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

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Category Archives: IRS Audits and Litigation

TIGTA – Shows That IRS Violated the Restrictions on Directly Contacting Taxpayers 11.5% of the Time!

A review of the IRS Office of Appeals, which resolves disputes between the agency and taxpayers, found officials did not always follow proper procedures when dealing with taxpayers or their legally designated representatives.

A review of a statistical sample of 96 of 72,239 cases closed by Appeals between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012, showed that Appeals personnel are generally involving the power of attorneys in case activities.
However, the documentation in case activity records in the ACDS (Appeals Centralized Database System) and in the physical case files that we were able to obtain did not always show that Appeals personnel adhered to procedures that help ensure compliance with the direct contact provisions of the I.R.C. and that taxpayers obtain appropriate and effective representation.
Specifically, we identified the following conditions in 11 of the 96 cases reviewed.
  • In 2 cases, Appeals personnel attempted to contact the taxpayer directly by telephone instead of contacting the representative designated on the power of attorney in the ACDS or Integrated Data Retrieval System.  There was no evidence indicating the power of attorney was delaying the process or that Appeals personnel contacted their manager for approval to contact the taxpayer as required by direct contact provisions of the I.R.C.
  • In 9 cases, there was no evidence that copies of taxpayer correspondence were sent to the power of attorney identified on the ACDS or Integrated Data Retrieval System.   For 6 of the 9 cases, this occurred as part of the initial contact.  IRS policy requires that all original     correspondence be sent to the taxpayer and a copy sent to the taxpayer’s authorized representative, unless the taxpayer has indicated otherwise on Form 2848.

o      For 6 of the 9 cases, this occurred as part of the initial contact.  IRS policy requires that all original correspondence be sent to the taxpayer and a copy sent to the taxpayer’s authorized representative, unless the taxpayer has indicated otherwise on Form 2848.

 For of the 9 cases, neither the documentation in the hard copy case files nor the case activity records in the ACDS showed that copies of the taxpayer correspondence were mailed to the power of attorneys.

o      For 5 of the 9 cases, Appeals personnel did not document in the ACDS case history narratives whether copies of taxpayer correspondence were sent to the power of attorneys.  Although we were unable to obtain the hard copy case files for these cases, Appeals guidelines require that all key actions be documented in the ACDS.
When the sample results are projected to the population, we estimate that the deviations may have Negatively Affected 8,277 Taxpayers.

Moreover, the deviations also leave the IRS vulnerable to a greater risk of taxpayers seeking to recover monetary damages from the IRS if they believe its personnel are intentionally disregarding the direct contact provisions of the I.R.C.

We tell our clients that if IRS contacts them directly, even after we have filed our Power of Attorney, they should be polite and advise them that they are represented by Marini & Associates, P.A and then give them our phone number and ... Say Nothing Else!

IRS Troubling You?

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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 888 882-

 

Source:

Read more at: Tax Times blog

TIGTA – Correspondence Audit Selection Process Could Be Strengthened To Include Audit of Prior Year Returns!

TIGTA evaluated a statistical sample of 102 of 7,470 single-year correspondence audits of individual tax returns closed between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, in which each of the taxpayers involved agreed that they understated their tax liabilities by at least $4,000. 
 
Similar tax issues also existed for the prior and/or subsequent years tax returns filed by 43 of the 102 taxpayers.  
 
IRS records showed that:
  • 32 of the 43 taxpayers’ prior and/or subsequent year tax returns were not audited.

  • For 16 audits, the taxpayers agreed they owed  approximately $4,100 to $7,550 in additional taxes after the IRS determined they were not entitled to Earned Income and other credits taken on their tax returns.  The 16 audits were initiated through the Revenue Protection Strategy process.
 
  • For 12 audits, the taxpayers agreed they owed approximately $4,100 to $14,400 in additional taxes after the IRS determined they overstated itemized deductions on their tax returns.  The 12 audits were initiated as a result of the correspondence return classification process. 
 
  • For four audits, the taxpayers agreed they owed approximately $4,450 to $5,850 in additional taxes after the IRS determined they overstated business expenses on their tax returns.  The four audits were initiated as a result of the correspondence return classification process. 
Had the prior and/or subsequent tax returns for these 32 taxpayers been audited for similar tax issues, we estimate the potential additional tax, penalty, and interest assessments would range from $2,343 to $18,874—totaling $189,422. 
 
When the sample results are projected to the population of 7,470 audits closed between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, we estimate that 2,344 taxpayers may have avoided additional tax, penalty, and interest assessments of $13.9 million.
 
TIGTA Recommended that the Director of Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division, should develop and implement procedures in the IRM that instruct how current year correspondence audit results are to be used in deciding whether the prior and/or subsequent year tax returns warrant an audit.  Furthermore, to ensure that the instructions are properly followed; the procedures should include instructions for monitoring how well current year correspondence audit results are used in deciding to audit prior and/or subsequent year tax returns.
 
Being Audited By the IRS?


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)) begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
 
 
 
 
Source:
 
 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Things to Consider when “Opting Out” of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP)?

1.      Things May Get Better.   According to a report from the Taxpayer Advocate, as of September 29, 2012 the average FBAR  (Foreign Bank Account Report) penalty imposed in the 2009 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP)  opt-out cases is $15,737. That figure may be misleading because not all of the 2009 opt-out cases have been closed and it seems likely that it is the larger, more difficult ones that are still open. Those opt-outs have a potential to skew the averages higher. Still the Taxpayer Advocate reported that there have been NO criminal tax prosecutions of taxpayers who have opted out.  

 

2.      Things May Get Worse.  The same report from the Taxpayer Advocate stated that a small number of the opt-out cases accounted for the bulk of the FBAR penalties that were imposed. Moreover, the IRS’ FAQs warn that taxpayers who opt-out may face a “full scope “tax audit of the tax returns will be initiated.  It also warns that if issues are found which were not disclosed previously those issues may be the subject of review by Criminal Investigation. 

 

3.      The Right to Appeal.  There is no right to appeal within the OVDP. In fact, favorable decisions of revenue agents, and their managers are often reversed by so-called technical advisors. These technical advisors do not interface directly with taxpayers or their tax attorneys, and so it is impossible to negotiate with them.
 
 
Once the opt-out decision is made, however, the taxpayer is given the right to appeal a decision to impose FBAR penalties to the IRS Appeals Division. The IRS Appeals Division is a semi-independent portion of the IRS whose stated mission is to “resolve tax controversies on a basis which is fair and impartial to the IRS and the taxpayer.  One of the advantages of the IRS Appeals Division is that the Appeals Officers are permitted to settle a case based upon the “hazards of litigation.” This allows Appeals Officers the flexibility to settle an FBAR case based upon all of the facts, and circumstances, and based upon a percentage of the amount of the potential FBAR penalty.
 

4.      The IRS Needs the Approval of a Federal District Court Judge to Assess the FBAR Penalty. The IRS has the ability to assess an FBAR penalty without judicial review. However, unlike with a tax deficiency the IRS may not use its administrative powers to file tax liens, or tax levies. Instead it must file suit in federal district court in order to obtain a judgment. 
 
In the district court the burden of proof is on the IRS to show that the taxpayer willfully, that is intentionally, failed to file an FBAR.  So far the IRS has filed only a handful of such lawsuits.  

To date the lawsuits have involved fairly egregious situations so it is not surprising that the IRS has prevailed.  Whether the IRS will bring lawsuits against taxpayers where the facts are not so clear remains to be seen.  Generally speaking , however, the IRS is averse to losing cases which might set a bad precedent; so it may be a long time before the IRS is willing to even consider bringing all but the strongest of cases.  
 

However a pair of 2012 federal court decisions have raised the prospect of broadening the definition of willfulness in the failure to file foreign bank and financial account (FBAR) reporting forms. The cases on willful failure to file FBAR disclosure forms—U.S. v. Williams and U.S. v. McBride—look to “willful blindness” to find a knowing failure to file, or a conscious effort to turn a blind eye. 
 
 
With their emphasis on the preponderance of the evidence, the cases also suggest that willfulness can be found on grounds beyond whether the taxpayer had “checked the box” on disclosure on a tax return, the panelists said. Factors can pile up, with some clients, it can add up to willful failure.  

Where do they do their banking? Where do they receive their statements? Why does someone travel to Switzerland? Was it the skiing? Or was it the secrecy environment?” 

Although the underlying facts in each case were not the best, the courts might not lightly view those with considerable financial resources who fail to inquire about their potential reporting requirements associated with various interests in foreign financial accounts.

The Internal Revenue Manual suggests that “willfulness may be attributed to a person who has made a conscious effort to avoid learning about the FBAR reporting and recordkeeping requirements.” However, the willfulness determination should be based on the actual facts and the context in which statements are made (or not) rather than assertions in a legal pleading.

 
5.      Every Situation is Different. The IRS itself admits in FAQ 51 that in some cases an opt out election is the “preferred approach.” It is only after a complete review of all of the facts by a qualified tax litigator that a decision can be made if an opt-out is the right approach.

 

Thinking of "Opting Out"?

 

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).

 

 

 

 

Source:

Taxpayer Advocate

 

Dennis Brager

 

 

 

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

After 4 Years of IRS Audits, Fl. Business Man Pays $37MM & is Sentenced to 10 Yrs in Prison.

John D. Stanton III stalled an Internal Revenue Service audit for four years, promising he would submit corporate tax returns for his company while secretly diverting tens of millions of dollars to himself.

“You defrauded the government out of millions of dollars. Your purposely evaded the IRS,” U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington told the 64-year-old Stanton. “You’re a very intelligent and shrewd man and you engaged in a steady, ongoing pattern of criminal conduct.”

In 2011, Stanton left Tampa after refusing to pay Susan Stanton the $6 million the court said he owed her. John Stanton III was on the run for nine months, evading arrest until September 2012, when he was nabbed at a Fairfield Inn in Orlando.

The deception caught up to him, when a federal judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison for tax evasion. Stanton III, who was also ordered to pay $37 million in restitution, declined to speak at the hearing.

He was once the co-owner of Cast-Crete Corp. of Seffner, one of the nation’s biggest manufacturers of precast concrete materials. Between 2005 and 2007, the company made a profit of $108 million and owed taxes amounting to $37 million, which was never paid because tax returns for those years were never filed.

He was siphoning off millions of dollars from Cast-Crete during those three years, according to court documents, paying himself or his shell company $12 million in 2005, $22 million in 2006 and $9 million in 2007.
“His plan was to drive the corporation into bankruptcy and clean up the tax mess in bankruptcy court,” U.S. Attorney Robert Monk said.
Stanton, who has a masters of business administration degree and was a certified public accountant, “made a pretense of cooperating” with the IRS audit “but in fact he stalled and impeded the agent’s ability to get at the truth,” court documents said.

Stanton created fake promissory notes, board resolutions and other documents to hide the deceit, prosecutors said. Stanton also tried to place the blame on Cast-Crete co-owner Ralph Hughes, a conservative power broker who died in 2008, Monk said.

The IRS said Stanton eventually owed a total of $60 million in taxes.

When he was arrested, Stanton said he was broke; prosecutors said they believe Stanton has hidden his money, perhaps millions of dollars.

Tax Problems?
Want To Get Right With The IRS?

Contact the Tax Lawyers
of Marini & Associates, P.A.  

 

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

Source: 

TBO

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help