Yearly Archives: 2022

Strafford Webinars

I am pleased to announce that I will be speaking in an upcoming Strafford live video webinar, "Pre-Immigration Estate and Gift Tax Planning: Foreign Assets, Reporting Requirements, Strategies for Estate Planners" scheduled for Tuesday, September 27, 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT. Because of your affiliation with my firm, you are eligible to attend this program at half off. As long as you use the links in this email, the offer will be reflected automatically in your cart.

Our panel will provide trusts and estates attorneys with a practical guide to pre-immigration estate planning tools and techniques. The panel will go beyond the basics to detail intricate strategies for minimizing income tax, including basis strategies for non-U.S. situs assets, structuring "drop-off" trusts, and planning for the possibility of the nonresident alien's return to the country of origin.

After our presentations, we will engage in a live question and answer session with participants so we can answer your questions about these important issues directly.

I hope you'll join us.

For more information or to register >

Or call 1-800-926-7926
Ask for Pre-Immigration Estate and Gift Tax Planning on 9/27/2022
Mention code: ZDFCA

Sincerely,

Ronald A. Marini, Esq. &
Anita W. Friedlander, Esq.
Marini & Associates PA
Miami
888 8TAXAID
888 882-9243
www.TaxAid.com

Read more at: Tax Times blog

The Tax Court in Ruhaak, (11/16/2021) 157 TC No. 9 has found that a taxpayer that timely requested a collection due process hearing could not also request an equivalent hearing.

The IRS sent taxpayer a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (levy notice). The taxpayer requested a hearing regarding the proposed levy by submitting to the IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals) a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. The taxpayer mailed and Appeals received the Form 12153 before the expiration of the 30-day period following the mailing date of the levy notice, during which the taxpayer had a statutory right to request a collection due process (CDP) hearing. (Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and Code Sec. 6330(a)(3).

The taxpayer had checked a box on the Form 12153 to request an equivalent hearing in the event that his request for a CDP hearing was untimely. Under the applicable regs, a taxpayer who fails to make a timely request for a CDP hearing may request an equivalent hearing instead, provided that the request for an equivalent hearing is made in writing within the one-year period commencing on the day after the date of the levy notice. (Reg §301.6330-1(i)(1) and Reg §301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A I7)

Appeals Determined That The Taxpayer Timely
Requested A CDP Hearing And, Thus,
Was Not Entitled To An Equivalent Hearing.

Following the CDP hearing, Appeals issued to the taxpayer a notice of determination that sustained the proposed levy.

The taxpayer argued, however, that Appeals should have granted him an equivalent hearing because his Form 12153 constituted a written request for an equivalent hearing made within the one-year period provided for requesting an equivalent hearing.

The Tax Court Held That The Taxpayer's Request For A
Hearing Made Before The Expiration Of The 30-Day Period Following The Mailing Date Of The Levy Notice Necessarily Triggered A CDP Hearing And Not An Equivalent Hearing.

The Court looked to Reg §301.6330-1(i)(1), which provides in relevant part: "A taxpayer who fails to make a timely request for a CDP hearing is not entitled to a CDP hearing. Such a taxpayer may nevertheless request an administrative hearing with Appeals, which is referred to * * * as an 'equivalent hearing.'"

The phrase "[s]uch a taxpayer," the Court found, limits the class of taxpayers who may request an equivalent hearing to those described in the immediately preceding sentence, that is, those who "fail[] to make a timely request for a CDP hearing". In other words, the Court concluded, only those taxpayers who fail to timely request a CDP hearing are eligible to request an equivalent hearing.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     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

On  April 26, 2022, we posted Should I Stay or Should I Go? - Expatriations Are Up In 1st Quarter of 2022, where we discussed that the number of people who expatriated from the U.S. rose during the first quarter of 2022 compared with the previous quarter, the Internal Revenue Service said in a notice released on July 25, 2022.

Now the number of people expatriated from the U.S. more than doubled during the second quarter of 2022 compared to the previous quarter, the Internal Revenue Service said in a notice released Wednesday.

From 571 In The First Quarter Of 2022, The IRS
Said In A List Of Those Choosing To Expatriate.

The list includes those losing U.S. citizenship under Internal Revenue Code Section 877(a)  and Section 877A , the notice said.

It also includes long-term residents who are treated as losing citizenship under IRC Section 877(e)(2), the agency said.

According to CNBC the top reason why Americans abroad want to dump their U.S. citizenship include:

• Nearly 1 in 4 American expatriates say they are “seriously considering” or “planning” to ditch their U.S. citizenship, a survey from Greenback Expat Tax Services finds.  
• About 9 million U.S. citizens are living abroad, the U.S. Department of State estimates.
• More than 4 in 10 who would renounce citizenship say it’s due to the burden of filing U.S. taxes, the Greenback poll shows.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Need Advise on Expatriation?

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.   

for a FREE Tax Consultation 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

According to Law360, Sen. Joe Manchin said on Wednesday, July 27, 2002, that he had reached an agreement with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on legislation that would impose a 15% corporate minimum tax as part of a larger package to address tax, energy and health care costs.

Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Schumer, a Democrat from New York, announced the agreement to add the package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, to the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation bill, which could be passed with a simple majority. The package includes key parts of President Joe Biden's stalled domestic agenda such as investing in renewable energy and lowering the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs.

The measure would bring in roughly $739 billion in new revenues, including: 

• $313 billion from establishing a corporate minimum tax, 
• $124 billion from increased tax enforcement efforts by the Internal Revenue Service, 
• $14 billion from changing the tax treatment of carried interest and 
• $288 billion from reducing the cost the federal government pays for prescription drugs, according to a summary provided by Schumer's office.

Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT, and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extent the regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15% of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income.

The funding also would lower health care premiums by $64 billion and provide the IRS with an additional $80 billion to pay for the enforcement efforts. Approximately $15 million of the IRS funding would be used to study the creation of a free electronic filing program for low- and moderate-income taxpayers.     

Manchin and Schumer said the text of the legislation would be submitted for Senate parliamentarian review Wednesday and that the Senate would consider it next week. Manchin's support is vital since Democrats will need all 50 of their members in the Senate to pass the bill if no Republicans support it.

"It is common sense that a domestic corporate minimum tax of 15% be applied only to billion-dollar companies or larger, ensuring that America's largest businesses are no longer able to operate for free in our economy," he said.

Roy Blunt, R-Mo., chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said he probably wouldn't support the Manchin-Schumer legislation, which he hadn't seen yet.

"I don't think raising taxes is the right thing to do right now or putting more money into the economy," Blunt told Law360.

The agreement with Schumer follows comments Manchin made during a West Virginia radio interview July 15 that he wouldn't support the tax proposals in Biden's economic plan and that a significant increase in inflation led to his decision. Manchin said his support for a slimmed-down version of the Build Back Better Act, the budget reconciliation bill the House passed in November, had depended on a consumer price index report that showed a 9.1% increase in June over the prior year.

Manchin has featured prominently in the debate on the Build Back Better Act. In December, he opposed the measure. Manchin said he was concerned about its effect on inflation and the national debt, said he couldn't support the proposal, and pointed to other concerns like the pandemic as issues Congress should focus on.

Read more at: Tax Times blog