Monthly Archives: April 2025

On August 12, 2024 we posted IRS Releases Final Digital Asset Regs & New Draft of Form 1099-DA where we discussed that in IR-2024-178 dated June 28, 2024 The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations requiring custodial brokers to report sales and exchanges of digital assets, including cryptocurrency. These reporting requirements will help taxpayers to file accurate tax returns with respect to digital asset transactions, which are already subject to tax under current law.

Then on August 12, 2024 we posted TIGTA Releases Report Regarding Virtual Currency Tax Compliance Enforcement and How it Can Be Improved where we discussed that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Virtual currency (or digital assets) has grown into a trillion-dollar industry that's been challenging for the IRS to enforce for tax compliance and that during Fiscal Years 2018 to 2023, IRS CI investigated 390 cases involving virtual currency/digital assets of which 224 were recommended for prosecution.

The IRS had updated its crypto tax reporting rule in December 2024, during the final weeks of the Biden administration, to clarify that decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms would also fall under these guidelines

Well now you can forget all that, as President Donald Trump signed into law a bill to overturn a revised rule from the Internal Revenue Service that expanded the definition of a broker to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges on April 10, 2025, according to a statement from the White House.

In March 2025 The Congressional Review Act Was
Invoked By Both Chambers Of Congress  To Nullify
The IRS Revision, With Bipartisan Support.

The cryptocurrency industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi exchanges, which operate without intermediaries and allow direct transactions on blockchain networks, could not comply due to their lack of user visibility. 

Unlike centralized exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken, DeFi platforms do not collect detailed user information, making it challenging to meet IRS reporting requirements.

Trump's decision aligns with his campaign promise to support the cryptocurrency industry. He had pledged to be a "crypto president" and actively courted support from the sector during his campaign. Since taking office, Trump has taken several steps to promote digital assets, including establishing a cryptocurrency working group and signing an executive order to create a federal bitcoin stockpile.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

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 March 25 we posted The IRS ‘Reinstated’ 7,000 Workers, But They Are Not Returning To Work? discussing that the federal government will pay about 7,000 IRS probationary employees, who were laid off less than a month ago, not to work while lawsuits over layoffs wind their way through the court system. The email sent to probationary workers also advised them “not [to] report to duty or perform any work until receiving further guidance.”

Now The Supreme Court issued a stay on April 8, 2025, halting a lower court's preliminary injunction that required federal agencies to reinstate terminated probationary employees and barred the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from issuing workforce reduction guidance. The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup on March 13, was challenged by OPM in a case involving labor unions and nonprofit organizations. The stay will remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal in the 9th Circuit or a Supreme Court review, if certiorari is granted.

"The District Court's Injunction Was Based Solely On The Allegations Of The Nine Non-Profit-Organization Plaintiffs
In This Case," The Court Explained. "But Under Established Law, Those Allegations Are Presently Insufficient
To Support The Organizations' Standing."

In its order, the Supreme Court stated that the district court's injunction relied solely on allegations from nine nonprofit plaintiffs, which it deemed insufficient to establish standing under established legal standards. The Court explained that the plaintiffs must identify specific members harmed or demonstrate that their entire membership suffered a concrete injury to meet Article III requirements.

At an April 9 hearing, Judge Alsup questioned whether reinstated employees could be terminated again and how long they would remain protected under the injunction. He also asked whether their employment could still be linked to OPM’s allegedly unlawful February directive. The government argued that the nonprofits had failed to provide evidence of direct harm to their members.

The judge criticized both parties for delays in providing a list of affected employees and expressed little interest in assigning blame. He emphasized the need for compliance with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Alsup gave both sides until 5 p.m. Friday to submit the list of terminated employees, which is critical to determining whether the plaintiffs have standing and whether further relief is warranted. The case remains under review as the appellate process continues.

Meanwhile, other job losses loom at the IRS. The Trump administration wants to cut the IRS workforce by 20% by May 15, including those who have already left or were fired.

Officials at the Elon Musk-led group advising the administration want Acting IRS Commissioner to eliminate 18,141 jobs across the agency. This includes the roughly 12,000 employees terminated as part of new-hire layoffs.

 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

Florida law generally provides robust liability protection for LLC members through the Florida Revised Limited Liability Company Act, which states that debts or liabilities of an LLC are solely those of the company. However, this protection is not absolute, as Florida recognizes exceptions under Federal Tax and Florida Sales and Use Tax laws. Specifically, section 213.29, Florida Statutes, imposes personal liability on individuals responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax if they willfully fail to do so. This provision applies to officers or directors with administrative control over tax compliance and creates significant exposure for LLC members.

The Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) treats sales tax as state funds at the time of collection, viewing businesses as custodians of these funds rather than owners. Failure to remit collected sales tax can pierce the liability shield typically protecting LLC members from business debts. FDOR has pursued collection actions against individual LLC members, including liens on personal bank accounts, and in more egregious cases where taxes were collected but not remitted, has made criminal referrals to the State Attorney.

To establish personal liability, FDOR must prove "willful" failure to collect or remit taxes. This determination often involves questioning former officers or managers about their roles in tax compliance and financial decision-making. Individuals deemed "responsible persons" with authority over financial priorities face the greatest risk. Personal liability is asserted through a Notice of Assessment Personal Liability (NOAPL), which gives individuals 20 days to file an informal protest. Failure to respond promptly can result in severe financial consequences, including penalties equal to twice the unpaid tax amount.

The concept underlying this liability mirrors the "trust fund" tax approach seen in other jurisdictions, where businesses collecting sales tax are considered trustees of government funds. A notable 2022 New York Administrative Law Judge decision illustrates how strict liability could apply even without direct involvement in daily operations. In that case, an LLC member's signature on documents and status as a member sufficed for personal liability. While not binding in Florida, this reasoning could influence similar cases under Florida's statutory framework.

Given these risks, LLC members with signature authority or control over financial decisions should prioritize sales tax compliance to avoid personal liability. The FDOR may assess penalties and initiate collection actions against individuals who fail to remit taxes properly. Prompt response to any notices is critical because defaulting on a NOAPL makes reopening protest rights nearly impossible.

Marini & Associates’ tax attorneys offer assistance in mitigating these risks through voluntary disclosure agreements, audit defense, administrative appeals, and negotiated settlements. Their expertise can help LLC members abate or waive penalties and address assessments before liens or criminal referrals occur.

Have a  Florida Sales Tax Problem?

Mr. Sweeney is a Tax Attorney with 40 years of experience in the areas of Tax Law, both Federal & State, including Representation before the IRS and various State Taxing Agencies.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

According to Law360, the estate of a deceased corporate attorney told the Eleventh Circuit  that the U.S. government wrongly taxed $3 million claimed by his stepchildren, arguing that the amount was properly deducted as a contracted business transaction under the Internal Revenue Code.

Representing the estate of Richard Spizzirri during oral arguments in Miami, Joanne M. O'Connor of Jones Foster told a three-judge panel that the individual payouts of $1 million to Spizzirri's three stepchildren were listed in a prenuptial agreement with his fourth wife — Holly Lueders, the childrens' mother — and are therefore deductible as claims "contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" under IRC Section 2053.

O'Connor further argued that the payments to the children in the third modification of the agreement were "clearly transactional and an ordinary course of business in terms of the situation they were in at the time where she's agreeing to ratify and confirm her waiver of support rights."

After Spizzirri died in 2015, the stepchildren sued the estate in probate court to get their money. The estate then deducted the payments under Section 2053, which allows the estate to deduct such claims "contracted bona fide" and without them being considered gifts. 

The Stepchildren Weren't Included In Spizzirri's Will, But Were Included In The Prenup's Agreement's Modification In 2005.

The Internal Revenue Service rejected the deductions, finding that the estate was liable for more than a $2.2 million deficiency and assessed a more than $450,000 penalty, court records show. The Tax Court upheld the rejection in February 2023 after finding that the three $1 million payouts had donative intent.

U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant questioned O'Connor on whether the course of business was normal given Spizzirri's "incredibly odd family circumstances." 

"Do we look at what he usually would have done or what an ordinary person would have usually done?" Judge Grant said. In this case, O'Connor said the ordinary course of business "refers to the particular circumstances."

U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck noted the prenup or antenuptial agreement allowed for the one-time payments to the stepchildren.

"The agreement said ... we want you to put this in the will. In other words, we wouldn't even be here if the decedent had actually complied with his obligations under the antenuptial agreement."

But Judge Luck also added that contract provisions are read as a whole, saying the agreement "seems to suggest that the entire package was done as a way to resolve all marital and estate issues."

Arguing for the government, Pooja Boisture of the U.S. Department of Justice said the agreement's provisions should be read independently, saying the 2005 modification was a "testamentary freedom," or the right to distribute his wealth has he sees fit after death, and "has no value in money or money's worth."

Boisture added that Spizzirri's stepchildren had an expectation of inheritance taken from the agreement's modification. In the modification, Boisture said Spizzirri intended to put the stepchildren in his will.

"If that is not an example of an expectation of inheritance, I do not know what is," Boisture said.

 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