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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Category Archives: From Live Blog

Taxpayer's Domain Name is Protected From Tax Levy!

In Chief Counsel Advice 201818015, the IRS has determined that an internet domain name is "intangible personal property" for purposes of the procedural levy protections afforded to certain property used by a taxpayer in his or her trade or business. 
After a tax has been assessed, IRS must, within 60 days, deliver or mail to the taxpayer a notice of the amount due and demand its payment before collection proceedings can be started. (Code Sec. 6303(a)). Any federal tax that has been assessed and that the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay after demand becomes a lien in favor of the U.S. on all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to the taxpayer. (Code Sec. 6321).

If a taxpayer who is liable to pay any tax, neglects or refuses to pay it within ten days after notice and demand, IRS may collect the tax by levy upon all property and rights to property (except exempt property) belonging to the taxpayer or on which there is a federal tax lien for payment of the tax. (Code Sec. 6331(a)).

Code Sec. 6334 sets out various categories of property that are exempt from levy, including, among other things, certain "tangible personal property or real property…used in the trade or business of an individual taxpayer." (Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B)(ii)).

However, the Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B) exemption for certain business assets does not apply if:

  1. An IRS director or assistant district director determines the taxpayer's other assets subject to collection are insufficient and personally approves a levy of such property in writing, or
  2. IRS finds that the collection of tax is in jeopardy. (Code Sec. 6334(e)(2)). 

CCA 201818015 concluded that an internet domain name is intangible personal property for purposes of Code Sec. 6334(a)(13)(B)(ii) and Code Sec. 6334(e)(2). Therefore, it's generally exempt from levy, unless one of the requirements set out above (involving director approval or a finding that collection is in jeopardy) is met.


Have and IRS Levy Problem?
 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Whistleblower Requests Deadline Extension to File With Tax Court

According to Law360, a tax whistleblower said the U.S. Tax Court should hear his untimely petition because the Internal Revenue Service letter declining his claim was vague and failed to tell him he could appeal, according to a brief filed Tuesday with the D.C. Circuit.

David Myers filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS in 2009 and received a denial letter in March 2013. Myers did not file with the Tax Court until January 2015, which dismissed his claim in 2017 for filing outside the 30-day time period set in Internal Revenue Code § 7623(b)(4).

“In this case, given that Myers' whistleblower claim had been pending for years, and given that he had not been provided his statutorily significant document that forms the predicate basis for Tax Court jurisdiction, the Tax Court should have ordered the IRS Whistleblower Office to issue Myers his ‘ticket to Tax Court,’” Myers' attorney, Joseph DiRuzzo, said in the brief.

Myers’ petition was not untimely because the 2013 notice of determination rejecting his whistleblower claim lacked “basic” information on his right to file a petition with the Tax Court, DiRuzzo said. The IRS did not explain why it disallowed the claim or state that he had 30 days to appeal to the Tax Court.

“The IRS Letters Were So Bereft of Information as to Not Qualify as a 'Determination' under Section 7623(b)(4),” DiRuzzo said. 
 

The IRS Whistleblower Office also failed to send Myers a preliminary denial or rejection letter and did not send its denial by certified mail, DiRuzzo said. A certified mailing is necessary to start the 30-day statutory period, he said.
 
Myers’ case was appropriate for equitable tolling, his attorney said. He filed pro se and only had 30 days to file his petition at the Tax Court, DiRuzzo said in the brief. The court has a majority of pro se litigants and a relatively small number of whistleblower cases, he said.
 
Want a Reward of Between 15- 30% of
Underpaid IRS Tax Liabilities for
Blowing the Whistle on a Tax Cheat? 
_____
____
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).


Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS Withholding on Crypto Cryptocurrency Coming Soon!

According to Law360, The Internal Revenue Service will begin this year to more strictly enforce the requirement to withhold taxes for cryptocurrency payments to nonresident aliens, an attorney who has represented clients in related matters said at a Saturday tax conference in Washington, D.C.

While the requirement to withhold 30 percent of payments to nonresident aliens is already in the tax code, the IRS will start more strictly enforcing that rule for payments that use cryptocurrencies, Bryan Skarlatos, attorney at Kostelanetz & Fink LLP, said at an American Bar Association Section of Taxation conference.

Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin operate as digital means of exchange and are not regulated by central banks. Internal Revenue Code Section 1441 requires that 30 percent of payments to nonresident aliens must be withheld for tax purposes.

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice is not working from scratch when it comes to understanding and prosecuting crypto-related crimes, Jason Poole, an attorney at the department's tax division, told the conference audience.

Because prosecutors have had a chance to learn more about cryptocurrencies by pursuing litigation such as the Silk Road money-laundering case, there is substantial institutional knowledge in law enforcement agencies to address all kinds of crypto-related matters, Poole said.

“There’s a lot of prosecutorial experience that we’re drawing on from the U.S. attorney’s offices and across DOJ,” Poole said.

Plus, the mainstreaming of these currencies provides criminal enforcement officials with the tools necessary to successfully prosecute cases, Poole said.

“You see a bigger ecosystem being built up around cryptocurrency, and with that, these kind of markets with the exchanges and other things, these are the bread and butter of a financial investigator and financial prosecutor of how to follow the money,” he said.

 
Need Tax Help With Crypto Currencies?

 
 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A. 
 
 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243). 

 
 
 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Should Taxpayers Play It Safe By Report Their Bitcoin Accounts on the FBAR?

According to Law360,  Taxpayers who have offshore virtual currency accounts should report them on a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts form despite a lack of clear guidance from the Internal Revenue Service, as staying silent could be support for allegations of willful nondisclosure.

Cryptocurrencies, including popular digital tokens like bitcoin and ethereum, are widely traded and their transaction recording technology, called blockchain, has drawn interest from banks and other established financial firms. However, the industry is still a virtual Wild West in some ways, to the point where the IRS has not yet issued guidance covering all facets of the technology’s use, including whether taxpayers should report offshore cryptocurrency accounts on their FBAR forms.

Taxpayers facing this ambiguity,  along with the fast approaching April 17 deadline for filing FBAR and other tax form, should play it safe and include offshore cryptocurrency accounts in their reports, said Victor Jaramillo, who is of counsel at Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. He said taxpayers could land in hot water for not reporting virtual currency accounts that they think might qualify for an FBAR, but there’s little downside to disclosing them.

Penalties for not reporting, can be significant. If the IRS believes a taxpayer willfully avoided filing an FBAR, rather than unknowingly neglected reporting requirements, the agency can lodge a civil penalty that is either $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the foreign account, whichever is more.

However, even if a taxpayer decides to include an offshore cryptocurrency account on an FBAR form, the process is not necessarily clear-cut. Jon Brose, a partner at Seward & Kissel LLP, pointed to the volatile nature of cryptocurrency valuations.

“It may be difficult to fill it out accurately because it’s so volatile,” he said. “It may be difficult for you to know what your highest balance was, because there’s no reporting on this, there’s no tracking. You can take a guess.”


“I think it’s pretty clear that if you have an account in an exchange and if that exchange is located overseas, then I’d be hard pressed to think why you’re not reporting that on an FBAR if it meets the $10,000 threshold,” said Jaramillo, referring to the minimum foreign account amount that triggers the reporting requirement.

Jaramillo pointed to the John Doe summons that the IRS has served virtual currency exchanger Coinbase Inc. to investigate whether the company’s customers avoided paying taxes on transactions made through the company.

In 2014, the IRS issued guidance saying it would treat bitcoin and other virtual currencies as property, not currency, for federal tax purposes. The agency’s stance means that taxpayers realize a gain or loss on the sale or exchange of virtual currencies, which they must report with the rest of their taxes.

While the IRS currently does not have cryptocurrency guidance when it comes to FBAR forms, it would be “foolish” for them not to put something out, said Rita Ryan, an associate at Vacovec, Mayotte & Singer.

As for what potential guidance could look like, Anthony Tu-Sekine of Seward & Kissel cited a July 2016 Ninth Circuit ruling. In the decision, a three-judge panel found that a California man’s online poker accounts did not count as foreign financial accounts that required disclosure, but that an online transfer account he held with the U.K.-based company FirePay should have been reported on an FBAR.

The case, USA v. John Hom, lays out different factors that someone with an offshore virtual currency account could look at, Tu-Sekine said. First, there’s the location test, which Tu-Sekine said was “fairly easy” because an account simply must be located outside of the U.S. to be reportable.

However, the question of what kind of accounts are required for disclosure gets a little bit trickier, Tu-Sekine said. He noted that the analysis will depend on a number of factors, such as whether the taxpayer can send currency that will be exchanged for bitcoin or if the account only trades in cryptocurrency.

"It becomes really fact specific, but I think if it’s the kind of account where you can send your money and then buy bitcoin on that exchange, or send your bitcoin there and then maybe you can sell it at that exchange and then transfer it back to your bank account, I think you’re probably much closer to a financial account,” Tu-Sekine said.

Do You Have an FBAR Problem?
 
 
 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.  
 
 

for a FREE Tax Consultation
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243


Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help