Yearly Archives: 2025

In early 2025, the U.S. Tax Court issued a decision in JM Assets, LP v. Commissioner that has important implications for partnerships, the IRS, and how federal partnership audits are handled. The case challenges how and when the IRS must close partnership audits under the rules created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA).

Background: What Happened in JM Assets, LP?

JM Assets, LP, a partnership, was audited for its treatment of certain real estate sales as installment sales on its 2018 tax return. When the IRS reviewed the return, it issued a Notice of Proposed Partnership Adjustment (the first official signal that the IRS believed changes were necessary). As part of the audit process, partnerships can request to modify the IRS’s calculation of what’s owed. JM Assets made such a request in February 2023 and provided all the required materials. The IRS approved these changes in June 2023, but it delayed issuing its final adjustment notice until December—months after reviewing and approving the modifications.

The Legal Issue

Under the BBA rules, once a partnership requests a modification and provides all required information, there’s a ticking clock: the IRS typically has 270 days from when the partnership completes its submission to issue a Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA). However, the Treasury had issued a regulation that interpreted this deadline much more loosely, allowing the IRS to wait until the very end of the entire 270-day modification period—even if the partnership submitted everything earlier.

The Court’s Decision

The Tax Court strongly disagreed with the Treasury’s interpretation. The court found that Congress intended for the 270-day countdown to begin when a partnership actually submits all required modification materials—not at the end of a theoretical “modification period.” By holding that the IRS missed the deadline in issuing its final adjustment, the court invalidated the regulation and protected the rights of the partnership.

Why This Matters

This case is a big win for partnerships facing IRS audits under the BBA regime. It sets a clear, firm timeline that the IRS must follow once a partnership has met its obligations in the modification process. If the IRS is too slow, the partnership can challenge the audit results and potentially avoid additional tax.

More broadly, the decision is an example of the courts pushing back against agency rules that overstep the authority granted by Congress. This ruling will give partnerships more certainty, and likely force the IRS to move more quickly and carefully during BBA audits.

Conclusion

The JM Assets, LP case is a key reminder that even well-established IRS procedures must be grounded in the law as written by Congress. For partnerships, it creates a more predictable audit process. For the IRS, it’s a call to respect statutory limits and operate within the deadlines set by Congress.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources:

1.     https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/7/2/dissecting-partnership-audit-limitations-insights-from-jm-assets-lp-v-commissioner

2.   https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/07/tax-court-invalidates-treasury-regulation-extending-bba-partnership-adjustment-period

Read more at: Tax Times blog

On March 18, 2025 we posted How Not to Make a Voluntary Disclosure - Inaccurate Filing Leads to Federal Prosecution where we discussed that a federal grand jury in Miami returned an indictment charging Dan Rotta, of Aventura, Florida, and Sergio Cernea, of Sao Paolo, Brazil, with conspiring to defraud the United States by concealing income and assets in Swiss bank accounts. The indictment also charged.

According to the indictment, between 1985 and 2020, Rotta hid more than $20 million in assets in at least two dozen secret Swiss accounts at five different Swiss banks, including UBS, Credit Suisse, Bank Bonhôte and Bank Julius Baer. The accounts were allegedly held in his own name, in the names of sham structures and, in one instance, a pseudonym. Over the years, Rotta allegedly earned substantial income from these assets that he did not report on his tax returns.

Now according to Law360, U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith handed down a 5 year sentence to 78-year-old Dan Rotta, who pled guilty in March to one count of conspiracy to defraud the government for a decades long scheme using a Brazilian friend and a series of trusts and false tax returns.

 Do You Have Undeclared Offshore Income?

Read more at: Tax Times blog

According to DoJ, Ryan Ulibarri, a dentist and owner of Ulibarri Family Dentistry in Fort Collins, Colorado, was sentenced on June 17, 2025, to 41 months in federal prison for tax evasion related to his use of an illegal tax shelter scheme. The sentencing follows a multi-year investigation and prosecution by federal authorities.

A Stark Reminder: Crossing the Line on Tax Strategies

On June 17, 2025, Dr. Ryan Ulibarri, owner of Ulibarri Family Dentistry in Fort Collins, Colorado, was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison after being convicted of tax evasion through an illegal tax shelter scheme. This follows a lengthy, multi-year investigation by federal authorities, highlighting the severe consequences of tax fraud for professionals.

Anatomy of the Scheme

Starting in 2016, Dr. Ulibarri invested $50,000 in an abusive-trust tax shelter. Over several years, he developed a complex plan to conceal over $5 million in dental practice income from tax authorities. Here’s how the scheme operated:

·         Multiple Entities Created: Ulibarri established three trusts and a private family foundation, naming himself as trustee and enlisting friends to falsely sign documents as “creators” to mask his involvement.

·         Illegal Transfers: He transferred majority ownership of his dental practice to one of these trusts, despite warnings that this violated Colorado law.

·         Funds Concealed: Revenue from the dental business was routed through accounts for the trusts and foundation, making the money appear to belong to those entities rather than to Ulibarri personally.

·         Personal Benefit: Hidden funds were used for personal expenses, including mortgage payments, boats, luxury travel, credit card bills, and season tickets for professional baseball.

·         False Tax Returns: Ulibarri filed fraudulent tax returns for himself, his business, and the trusts, claiming personal expenses as business or charitable deductions.

The Fallout: Sentence, Penalties, and Restitution

The legal repercussions were significant:

·         Prison Sentence: 41 months in federal prison.

·         Supervised Release: Three years following imprisonment.

·         Financial Penalties: A $150,000 fine, over $1.4 million in restitution to the IRS, and nearly $167,000 in restitution to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

·         Professional Reputation: Irreversible damage to his personal and professional standing.

 Lessons for Professionals

·         Complexity Doesn’t Equal Legality: Creating trusts or foundations doesn’t automatically make a tax strategy legal—if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

·         Heed Professional Advice: Ulibarri ignored warnings from advisors, resulting in prison time and massive financial penalties.

·         Transparency is Essential: Legitimate tax strategies require proper documentation and justification; concealment leads to criminal liability.

Closing Thoughts

The case of Dr. Ryan Ulibarri serves as a powerful warning to dental, medical, and business professionals tempted by “creative” tax schemes. Tax planning should always be transparent and above board—anything less risks severe legal consequences.

If you wouldn’t want it explained in court, don’t do it.

 Want Experienced Defendable Tax Advice?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources

1.       https://www.drbicuspid.com/dental-practice/legal-issues/article/15748873/co-dentist-who-copped-to-hiding-5m-from-us-government-gets-prison        

2.      https://krdo.com/news/2025/06/18/colorado-dentist-sentenced-for-tax-evasion/      

3.      https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-dentist-sentenced-three-years-prison-tax-evasion/      

4.      https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/colorado-dentist-pleads-guilty-to-multiple-tax-evasion-charges  

5.       https://drilldownsolution.com/when-tax-strategies-cross-the-line-lessons-from-a-colorado-dentists-5m-tax-evasion-case/      

6.      https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/09/wsj-a-tax-shelter-crackdown-uncovers-a-dentists-smile-high-trust.html

7.        

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is making a clear pivot in its approach to enforcing digital asset regulations, focusing less on technical violations and more on prosecuting those who willfully enable criminal activity through cryptocurrency platforms. This change, set in motion by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s April 2025 memorandum—which expressly discourages “regulation by prosecution”—is reshaping the landscape for cryptocurrency companies and their executives. The days when simply failing to register as a money transmitter could land you in federal court may be fading, but the government’s scrutiny of willful misconduct—especially regarding sanctions evasion and serious crime—has never been sharper.

Old Rules, New Approach

For years, the DOJ has used 18 U.S.C. § 1960—which criminalizes operating an unlicensed money transmitting business—to go after cryptocurrency firms. Violations fell into three buckets: (1) operating without a state license, (2) failing to register with FinCEN, or (3) knowingly transmitting funds linked to criminal activity. Early cases, like the 2007 E-Gold prosecution, relied on these statutes, and digital asset companies have long viewed them as a regulatory tripwire.

Blanche’s April 2025 memo shifted the DOJ’s enforcement posture. It directed prosecutors not to use criminal charges simply to enforce regulatory requirements, especially when digital asset oversight is actively being addressed by non-punitive regulatory agencies. The memo is clear: no more criminal charges for failing to register as a money transmitter without proof the defendants knew about the registration requirement and chose to ignore it. Prosecutors are now to focus on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.”

How This Is Playing Out in Real Cases

Several pending criminal cases illustrate the memo’s impact. In U.S. v. Scanlon, a U.S. Attorney’s office dismissed an indictment charging failure to register with FinCEN, though no reasons were given—suggesting internal recalibration in line with the memo. In U.S. v. Storm—the case against Tornado Cash’s developers—the prosecution dropped the charge for failing to register but pressed ahead on allegations that the developers knowingly ran a platform used for money laundering, sanctions evasion, and crime. Similarly, in U.S. v. Rodriguez & Hill—charging Samourai Wallet founders—prosecutors dropped the registration charge and doubled down on the allegation that the executives knew their service was used for large-scale money laundering and sanctions evasion. In both cases, the DOJ emphasized that their actions followed the Blanche memo’s directive to focus on intent and willfulness.

A Pattern Emerges

These cases show that the DOJ is not abandoning criminal enforcement in digital assets but is narrowing its focus. Prosecutors are dropping charges based solely on regulatory technicalities, but aggressively pursuing cases where there’s evidence defendants knew their platforms were being used to launder money or violate sanctions. Sanctions evasion, especially involving actors like North Korea’s Lazarus Group or Russian oligarchs, is a recurring theme, reflecting the U.S. government’s broader policy priorities.

Key Takeaways for Crypto Companies

Although the Blanche memo has led to the dismissal of some charges, it does not signal a hands-off approach from Washington. Here’s what this means for digital asset companies:

·         Intent is Critical: The DOJ will prosecute when it can prove willful misconduct—not just innocent oversight or noncompliance.

·         Sanctions Evasion Is a Priority: Engaging with sanctioned entities remains a top DOJ target. Crypto platforms must know their customers and implement robust monitoring.

·         Compliance Programs Matter: While civil regulators (FinCEN, state agencies) can still penalize companies for unregistered activity, a good compliance program can reduce regulatory friction and, crucially, make it harder for prosecutors to allege willful misconduct.

·         Old Offenses, New Standards: The DOJ’s enforcement strategy is evolving, not evaporating. Companies should consult legal counsel and carefully review their compliance posture in light of these developments.

Conclusion

The DOJ’s new policy is a shift, not a retreat. Cryptocurrency companies should breathe a cautious sigh of relief if they’ve never intended to break the law, but—especially if their platforms touch sanctioned entities or are used for money laundering—they remain squarely in the DOJ’s sights. The message is clear: the government is moving away from prosecuting technical noncompliance, but if it can show you knew what you were doing was illegal, expect the full force of federal prosecution. Now is the time to review your compliance programs, train your teams, and make sure you’re not just checking boxes, but actively preventing misuse of your platform. The stakes have changed, but the risks for the unwary or willfully blind remain high.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

    

Did You Omit Income From Digital Assets?

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Source:

1.       https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/2366363/print?section=tax-authority%2Ffederal       

Read more at: Tax Times blog