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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Category Archives: criminal tax law

FinCEN Extends Beneficial Ownership Information Reports Deadline to 90 Days for New Entities


The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has extended the deadline for new entities to file their initial beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports. 

Reporting Entities Created Or Registered In 2024 Will Now Have 90 Calendar Days, Instead of 30, From The Date Of Their Creation Or Registration To File Their Initial BOI Reports. 

FinCEN has provided this extension to give new reporting entities more time to become familiar with FinCEN's guidance and educational materials and to resolve any questions that arise in the process of completing their initial BOI reports.

This extension only applies to reporting entities created or registered in 2024. 

Reporting entities created or registered in 2025 or later will have 30 calendar days after their creation or registration to file their initial BOI reports.

The BOI Reporting Deadline Hasn't Changed For Reporting Entities Created Or Registered Before 2024. Those Entities Must Still File Their Initial BOI Reports By January 1, 2025.

FinCEN will not accept BOI reports until January 1, 2024. Reports should not be submitted to FinCEN before that date.

Have A Beneficial Ownership 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

Attorney Gets Jail Time For Using the C Duction (Pronounced “See Duction”)

According to the DoJ, a Nebraska attorney was sentenced on November 30, 2023 to one year and one day in prison for filing false individual income tax returns. Thomas Campbell, of Bennington, pleaded guilty on July 27, 2023 to one count of filing a false tax return.

According to court documents and statements made in court, between 2014 and 2018, Campbell, a licensed attorney since 2011, was the owner and manager of TLN Law, a solo-practice law firm in Omaha. Campbell controlled the law firm’s finances and was aware of substantial amounts of cash payments (C Duction for Cash - Pronounced "See Duction") his firm received for legal services. 

For 2014 Through 2018, Campbell Did Not Report
Over $2.8 Million In Cash His Firm Received.

Which Flowed Through To, And Should Have Been Reported On, His Personal Tax Returns. In total, Campbell caused a tax loss to the IRS exceeding $400,000.

In addition to the term of imprisonment, U.S. District Judge Brian C. Buescher ordered Campbell to serve one year of supervised release and to pay $407,665 in restitution to the United States.

For Real Tax Advice or
Help With 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

TC Holds That Functional Test Determines Limited Partner Status

The Tax Court has determined in Soroban Capital Partners LP, 161 TC No. 12 (11/28/2023)  that the limited partner exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) does not apply to a partner who is limited in name only. In addition, since net earnings from self-employment is a partnership item, the functions and roles of a limited partner is a factual determination that is properly determined in a TEFRA proceeding. 

Soroban Capital Partners is a limited partnership subject to the TEDRA audit and litigation procedures. Soroban made guaranteed payments and distributed ordinary income to its limited partners. On its returns for the years in issue, Soroban reported as net earnings from self-employment its guaranteed payments to its limited partners plus the general partner's share of ordinary business income. However, Soroban excluded from its computation of net earnings from self-employment the ordinary income distributions to its limited partners. 

After An Audit, The IRS Increased Soroban's Net Earnings From Self-Employment To Include The Shares Of Ordinary Business Income Allocated To The Limited Partners, Taking The Position
That They Were Limited Partners In Name Only.

In the Tax Court, Soroban made two arguments. 

  1. That the ordinary business income allocated to Soroban's limited partners is excluded from its net earnings from self-employment because those partners are state law "limited partners." 
  2. That the Tax Court could not inquire into the functional roles of Soroban's limited partners in a partnership-level proceeding.

The Tax Court determined that Congress intended for the limited partner exception to apply to earnings of an investment nature (i.e., to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner). Thus, to determine whether the earnings allocated to limited partners were of an investment nature, the court was required to inquire into the functions and roles of the limited partners.

Since the partnership was required to calculate net earnings from self-employment at the partnership level, any adjustment to the calculation must be made in a partnership-level proceeding. Thus, contrary to Soroban's argument, the court had jurisdiction to determine whether the ordinary business income allocated to Soroban's limited partners were excluded from net earnings from self-employment in the current partnership-level proceeding.

The Tax Court also rejected Soroban's argument that since it is a state law limited partnership and its limited partners are "limited partners" under state law, their distributive shares of income are excluded from net earnings from self-employment under Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). The court found that before the partners' distributive shares could be excluded the court needed to find that they were functioning as "limited partners."

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

Tax Treaty Shields Green Card Holder From FBAR Penalties But Not Late Filing of Form 8833


According to Law360, a Mexican national who holds a U.S. green card doesn't owe penalties for failing to report his foreign bank accounts, even though he told the U.S. government late that he claimed Mexican residency under an international tax treaty.

Alberto Aroeste, who was assessed $100,000 in foreign bank account reporting penalties by the Internal Revenue Service for failing to report his accounts for 2012 and 2013, doesn't have to pay the outstanding $21,900 bill, U.S. District Judge Anthony K. Battaglia said in an order on November 20, 2023. Aroeste is also owed a $3,000 refund for payments he already made to the IRS, the judge added.

But Aroeste owes a $1,000 penalty for each of the two tax years for failing to tell the U.S. until he filed amended returns in 2016 that he claimed treatment under a Mexico-U.S. tax treaty as a resident of Mexico, Judge Battaglia said. Aroeste, who is in his 80s, lived with his wife in Mexico City, where he spent more than 75% of his time during the tax years at issue, according to the opinion.

Aroeste argued he was not required to file Form 8833 disclosing his treaty-based return position for 2012 and 2013 under a U.S. Treasury Department regulation that exempted people whose residency had been determined under a treaty and separate from the Internal Revenue Code. 

While Judge Battaglia Sided With The U.S. Government,
Which Argued That The Regulation Did Not Relieve Aroeste
Of The Requirement To File The Disclosure Form,

He Agreed With Aroeste's Argument That His Claim For
Treaty Status, Even Made Late, Entitled Him To
The Benefits Or Application Of Treaty Law.


The judge cited two cases, including the 1999 U.S. Tax Court decision in Pekar v. Commissioner, in which courts found that untimely notice of a treaty position still afforded taxpayers treaty protection.

Rather Than FBAR Penalties, Aroeste Is Subject To The $1,000 Penalties Laid Out In Internal Revenue Code Section 6712 For Failing To Comply With The Requirement To File A Treaty-based Return Position Under IRC Section 6114, The Judge Said.


Judge Battaglia also rejected the government's argument that Aroeste should have filed an expatriation statement form, Form 8854, with his returns, saying he agreed with Aroeste that the form is not legally binding. The form is required under IRS Notice 2009-85, but that notice failed to comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, the judge said, citing the 2022 case Mann Construction v. U.S. 

Aroeste and his wife told the court in their complaint last year challenging the FBAR penalties that they briefly joined the IRS' voluntary offshore disclosure program for reporting foreign accounts in 2014. Their current attorneys directed them to drop out in 2016, and the couple said they refiled their 2008 through 2014 returns. Alberto Aroeste refiled as a nonresident for those years, and Estela Aroeste, after she became a U.S. citizen in 2011, filed as married filing separately, according to their complaint.

The IRS began auditing the couple after they dropped out of the disclosure program, the couple said, and the agency ultimately assessed $10,000 in nonwillful penalties against Alberto Aroeste for each of his five Mexican bank accounts in 2012 and 2013. It also assessed a $5,000 penalty against his wife for each of her accounts during the same period, as well as a $500 penalty for each account she held jointly with her husband for 2013. The government abandoned its effort to recover the $27,000 debt from Estela Areoeste in May in exchange for a settlement.

The government told the court in August that in addition to missing the deadline for notifying the U.S. that he claimed protected treaty status, Aroeste originally filed jointly with his wife, which, because of her dual citizenship, prevented him from claiming protected status under the treaty outlined in Article 4 of the U.S.-Mexico Income Tax Convention. Ultimately, the government decided not to accept Aroeste's amended returns, making them invalid, the government argued.

Aroeste's lawyer, Patrick Martin of Chamberlain Hrdlicka, told Law360 that the ruling was significant. It upends the IRS' practice of stripping individuals of tax-treaty protection for failing to file forms on time, including forms that aren't legally binding, Martin said.

The IRS has tried to pin $3 million in information reporting penalties on Aroeste since it began its audit, Martin said. 


Aroeste, who has a vacation condominium in Florida, has never permanently resided in the U.S. and only had a green card because the Mexican employer he worked for was a U.S. subsidiary and required it in order to participate in its pension plan, Martin 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

Live Help