Monthly Archives: June 2026

Most taxpayers—and even many advisors—assume that IRS representation always begins and ends with Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. In ordinary circumstances, that is correct. A valid Form 2848, signed by a competent taxpayer, is the standard mechanism for authorizing representation before the IRS.

The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has explained how taxpayers and their representatives can use a durable power of attorney when a taxpayer becomes physically or mentally incompetent and cannot sign an IRS Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, to authorize representation. A pre-existing durable power of attorney can grant authority, but the representative must still file a Form 2848 on the taxpayer's behalf to specify the tax matters involved. (OPR Alert Issue Number: 2026-15, 5/19/2026)

But what happens when the taxpayer can no longer sign?

This situation arises more often than expected, particularly with aging clients, sudden illness, or cognitive decline. Once a taxpayer loses legal capacity, they cannot execute a Form 2848. At that point, without prior planning, families and advisors may find themselves unable to act on the taxpayer’s behalf in dealing with the IRS.

Durable Power of Attorney: The Critical Backstop

A properly drafted durable power of attorney (DPOA) can solve this problem—but only if it is in place before incapacity occurs.

A DPOA allows an appointed agent (attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of the principal even after the principal becomes incapacitated. While these documents are commonly used in estate planning, their importance in tax matters is often overlooked.

However, not all DPOAs are sufficient for IRS purposes.

The IRS has specific procedural requirements under 26 CFR § 601.503 (see Publication 216). Most standard DPOAs do not include the detailed elements required for direct IRS representation—such as:

·         Specific tax matters (e.g., income tax, civil penalties)

·         Form numbers (e.g., Form 1040, Form 709)

·         Tax years or periods

Because of this, a DPOA alone is typically not enough to fully substitute for Form 2848.

How It Works in Practice

Even if a DPOA lacks the required specificity, it can still be used effectively.

The key is this:
The agent named in the durable power of attorney can complete and sign Form 2848 on behalf of the incapacitated taxpayer.

This approach bridges the gap between the broad authority granted under state law and the IRS’s procedural requirements.

That said, one condition is critical—the DPOA must authorize tax matters. Ideally, it should explicitly reference “federal taxes” or grant broad authority covering financial and tax decisions. A generic or narrowly drafted power of attorney may not be sufficient.

What Happens Without a Valid DPOA?

If no valid DPOA exists—or if it is too limited—the situation becomes significantly more complex.

In those cases, the representative may need to be appointed as a fiduciary through a court proceeding (e.g., guardian or conservator). Only after that appointment can the individual:

·         Act on behalf of the taxpayer, and

·         Notify the IRS using Form 56 (Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship)

This process is time-consuming, costly, and entirely avoidable with proper planning.

Practical Planning Takeaways

For practitioners advising individuals or closely held business owners, a few best practices stand out:

·         Ensure every client has a durable power of attorney in place before incapacity.

·         Confirm that the document explicitly includes authority over federal tax matters.

·         Coordinate estate planning documents with tax representation needs.

·         Educate clients that a DPOA does not replace Form 2848—but enables it when capacity is lost.

A small drafting oversight today can create major procedural barriers later.

The Bottom Line

Form 2848 remains the primary tool for IRS representation—but it depends on the taxpayer’s capacity to sign. A durable power of attorney ensures that this authority does not disappear when it is needed most.

For tax professionals, integrating DPOA review into client onboarding and periodic check-ins is a simple step that can prevent significant complications down the road.

Need 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)

Read more at: Tax Times blog

When most physicians and high‑income professionals think about IRS risk, they picture underreported W‑2 wages or missed 1099s. Recent news out of an Ohio federal court is a reminder that some of the biggest exposures come from complex offshore structures, especially when they touch compensation and practice income.

According to a settlement filed in Ohio U.S. v. Alexander et al., case number 1:24-cv-00192, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a retired plastic surgeon agreed to pay $7.7 million to resolve a long‑running dispute with the federal government over an alleged offshore employee leasing scheme. The case illustrates how the IRS views these arrangements and why “creative” cross‑border planning can backfire years after a doctor hangs up the white coat.

What the government alleged

While the detailed filings are technical, the broad outline is straightforward. The government alleged that the surgeon used an offshore employee leasing arrangement to route income and compensation through foreign entities in a way that reduced or deferred U.S. tax.

Typically, these schemes might involve:

·         A foreign “leasing” or management company that purports to employ the physician.

·         The U.S. practice or surgery center paying fees offshore instead of wages or distributions directly to the doctor.

·         Claims that income is properly taxed in a low‑tax jurisdiction or that different rules apply because of the foreign structure.

The IRS and Department of Justice challenged that approach, taking the position that the structure improperly shifted U.S.‑source income offshore and that the underlying U.S. tax remained due. Rather than continue litigating, the retired surgeon agreed to a multi‑million‑dollar settlement that resolves the government’s civil claims.

Why the number is so high

Many clients look at the $7.7 million figure and assume the underlying income must have been astronomical. In reality, large tax settlements like this often reflect years of back tax, accrued interest, and civil penalties. When income is routed offshore and goes unreported or underreported over a sustained period, the compounding effect is dramatic.

Key drivers can include:

·         Additional income tax from disallowed deductions or recharacterized payments.

·         Accuracy‑related penalties, which can be as high as 20% or more of the underpayment.

·         Possible penalties relating to foreign information returns if foreign entities or accounts were not properly disclosed.

By the time the government has completed its examination, coordinated with DOJ, and filed a case in federal court, the taxpayer is often facing a number that looks more like a business acquisition than a tax bill.

Why this matters even if you are “done” practicing

One striking aspect of this case is that the taxpayer is a retired surgeon. For many professionals, there is a false sense of security that once the practice is sold or closed, the exposure somehow “expires.” Unfortunately, the IRS’s statute of limitations and collection powers do not operate on a retirement timetable.

If offshore structures were used during a client’s active years, those arrangements can be examined and challenged long after the operating business has changed hands. The result can be:

·         Large, unexpected liabilities in retirement.

·         Disputes over how much of the sale proceeds or nest egg are reachable by the government.

·         Stressful litigation at a time when clients expected their financial lives to be simpler, not more complex.

Practical lessons for high‑income professionals

For physicians, business owners, and executives with cross‑border exposure, this case offers several concrete lessons:

·         Be skeptical of offshore “employment” or “leasing” solutions. If a structure exists primarily to reduce U.S. tax on services that are clearly performed for U.S. patients or customers, expect the IRS to scrutinize it.

·         Assume the government will look through form to substance. Labels like “management fees” or “leasing charges” will not carry the day if the economic reality is that you are earning U.S.‑source income.

·         Clean‑up is almost always cheaper than enforcement. Where past offshore structures may not align with current law or guidance, it is often far better to explore voluntary disclosure or targeted corrective filings than to wait for an IRS investigation that can end in a high‑profile lawsuit and eight‑figure‑style outcomes.

·         Retirement is not a shield. If there are unresolved issues from earlier years, address them now, before the government files its own complaint in federal court.

How we help

At Marini & Associates PA, we regularly work with physicians and other high‑income professionals who have legacy offshore structures, foreign entities, or international compensation arrangements. Our role is to:

·         Review existing structures for compliance and economic substance.

·         Identify potential reporting gaps, including foreign information returns.

·         Develop practical strategies to bring clients back into compliance while managing risk and cost.

The retired surgeon’s $7.7 million settlement is one more reminder that offshore planning must be done carefully and that ignoring issues rarely makes them go away. If you or your clients have questions about an existing offshore arrangement, it is better to ask those questions now than read about a similar case in the news later.

 Do You Have A Non-Compliant Offshore Account?

Sources:

2.       https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1583426/dl              

3.      https://casetext.com/case/alexander-v-us-60          

4.      https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/  

5.       https://www.law360.com/cases/64503d7cd272ac02fbe840fa/dockets

6.      https://cseinstitute.org/update-alexander-brothers-found-guilty-on-all-charges/

7.       https://www.facebook.com/FOX5NY/posts/the-verdict-came-after-11-women-testified-in-manhattan-federal-court-they-were-s/1466610174828263/

8.      https://aglaw.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Ohio-v.-EPA-Order-8.11.21.pdf

9.      https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov

10.   https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/alexander-v-us-no-885744145

11.    https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/alon-alexander-oren-alexander-and-tal-alexander-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sex

12.   https://www.scribd.com/document/803642724/U-S-v-Alexander-Et-Al-Superseding-Indictment

13.   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6271ngl014o

14.   https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-alexander-1094803244

15.    https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/68539eaf99219666d9b24b20

16.   https://www.law360.com/articles/2485448/ex-surgeon-agrees-to-7-7m-tax-bill-from-offshore-scheme      

17.    https://www.law360.com/tax      

18.   https://www.law360.com/about/tax    

19.   https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/1tmtnn3/how_do_you_define_the_rich_that_we_should_be/

20.  https://www.facebook.com/WCPO9/posts/city-administration-recommends-addressing-the-looming-30-million-budget-deficit-/1439094841581802/

21.   https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BFI_WP_2021-119.pdf

22.   https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2023/09/irs-990-forms-story-ideas-past-stories-and-expert-sources/

23.   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92143/pdf/CHRG-108shrg92143.pdf

24.  https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1876431/000162828026028623/pre-20251231.htm

25.   https://www.law360.com/articles/2485448/ex-surgeon-agrees-to-7-7m-tax-bill-from-offshore-scheme         

26.  https://www.law360.com/tax         

27.   https://www.law360.com/about/tax    

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Our firm focuses on complex international tax planning, IRS audits, and tax controversy matters for clients in Florida and around the world.

Please vote here: guidetoflorida.com/miami/legal-services/marini--associates-pa

Thank you for your trust, your referrals, and your vote.

Sincerely,

Ronald A. Marini, Esq.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

A recent order out of the Southern District of Florida underscores just how aggressively the government is willing to pursue FBAR enforcement—even when the taxpayer is abroad and already facing a massive civil judgment.

In United States v. Schwarzbaum, a federal judge has now taken the unusual step of ordering the arrest of a U.S.-German expatriate who failed to appear at a court-ordered hearing tied to a nearly $20 million FBAR judgment.

Background: From FBAR Penalties to Contempt

The case has been closely watched for years. The government originally assessed substantial FBAR penalties against Isac Schwarzbaum for willfully failing to report foreign accounts in Switzerland and Costa Rica for tax years 2007 through 2009.

Key developments include:

·         A 2020 finding of willful FBAR violations

·         A 2022 judgment of approximately $12.5 million

·         An Eleventh Circuit adjustment in 2024

·         A revised 2025 judgment totaling approximately $19.6 million with interest and penalties

Despite the judgment, the government has alleged that Schwarzbaum moved assets abroad—reportedly maintaining tens of millions of dollars in Swiss accounts—while refusing to satisfy the liability.

The Court’s Escalation: Civil Contempt and Arrest

The latest development stems from Schwarzbaum’s failure to appear at an August hearing addressing the government’s motion for civil sanctions, including an order to repatriate foreign assets.

Judge Beth Bloom rejected several defenses for nonappearance, including:

·         Lack of proper notice

·         Health-related travel limitations

·         Residence abroad

The court emphasized that Schwarzbaum made no effort to request a continuance or appear remotely.

As a result, the court:

·         Found him in ongoing civil contempt

·         Ordered his arrest

·         Authorized incarceration until he complies (i.e., repatriates assets to satisfy the judgment)

·         Referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal prosecution

This is a notable escalation—transforming what began as a civil FBAR enforcement action into something approaching quasi-criminal enforcement pressure.

Extradition Realities

One complicating factor is that Schwarzbaum resides in Switzerland.

Civil contempt alone is generally not extraditable under the U.S.–Switzerland treaty. However, the court’s referral for potential criminal prosecution introduces a new variable. If criminal contempt or related charges are pursued, Swiss authorities would evaluate extradition under the treaty’s dual-criminality standard.

In practice, that creates uncertainty:

·         Civil remedies may have limited cross-border enforceability

·         Criminal escalation may be necessary to compel compliance

·         Even then, extradition is far from guaranteed

Constitutional Undercurrents

Schwarzbaum has also challenged the underlying FBAR penalty on constitutional grounds, arguing a violation of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

This argument has gained some traction in other jurisdictions, particularly following a 2024 Texas federal court decision questioning the IRS’s ability to assess FBAR penalties without a jury proceeding.

While that issue remains unresolved at a broader level, it did not persuade the court here to delay or avoid enforcement.

Practical Takeaways

For practitioners advising clients with offshore exposure, this case highlights several important points:

·         FBAR enforcement is not slowing down; the government continues to pursue high-dollar cases aggressively.

·         Moving assets offshore does not eliminate enforcement risk; it often escalates it.

·         Courts are increasingly willing to use civil contempt—and even incarceration—to compel compliance.

·         Failure to engage with the court process (even from abroad) can significantly worsen outcomes.

·         Constitutional challenges to FBAR penalties remain unsettled but are not currently a reliable defense strategy.

Perhaps most importantly, this case illustrates that FBAR enforcement is no longer confined to financial penalties—it can evolve into personal liberty risk when taxpayers refuse to comply with court orders.

 Do You Have Undeclared Offshore Income?

Read more at: Tax Times blog