TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Court Procedure Matters
Subscribe to Court Procedure Matters's Posts

Battat v. Commissioner: A Primer on the History of the US Tax Court

by and | Feb 9, 2017 | , ,

In Battat v. Commissioner, the US Tax Court recently affirmed its own constitutionality, in releasing an opinion relating to the President’s authority to remove Tax Court Judges.  The taxpayer filed a motion asking the court to disqualify all Tax Court Judges and to declare unconstitutional IRC Section 7443(f), which provides circumstances by which the President can remove Tax Court Judges.  The court denied this motion, holding that the President’s limited removal authority does not violate separation of powers principles.  The opinion describes the court’s operations, including procedures for the removal of judges, statutory provisions relating to the establishment and government of the court, and caselaw relating to the jurisprudence of the court.  Most interestingly, it provides a detailed history of the Tax Court—from its creation by Congress in 1924 as the Board of Tax Appeals and its reestablishment as the US Tax Court in 1969 through present day.



read more

Change in Leadership at DOJ Tax Division

by and | Feb 3, 2017 | , , ,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division is responsible for litigating tax refund claims brought in Federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims and handling appeals from decisions of the United States Tax Court (the Chief Counsel’s office is responsible for Tax Court litigation).  Effective January 23, 2017, David A. Hubbert became the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Tax Division.  He replaces Carolyn Ciraolo, who resigned on January 20, 2017.  A copy of the DOJ press release, which includes biographical information on Mr. Hubbert, can be found here.  In accordance with the change, the Internal Revenue Service on January 31, 2017, announced corresponding changes in the address for correspondence to the DOJ Tax Division and the signature block for any Notice of Appeal from a Tax Court case.

Practice Note:  The changing of the guard is routine when there is a change in the administration, as demonstrated by the prior resignation of William J. Wilkins as Chief Counsel.  However, this year may be a little different as the new administration seems determined to “shake things up.”  In the coming weeks and months, we expect a lot of personnel changes.  Stay tuned!



read more

IRS Issues IPU on Summons of Foreign Owned US Businesses

by and | Feb 2, 2017 | , , , , ,

On January 30, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released an International Practice Unit (IPU) on the use of a summons under IRC Section 6038A (IRC Section 6038A Summons) when a US corporation is 25-percent owned by a foreign shareholder.  See IPU here. The IPU describes the steps that the IRS should take when issuing an IRC Section 6038A Summons, and what to do when the US corporation does not substantially comply with the summons.

In general, IRC Section 6038A imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements (together with certain procedural compliance requirements) on domestic corporations that are 25-percent foreign-owned, which the regulations refer to as a domestic reporting corporation (DRC).  Among other requirements, a DRC is required to keep permanent books of account or records per IRC Section 6001 that are sufficient to establish the correctness of the federal income tax return of the DRC, including information, documents, or records to the extent they may be relevant to determine the correct US tax treatment of transactions with related parties. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.6038A-3.

The IRS may issue an IRC 6038A Summons when:  (i) the taxpayer under exam is a DRC; (ii) there was a transaction between the DRC and the 25 percent foreign shareholder or any foreign person related to the DRC or to such 25 percent foreign shareholder; and (iii) the DRC is appointed to act as a limited agent with respect to any request by the IRS to examine its records or produce testimony that may be relevant to the tax treatment of any transaction between the DRC and a foreign related party.  If the DRC does not substantially comply in a timely manner with the IRC 6038A Summons, the IRS has sole discretion to determine the amount of the DRC’s deductions related to transactions with, and the cost of property purchased from (or transferred to), the foreign related party.

The IPU is particularly relevant in light of final regulations published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2016 (TD 9796) which treat a domestic disregarded entity wholly owned by a foreign person as a domestic corporation for purposes of the reporting, record maintenance and associated compliance requirements under IRC Section 6038A.  The regulations are effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, and ending on or after December 13, 2017.  The IPU refers to these regulations in describing the criteria which must be met before the IRS issues an IRC Section 6038A Summons.

Practice Point:  For US entities that are owned by foreign entities and file US tax returns, it is crucial to have all of the relevant information for the entity in the US. US taxpayers are required to support all of the positions claimed on a return.  For example, if there are expenditures of the US entity that are paid for by the foreign affiliate, there should be adequate documentation in the US to support those payments.



read more

What to Expect During a Change of Administration

by , , and | Jan 25, 2017 | , , ,

With the inauguration of President Trump, and the accompanying change of administration, the American people have been promised great change in all areas of the federal government. One question we at McDermott have been frequently asked since the election is: what should a taxpayer expect from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division while the transitions in the executive branch are taking place? Major tax policy changes are being discussed, but what about the immediate practical effects of a turnover in high-level personnel within these agencies, particularly if a taxpayer is under audit or investigation?

During a change in administration, taxpayers may be affected by any of the following:

  • If under audit, the exam team may ask for longer statute extensions than would otherwise apply, to account for possible delays in internal managerial-level approvals.
  • If a taxpayer is negotiating a settlement, and that settlement requires approval by the IRS National Office or the Assistant Attorney General for Tax, settlement approvals may be delayed due to personnel changes.
  • This applies to civil settlements reached with IRS Appeals, in Tax Court litigation, or in federal district court litigation. Delays are also possible for criminal agreements, including plea agreements, deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements.
  • Ongoing litigation (particularly appellate litigation) may be stayed or delayed, to the extent a case involves a policy position that the administration may want to change.
  • The regulatory freeze enacted by the Trump administration also affects procedural regulations, including proposed regulations related to the new partnership audit rules.

Initial comments from prospective Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin indicate that he believes IRS staffing should be increased, which would be a welcome change.  Any significant changes like this are likely to be long-term, however, so we are unlikely to see their effect for some time.



read more

Circuit Courts Agree Timely Filing Requirement for a Tax Court Petition is Jurisdictional

by and | Jan 23, 2017 | , , , ,

Arguably the most important aspect of litigating a case in the Tax Court or in a refund forum is the timely filing of the petition or complaint.  Absent timely filing, the court may not have jurisdiction and the case could be dismissed without the court ever reaching the substantive issues.  On January 13, 2017, the Seventh Circuit joined several other circuit courts in confirming that the time for filing a petition in Tax Court is jurisdictional, not a claims processing rule.

In Tilden v. Commissioner, No. 15-3838 (available here), the taxpayer’s petition was mailed on the last day of the 90-day filing deadline.  It was not stamped and bore no postmark; instead, a USPS print-at-home postage label was attached by legal staff, and it was delivered to the post office the same day.  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued this was insufficient for timelymailing under the “mailbox rule” of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7502.  The Tax Court disagreed with both parties about what section of the regulations applied, and used the date the envelope was entered into the postal service’s tracking system as the date of postmark and filing—which was two days late.  Thus, the Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (available here).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit raised sua sponte the issue of whether the filing deadline for a Tax Court petition is jurisdictional or a claims processing rule.  The proper characterization of the filing deadline is extremely important.  If the deadline is considered jurisdictional, then late filing automatically precludes the taxpayer from seeking relief in the Tax Court.  But, the taxpayer may still pay the tax due, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and file a complaint in a refund forum (if the IRS denies or fails to timely act on the claim).  On the other hand, if the deadline is a claims processing rule, the taxpayer’s options may be limited.  Although the taxpayer that files a late petition might be able to demonstrate that the Tax Court should hear its case, if the court were to determine that the petition was untimely, it arguably would be required under the Code to enter a decision on the merits for the IRS, rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.  That result eliminates the alternative refund forum.

In Tilden, the Seventh Circuit considered the Supreme Court’s current approach in non-tax cases for determining whether deadlines are jurisdictional or claims processing rules, but decided that the language of the relevant statute and the body of Tax Court and circuit court precedent compelled a finding that the 90-day deadline is jurisdictional.  Finding it “imprudent to reject that body of precedent” under principles of stare decisis, the Seventh Circuit followed the Tax Court and other circuit court precedent.  The Seventh Circuit further disagreed with the Tax Court’s holding on the relevant postmark regulations to conclude that the petition was timely filed.

Practice Point: The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is a good reminder as to the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

National Taxpayer Advocate 2016 Report – Summons Enforcement

by | Jan 19, 2017 | , , , ,

In its Annual Report to Congress, the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) recently reported summons enforcement actions under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Sections 7602, 7604, and 7609 as one of the “Most Litigated Issues” this year. Below, we summarize the general law related to summons enforcements actions and the findings set forth in the Annual Report.

(more…)



read more

US Supreme Court Denies Petitions for Certiorari Filed In Two Federal Tax Cases

by | Jan 13, 2017 | , ,

On January 9, 2017, the US Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari filed in two federal tax cases.

In Chemtech Royalty Assoc. LP v. United States, Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 16-810 (2016), 823 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2016),

Dow Chemical Co. challenged the decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit finding that the partnerships were a “sham” that should be disregarded for tax purposes and imposing the 40 percent substantial understatement penalty. In its petition, Dow complained of the “especially stringent” scrutiny applied by the Fifth Circuit to review a taxpayer’s decision to use the partnership form. “Applying that improper presumption against partnerships, the court became the first court in the nearly seventy years since Culbertson [337 US 733 (1949)] to hold that an investor that contributes its own capital in exchange for an equity interest in the partnership can be disregarded for tax purposes if its equity stake, like preferred stock, is relatively protected against fluctuations in profits and losses.”

The US Supreme Court also denied the petition filed by Dynamo Holdings Ltd. Partnership, Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. United States, Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 16-358 (2016) 816 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2016),seeking review of an Eleventh Circuit decision that upheld the enforcement of IRS summonses.   Dynamo asked the Supreme Court to consider whether it was unfairly denied a request to amend the case submission to support an evidentiary hearing under then new standard established by this Court in an earlier appearance of this case. Dynamo complained that “this Court held for the first time, United States v. Clarke, 573 US ___, 134 S. Ct. 2361 (2014), that an individual or entity that receives an IRS summons is entitled to a limited evidentiary hearing to obtain discovery to support the claim that the summons should be quashed where that party points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.” In contrast,  “[W]hen this case began in 2011, the standard in the Eleventh Circuit was that an individual or entity was entitled to an evidentiary hearing based upon the mere allegation of improper purpose . . . [and Dynamo was found by] the Eleventh Circuit to have satisfied that standard.  On remand from Clarke, the district court denied Petitioners request to make amended submissions to meet the new standard, and the district court and Eleventh Circuit ruled that Petitioners’ former submissions did not meet the new standard.”

Practice Tip:

In deciding whether to file a petition for certiorari, the party should consider the likelihood of the petition being granted and whether the Court’s denial of the petition will result in an adverse negative inference for a continuing issue that is being litigated in other jurisdictions. These cases illustrate how difficult it is to have the Supreme Court grant review.  The Supreme Court accepts few petitions each year and in the absence of a split in the circuits, a petition is unlikely to succeed [...]

Continue Reading



read more

APA Challenge to Notice of Deficiency: QinetiQ Affirmed

by and | Jan 10, 2017 | , , ,

On January 6, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by published opinion, affirmed the US Tax Court’s (Tax Court) earlier ruling in QinetiQ US Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner.  We previously wrote about the case here, here, and here.  To refresh, the taxpayer had argued in Tax Court that the Notice of Deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which contained a one-sentence reason for the deficiency determination, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”  The APA provides a general rule that a reviewing court that is subject to the APA must hold unlawful and set aside an agency action unwarranted by the facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing that it was well settled that the court is not subject to the APA and holding that the Notice of Deficiency adequately notified the taxpayer that a deficiency had been determined under relevant case law.  The taxpayer appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan, the court concluded that the IRS complied with all applicable procedural requirements.  The court reasoned that the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provided a unique system for judicial review that should govern the content requirements for a Notice of Deficiency.  Per the court, it “is that specific body of law, rather than the more general provisions for judicial review authorized by the APA, that governs the content requirements of a Notice of Deficiency.”  The court cited a Fourth Circuit opinion from 1959, in which it held that the Code’s provisions for de novo review are incompatible with limited judicial review of final agency actions allowed under the APA.

The court held that the APA’s requirement of a reasoned explanation in support of a “final” agency action does not apply to a Notice of Deficiency issued by the IRS.  A Notice of Deficiency, the Court reasoned, cannot be a “final” agency action within the meaning of the APA, because the agency action is not one “by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.”  After issuing a Notice of Deficiency, the IRS may later assert in Tax Court new theories and allege additional deficiencies.  Moreover, a taxpayer may also raise new matters in Tax Court.  In addition, the court cited to the Supreme Court’s 1988 opinion in Bowen v. Massachusetts, emphasizing that Congress did not intend for the APA “to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies.”

The court also held that the Notice of Deficiency issued to QinetiQ satisfied the requirement of Code section 7522(a), which requires that the IRS “describe [in the Notice] the basis for, and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest, additional amounts, additions [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRS Audits and IRS Appeals — A Year in Review

by | Jan 6, 2017 | , , ,

This year has been marked with substantial changes in the manner in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) operates. Shrinking resources and retiring IRS professionals have marred the IRS and its efficiency. The pervasive theme for 2016 was trying to do the job with fewer resources.  For example, IRS audits continue to devolve with standardized information document requests (IDRs), international practice unit guides and issue-focused examinations (mostly focused on international tax issues). We say “goodbye” to old friends [au revoir Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) Program] and hello to new rules (e.g., partnership entity audit rules and adjustments). And we have born witness to the slow evisceration of the independence of IRS Office of Appeals.

As we turn the corner to a new year, we expect the IRS’s war on taxpayers to manifest itself in “campaign” after “campaign,” reminiscent of the tiered issue system of days gone by. We expect coordination on a national level to reside with IRS “issue specialists” controlling and dictating audits and appeals, which will increasingly challenge the efficiency of pre-litigation resolution techniques. The end result of these contractions may very likely be an increase in tax litigation as frustration with the administrative process boils over. But the wild card, of course, is what changes will be ushered in by the new administration. Will it be business as usual, or will we see a complete overhaul of the system? Only time will tell, as we wait with bated breath for the ball to drop.  (more…)



read more

Court Procedure and Privilege – A Year in Review

by | Jan 3, 2017 | ,

This past year has seen a number of important developments in the areas of Tax Court procedure, federal court procedure, and privilege and non-disclosure. As the below cases and posts demonstrate, taxpayers’ reliance on experts, their efforts to protect privileged information, and their efforts to limit sweeping government discovery requests continue to be tested and closely scrutinized.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge