TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
IRS Guidance
Subscribe to IRS Guidance's Posts

Weekly IRS Roundup June 22 – June 26, 2020

by | Jun 29, 2020 | , , ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of June 22 – June 26, 2020. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

June 24, 2020: The IRS issued final regulations permitting a regulated investment company (RIC) that receives qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends to report dividends the RIC pays to its shareholders as section 199A dividends.

June 25, 2020: The IRS Office of Chief Counsel announced a limited settlement offer to certain taxpayers with pending docketed US Tax Court cases involving syndicated conservation easement transactions. The settlement offer requires a concession of the income tax benefits claimed by the taxpayer and imposes penalties.

June 26, 2020: The IRS will begin to reopen Taxpayer Assistance Centers starting on June 29, 2020. In-person appointments will be available for certain items.

June 26, 2020: The IRS issued a reminder to taxpayers and businesses that income tax liabilities as well as postponed April 15 and June 15, 2020, estimated tax payments are due July 15, 2020. Taxpayers who owe a 2019 income tax liability, as well as estimated tax for 2020, must make two separate payments on or by July 15, 2020. One payment should be for their 2019 income tax liability and one payment for their 2020 estimated tax payments.

June 26, 2020: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Emily Mussio in our Chicago office for this week’s roundup.



read more

Section 965 Statutes of Limitations for Partnerships

by and | Jun 29, 2020 | , ,

On May 26, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued PMTA 2020-08 to provide guidance on the period of limitations for Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 965, transition tax-related adjustments of partnerships. Typically, pursuant to IRC section 6501, the IRS has three years to assess a tax liability for a tax year. However, IRC section 6501(e)(1)(C) states that if the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible in income under IRC section 951(a), the tax may be assessed at any time within six years after the return was filed. Moreover, this special six-year limitation on assessment applies to the entire tax liability reportable on that return. Because special assessment and adjustment rules apply to partnerships, the IRS issued guidance on how the rules are applicable to certain partnerships and partners with section 965-related items.

For a deferred foreign income corporation’s (DFIC) last taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018, IRC section 965 imposes a one-time tax on a US shareholder’s pro rata share of the DFIC’s earnings and profits (E&P) otherwise deferred from US taxation. The IRS describes three steps for the calculation under IRC section 965: (1) IRC section 965(a) deems the DFIC to repatriate its untaxed E&P through a subpart F inclusion in the US shareholder’s gross income equal to the greater of its E&P as of two measurement dates in 2017; (2) IRC section 965(b) reduces the IRC section 965(a) inclusion by the E&P deficits of the US shareholder’s other foreign corporations; and (3) IRC section 965(c) provides for a deduction (based on the aggregate IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and on cash positions) that has the effect of reducing the effective rate of US tax on the US shareholder’s IRC section 965(a) inclusion.

With respect to partnerships, in the guidance the IRS indicated that it can make three broad categories of adjustments that affect the computation of IRC section 965 amounts. Revisions could be made to the tax attributes and financial data underlying the computation of the IRC section 965(a) inclusion, the IRC section 965(c) deduction and foreign tax amounts. Such adjustments could affect the IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and IRC section 965(c) deduction amount reportable by the partnership and affect the IRC section 965(a) inclusion and the IRC section 965(c) deduction reported by the partners. Accordingly, the IRS outlined how to apply the assessment and adjustment period rules apply when there are partners with IRC section 965-related items arising from partnerships subject to different procedures and audit regimes.

Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the IRS indicated it can make adjustments at any time provided the period for assessing tax attributable to the adjustments is open. The IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and the IRC section 965(c) deduction amount reported by the partnership may be adjusted for the required reporting year if either: (1) the partner’s IRC section 6501 period of limitations on assessing tax attributable to adjustments to partnership items has not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRS Targets Private Foundations That May Be Used by Wealthy Taxpayers in Tax Planning

by , and | Jun 26, 2020 | , , ,

​In remarks at the NYU Tax Controversy Forum on June 18, 2020, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials indicated that the agency is analyzing the use of private foundations for tax planning. Ms. Tamera Ripperda, who is the commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TEGE) Division and previously served as the industry director for the Global High Wealth in the Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, said the agency is focusing on cross-division collaborations to target high-income, high-wealth taxpayers.

The TEGE Division has trained more than 400 LB&I agents this year on the use of private foundations in tax planning for high-net-worth individuals. Additionally, the divisions are using data analytics to identify linkages between LB&I and TEGE cases. Commissioner Ripparda stated that TEGE has identified more than 1,000 private foundations “that have linkages or that are interwoven into these global high-wealth enterprises,” and the IRS will likely examine many of these entities.

Practice Point: Several years ago, the IRS launched its “Wealth Squad,” a team of agents trained in looking through entities and tax structures to focus on the overall strategy of ultra-wealthy taxpayer to reduce their tax incidence. (See this link for more information on that program.) The IRS’s examination of private foundations as a tool to reduce taxes for wealthy is the next chapter for the IRS to crack down on perceived abuse. It is clear that lawmakers and US Treasury officials are increasingly focused on perceived lax enforcement and low audit rates of high-income, high-wealth taxpayers. Taxpayers who use private foundations in their planning should begin working with their tax advisers now to review potential exposure and make sure they are prepared for an expected IRS audit.



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup June 15 – June 20, 2020

by | Jun 23, 2020 | ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of June 15 – June 20, 2020. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

June 19, 2020: The US Tax Court announced that the Court will resume receiving mail effective July 10, 2020. Any items currently being held by the United States Postal Service or any private delivery service will be delivered to the Court on that day.

June 19, 2020: The IRS issued proposed regulations that provide guidance for the deduction of qualified transportation fringe (QTF) and commuting expenses. As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), taxpayers are not allowed deductions for QTF expenses or for certain commuting expenses. These proposed regulations address the elimination of the QTF deduction. The proposed regulations also provide guidance to determine the amount of QTF parking expense that is nondeductible.

June 19, 2020: The IRS released Notice 2020-50 to help retirement plan participants affected by the COVID-19 take advantage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act regarding retirement plan distributions. The CARES Act provides that qualified individuals may treat as coronavirus-related distributions up to $100,000 in distributions made from their eligible retirement plans between January 1 and December 30, 2020 without being subject to the 10% additional tax that otherwise generally applies to distributions made before an individual reaches age 59 ½. Notice 2020-50 expands the definition of who is a qualified individual to take into account additional factors such as reductions in pay, rescissions of job offers, and delayed start dates with respect to an individual, as well as adverse financial consequences to an individual arising from the impact of the COVID-19 on the individual’s spouse or household member.

June 20, 2020: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Emily Mussio in our Chicago office for this week’s roundup.



read more

The Next Normal — Tax Responses to COVID-19

by | Jun 18, 2020 |

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has thrown our personal and professional lives into a constant state of change, as we deal with social distancing, e-learning, remote working, and Zoom. In this American Bar Association article, Andrew R. Roberson, a partner in US and International Tax at McDermott Will & Emery, describes how the constant change or “next normal” rings true in the tax world as well, both for taxpayers and practitioners, as we all adapt to today’s challenges.

Access the full article.



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup June 8 – June 12, 2020

by | Jun 15, 2020 |

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of June 8 – June 12, 2020. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

June 9, 2020:  The IRS published a reminder for taxpayers that estimated tax payments for tax year 2020, originally due April 15 and June 15, are now due July 15.  Any individual or corporation that has a quarterly estimated tax payment due has until July 15 to make that payment without penalty.

June 11, 2020:  The IRS released Notice 2020-46 to address that cash payments employers make to charitable organizations that provide relief to victims of the COVID-19 pandemic in exchange for sick, vacation, or personal leave which their employees forgo will not be treated as compensation. Additionally, the employees will not be treated as receiving the value of the leave as income and cannot claim a deduction for the leave that they donated to their employer.

June 12, 2020:  The IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations to amend the existing regulations to add a definition of real property to reflect statutory changes and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) limiting IRC § 1031 to exchanges of real property.  Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by August 11, 2020.

June 12, 2020:  The IRS issued Notice 2020-49 to provide tax relief for certain taxpayers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic involved in new markets tax credit transactions under IRC § 45D(a). Specifically, the notice provides guidance for community development entities (CDEs) and qualified active low-income community businesses (QALICBs) investing and conducting businesses in low-income communities.  The notice postpones to December 31, 2020, the due dates for making investments, making reinvestments, and expending amounts for construction of real property under IRC § 45D due to be performed or expended on or after April 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2020.

June 12, 2020: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Emily Mussio in our Chicago office for this week’s roundup.



read more

Tax Court Records Accessible Again

by and | Jun 11, 2020 | ,

When the US Tax Court (Tax Court) shut down in March, the public was unable to request copies of Tax Court records. That changed effective June 1, 2020, as non-parties may now call and request copies of court records which will then be sent via email. The cost for copy requests is $0.50 per page, with a per-document cap of $3.00. The Tax Court’s press release on this subject can be found here.

Practice Point: It can be extremely beneficial to taxpayers and their advisors to see arguments being made by other taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service in cases with similar legal issues. The ability to now directly call the Tax Court to request briefs or other filings in a docketed case, and to receive such documents electronically, is significant. Moreover, the cap of $3.00 per document may provide an incentive to request documents where the price per page, without a cap, was previously financially burdensome.



read more

Tax Court Holds That Form 870-AD Is Not a Binding Settlement Agreement

by , and | Jun 10, 2020 | , , , ,

A recent US Tax Court Memorandum Opinion held that a settlement agreement embodied in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 870-AD does not preclude the IRS from reopening an audit and issuing a notice of deficiency.

In Howe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2020-78, the Tax Court held that equitable estoppel did not bind the Commissioner to an agreement in Form 870-AD. Only settlements that comply with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) sections 7121 and 7122 are binding on both the taxpayer and government, and an IRS Form 870-AD does not comply with those provisions. Further, the Court held that equitable estoppel did not bar the IRS from asserting a larger deficiency against the taxpayer because, even if true, the alleged failures to follow internal IRS procedures would not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct.

An IRS revenue agent initially began an audit of the 2008 tax return for the taxpayer, who was CEO and majority shareholder of a healthcare company, in 2011. At the conclusion of the audit, the revenue agent issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and IRS Form 886-A. The taxpayer responded to the NOPA by filing a protest letter at the IRS Appeals Office. In settlement of the issue during the IRS Appeals Office review, the taxpayer and the IRS appeals officer (on behalf of the IRS) signed a Form 870-AD that reduced the asserted tax deficiency and eliminated the IRC section 6662 accuracy-related penalty. The IRS Appeals Officer filed an IRS Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) summarizing the facts and legal arguments.

In response to the ACM, the revenue agent who conducted the audit, in consultation with her supervisor and local IRS counsel, internally filed a Dissent for Appeals Decision. The Dissent for Appeals Decision sought to reopen the case against the taxpayer on the grounds that the taxpayer made material factual misrepresentations during the IRS Appeals process. The IRS Appeals Director approved reopening the case, and the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency.

The taxpayer sought review in the Tax Court on the grounds that the IRS improperly reopened the case and that the settlement represented in Form 870-AD equitably estopped the Commissioner from issuing the Notice of Deficiency. The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument. Following its holding in Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974), the Tax Court will only look behind a Notice of Deficiency when there is “substantial evidence of unconstitutional conduct on the Commissioner’s part and the integrity of our judicial process would be impugned if we were to let the Commissioner benefit from such conduct.” (Howe, at *12.) The Tax Court found there was no substantial evidence of unconstitutional conduct by the IRS.

Further, there is a heightened standard for applying equitable estoppel against the IRS. In addition to the traditional detrimental reliance elements, asserting equitable estoppel claims against the government requires a showing that: “(1) the government engaged in affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence; (2) the government’s wrongful acts will cause a serious [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup June 1 – June 5, 2020

by | Jun 8, 2020 | ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of June 1 – June 5, 2020. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

June 2, 2020: The IRS reminded taxpayers who live and work abroad that they have until July 15, 2020, to file their 2019 federal income tax return and pay any tax due. Typically, the deadline for such returns is June 15.

June 3, 2020: The IRS issued Notice 2020-42 to provide temporary relief from the physical presence requirement in Treasury Regulations § 1.401(a)-21(d)(6) for participant elections required to be witnessed by a plan representative or a notary public, including a spousal consent required under IRC § 417.

June 4, 2020: The IRS issued Notice 2020-39 and updated the Qualified Opportunity Zones frequently asked questions (FAQs). Notice 2020-39 answers questions regarding relief from certain requirements under IRC § 1400Z-2, particularly providing that if a taxpayer’s 180th day to invest in a qualified opportunity zone would have fallen on or after April 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2020, the taxpayer now has until December 31, 2020, to invest that gain into a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). In addition, Notice 2020-39 provides that the period between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, is suspended for purposes of the 30-month period during which property may be substantially improved.

June 4, 2020: The IRS announced that the Office of Chief Counsel will be expanding its Virtual Settlement Days program. Settlement Days events are organized in effort to resolve US Tax Court cases by providing taxpayers not represented by counsel the opportunity to receive free tax advice from certain pro bono groups such as the Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs) and American Bar Association (ABA).Through this program, taxpayers can also discuss their Tax Court cases and resolve related tax issues with members of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, the Independent Office of Appeals and Collection.Due to COVID-19, Settlement Days events are now virtual and allow for taxpayers and volunteers to join from any location. 

June 5, 2020: The IRS issued Notice 2020-43 to seek public comment on a proposed requirement for partnerships to use only one of two alternative methods described in Notice 2020-43 to satisfy the Tax Capital Reporting Requirement with respect to partnership taxable years that end on or after December 31, 2020. The two methods that a partnership may use to report, for each partner, are either (i) the partner’s basis in its partnership interest, reduced by the partner’s allocable share of partnership liabilities, as determined under IRC § 752 (Modified Outside Basis Method); or (ii) the partner’s share of previously taxed capital, as calculated under a modified version of Treas. Reg. § 1.743-1(d) (Modified Previously Taxed Capital Method).

June 5, 2020: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court Holds IRS Chief Counsel Attorneys May Make Initial Penalty Determination

by , and | Jun 8, 2020 | , ,

In general, section 6751 requires that a supervisor give written approval before penalties can be asserted against a taxpayer. In Koh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-77, authored by the US Tax Court’s (Tax Court) most recent addition—Judge Travis Greaves—the Tax Court affirmed that an attorney from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Counsel may be authorized to assert such penalties in an answer to a Tax Court petition.

In Koh, the IRS sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency that included a determination related to penalties under section 6662(j). The taxpayer filed a petition with the Tax Court contesting the IRS’s determination. In its answer, the IRS Chief Counsel attorney asserted that the taxpayer was liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(b)(1) or (2), in the alternative to the section 6662(j) penalties assessed in the original deficiency notice.

The taxpayer sought partial judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that IRS Chief Counsel attorneys are not authorized to assert penalties in the answer. Under section 6751(b)(1), a penalty may not be assessed unless the “the initial determination of such assessment” was “personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination.”

The Tax Court reasoned that as the IRS’s representative, the Chief Counsel attorney (or a delegate) may assert additional penalties in an answer to a Tax Court petition. Moreover, the Tax Court ruled that Chief Counsel attorneys had authority to assert penalties in an answer in Roth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-248, aff’d, 922 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2019). That opinion was based on numerous cases holding that the IRS may assert penalties in an answer. However, Roth pre-dated the Tax Court’s opinion in Clay v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 223 (2019), which cited US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit authority for the proposition that “written approval is required no later than the issuance of the notice of deficiency rather than the assessment of the tax.”

Practice Point: Taxpayers continue to face risk from penalties being asserted for the first time in an answer in a Tax Court Proceeding. We believe that there is a strong likelihood that Koh will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We will continue to follow new developments related to penalties and the supervisory approval requirement.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge