and operational.” He noted that just two weeks ago, they were able to remove an important online mixer for cryptocurrencies and are now analyzing the mixer’s information. Online mixers are companies that pool cryptocurrency funds together and create a series of new transactions - allegedly to hide the source of the funds. In that way, it’s like an ultra-sophisticated version of money laundering.

Those successes, Fort told reporters, were due to the tax enforcement chiefs being able to contact each other directly about high-priority cases, and to their lines of direct communication with J5-assigned investigators within their agencies.

“We’re cutting out a lot of the red tape and middle-management levels to make sure that we’re dealing with our priorities,” he said.

More resources have been pledged to the group from its member governments this year as the J5 focuses on “enablers” of international tax evasion as well as crime that overcomes cybersecurity safeguards or involves cryptocurrencies.

The latter priority was highlighted during the enforcement chiefs’ Washington conference with a series of training sessions, hosted by the IRS at the World Bank, in detecting transnational tax crimes on the dark web. A total of 120 law enforcement officers from 20 countries took part in the training.

Beyond tax evasion, “highly harmful, high-end enablers of tax evasion,” which were previously thought to be beyond the reach of the member countries, are also responsible for fraud, money laundering and smuggling — all areas of J5 cooperation, according to the group.

“When we launched the J5, we were clear that we wanted to use our combined powers and expertise to close the net on offshore tax evaders, international organized crime groups and those who help them. In just 12 months, that net has tightened with 18 suspected enablers in our sights and a further 50 cases in the pipeline,” said Simon York, director of the fraud investigation service of the U.K.’s HM Revenue & Customs.

“Tax crimes continue to evolve in their level of sophistication and complexity, which is why it is essential that we collaborate with our international partners to combat tax evasion,” said Stephane Bonin, director general of the Canada Revenue Agency.

Have Undeclared Income From an Offshore Account?
 
Want to Know Which OVDP Program is right for you?
 
 
 


Read more at: Tax Times blog

The REAL Truth About Offirs in Compromise

My colleague Steve Klitzner posted in his newsletter The Truth About Offers In Compromise where he discusses the realities regarding Offers In Compromise. He goes on to state "In the real world, people and businesses settle for less all the time.  So when they come to Steve with a tax problem, they want to know if they can make a deal with the IRS. Who would turn down $90,000 to resolve a $100,000 debt?  The IRS, that’s who."
 

On April 15, 2019 we posted Know Your Choices to Pay Your Tax Bill! - Part 2, where we discussed that an Offer in compromise (OIC) is an agreement between a taxpayer and IRS that settles the taxpayer's tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed.  Taxpayers who can fully pay the liabilities through an installment agreement or other means, won't qualify for an OIC in most cases. IRS says that to qualify for an OIC, the taxpayer must have filed all tax returns, made all required estimated tax payments for the current year, and made all required federal tax deposits for the current quarter if the taxpayer is a business owner with employees.
IRS may compromise a tax liability on any of the following grounds:

  1. Doubt as to liability. There must be a genuine dispute as to the existence of amount of the correct tax debt.
  2. Doubt as to collectibility. Such doubt exists in any case where the taxpayer's assets and income are less than the full amount of the tax liability.
  3. To promote effective tax administration. An offer may be accepted on this ground if: (a) collection in full of the tax owed could be achieved, but (b) requiring payment in full would either create an economic hardship, or would be unfair and inequitable because of exceptional circumstances. (Reg. § 301.7122-1(b))

To request an OIC, the taxpayer must apply using Form 656, Offer in Compromise. The taxpayer also must submit Form 433-A (OIC), Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and/or Form 433-B (OIC), Collection Information Statement for Businesses.

A taxpayer submitting an OIC based on doubt as to liability must file a Form 656-L, Offer in Compromise (Doubt as to Liability), instead of Form 656 and Form 433-A (OIC) and/or Form 433-B (OIC).

The OIC application generally must be accompanied by a $186 application fee. However, the fee is waived for certain low income taxpayers or if the OIC is based on doubt as to liability. (Form 656-B, Notice 2006-68, 2006-31 IRB 105, Sec. 4.03)

Except with regard to offers filed by low-income taxpayers, or based only on doubt as to liability, an OIC must be accompanied by a nonrefundable payment that depends on how the taxpayer is offering to pay.
A taxpayer may propose to pay in a lump sum, i.e., an offer payable in five or fewer installments within five or fewer months after the offer is accepted. If such an offer is made, the taxpayer must include with the Form 656 a payment equal to 20% of the offer amount. This payment is required in addition to the $186 application fee.
A taxpayer may propose to make periodic payments, i.e., six or more monthly installments made within 24 months after the offer is accepted. When submitting a periodic payment offer, the taxpayer must include the first proposed installment payment along with the Form 656. This payment also is required in addition to the $186 application fee. (Code Sec. 7122(c)(1)).
Some people are just not eligible.  They own too much or earn too much.  For others, we can get an agreement where they pay as little as $100 to settle the entire debt. 
The IRS reported acceptance rate is 42%, but our success rate is better than that, because we only submit Offers for those who truly qualify for the program. 

Need a Real Offer in Compromise
To Settle Your IRS Taxes? 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A.  
 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

 
 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS To Cancel a 250,000 US Passports

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:

 
 
Now 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

Now as of August, the US Internal Revenue Service had started action to revoke the passports or residence rights of at least 260,000 US individuals.
 

The power to recommend passport revocation for serious tax defaulters was granted to the IRS under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, signed into law in December 2015, but only brought into effect in February 2018. The Internal Revenue Service has stated it plans to use the power against US persons who owe more than USD51,000 in taxes and penalties.

However, first the IRS need to send the taxpayer either a Notice of Federal Tax Lien or a Notice of Intent to Levy. Taxpayers receiving either notice are entitled to appeal to a Collection Due Process hearing, to negotiate a resolution of this debt.

Second, the IRS can apply for a passport revocation or denial only if it first notifies the taxpayer of its intention, and allows 30 days for a response. It can go ahead with the application only if this request is ignored or not satisfactorily answered.

The IRS also uses Form CP508C  - Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department advising the taxpayer that:

We have certified to the State Department that your
tax debt is seriously delinquent.  


We show that you still owe > $51,000. 
This amount includes penalty and interest computed to
30 days from the date of this notice. 
 

Even then, the taxpayer can halt the revocation by agreeing to pay the tax in instalments, or by offering a compromise. And in the last resort, where revocation is granted, the State Department will not actually execute it until 90 days after the grant, giving the taxpayer time to resolve it.

Payment Of Taxes

If you can’t pay the full amount you owe, call 888 8TaxAid immediately to help you can make alternative payment arrangements such as an installment agreement or an offer in compromise to have your certification reversed. If you disagree with the tax amount or the certification was made in error, you should call 888 8TaxAid immediately! If you’ve already paid the tax debt, please send proof of that payment to the address on the Notice CP 508C.
 

 
If you recently filed your tax return for the current year and expect a refund, the IRS will apply the refund to the debt and if the refund is sufficient to satisfy your seriously delinquent tax debt, the account is considered fully paid. 

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.

Sources

Read more at: Tax Times blog

DC Hold That Boyle Applies to E-Filing!

On May 16, 2019 we posted E Filing Errors as Reasonable Cause? Not For Now!  where we discussed a recent US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision, Haynes v. United States, No. 17-50816 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019), indicates that many of those taxpayers will face uncertainty if their returns are late due to preparer errors or technological issues when electronically filed (e-filed). 
 
The court in Haynes declined to rule on whether the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Boyle, 469 US 241 (1985), applied to e-filing a tax return. The court instead remanded the case to resolve factual issues. 

To exacerbate this uncertainty or solidify the IRS' continue position that United States v. Boyle, 469 US 241 (1985), should be applied to not allow reasonable cause for taxpayers who rely on their accountant to e-file their return, unless they request proof of e-filing; the government notified the court that the IRS had refunded the late-filing penalty at issue, effectively mooting the case and leaving this issue unresolved.
 
Well now the District Court of Appeal for Tennessee has held in INTRESS v. U.S., 124 AFTR 2d 2019-XXXX, (DC TN), 08/02/2019, that Boyle does apply to electronic filings.
 

"It Appears That At Least until E-Filing Is Universally Mandatory, or Paper Filing Becomes Sufficiently Unwieldy, Boyle Continues to Apply."
This is just another example of how bad facts make bad law. In this case the taxpayer's tax preparer and bookkeeper was negligent when they failed to transmit the taxpayer's Form 4868. As discussed in Haynes, Boyle was cited for the proposition that an agent's act are imputed to its principal.
 
Since the tax preparer and bookkeeper in Interess was negligent, this negligent sould be imputed to the taxpayer preventing them from having reasonable cause to waive this late filing penalty.
 
It's my belief that that this decision is cumbersome at best and makes unnecessary conclusions regarding and/or ignoring technological changes between when Boyle was decided and its application to electronic filing now. 
 
I believe the taxpayer incorrectly plead this case as Boyle not applying, rather than the tax preparer and bookkeeper was not negligent, since the tax preparer and bookkeeper was negligent and this negligence would be imputed to the taxpayer resulting in their non-qualification for Reasonable Cause abatement.
 
For example, the court states that "Although the facts of Boyle in the instant case differ greatly, they share one fundamental similarity that is fatal to the plaintiff's position: taxpayers are not obligated to use tax preparation services." The court goes on the state that a taxpayer can hire a pay professional, not have the Paid Professional electronically file the return, but instead get a paper copy indicating that the return was Self Prepared.  
Really?
 
The court then goes on to disallow the taxpayer a First Time Penalty Abatement, by artificially adding a reasonable cause requirement ,which is not in the manual.
 
To qualify for the FTA waiver, a taxpayer must meet the following criteria:  

  • Filing compliance: Must have filed (or filed a valid extension for) all required returns and can’t have an outstanding request for a return from the IRS.
  • Payment compliance: Must have paid, or arranged to pay all tax due (can be in an installment agreement as long as the payments are current).
  • Clean penalty history: Has no prior penalties (except an estimated tax penalty) for the preceding three years. Note: If the taxpayer received reasonable cause relief in the past, they are still eligible for FTA.

I believe that a reasonable cause argument can still be made by differentiating Interess  from a taxpayer's case where the CPA/accountant was not negligent, i.e. transmitted the tax filing on time and did not receive notice of rejection, with the CPA/accountant's nonnegligent being attributed to the taxpayer principal and therefore allowing the taxpayer to sustain a reasonable cause argument.
 
The Current State Of The Law Has Not Kept Pace With Our Digital Economy.
 
 
 
At the center of this quandary is whether a taxpayer can have reasonable cause where he relies upon a third party to perform a ministerial act, like e-filing an original tax return. The answer we now know is NO. 
 
This negative response may thwart the efficiencies gained by technology.
Been Assessed a Late Filing Penalty For
An E-Filed Return?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini& Associates, P.A.  
 

 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243  

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help