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

National Taxpayer Advocate 2016 Report – Penalties

by | Jan 26, 2017 | , , , ,

Every year, the Taxpayer Advocate Service’s (TAS) Annual Report to Congress provides a unique perspective regarding the workings of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and how the IRS relates to the vast majority of taxpayers. That insight is particularly valuable when the IRS chooses to assert penalties—one of the most policy-driven decisions that the IRS can make. In its 2016 report, the TAS makes a number of important observations and recommendations related to three of the most commonly asserted types of penalties—accuracy-related penalties, failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties, and the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty.

Accuracy-Related Penalties

The TAS identified 122 cases litigated between June 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016 (the reporting period), involving accuracy-related penalties.  Of those cases, the IRS prevailed in full in 86 cases (70 percent), taxpayers prevailed in full in 20 cases (16 percent), and 16 cases were split decisions (13 percent) (percentages were rounded down in the original report). Unusual this year were the number of split decisions and the number of taxpayer wins in pro se cases. Many cases involving the negligence penalty turned upon the taxpayer’s failure to maintain adequate books and records related to the adjustments at issue.

In 2013, the TAS issued a study noting that the IRS’s imposition of accuracy-related penalties, subsequently abated after an assessment and a successful taxpayer appeal (among other fact patterns), could lead to a perception of unfairness among taxpayers regarding the IRS’s manner of assertion of these penalties. The TAS cited this study in its 2016 report, and noted again that this conduct could be detrimental to voluntary taxpayer compliance and could undermine the purpose of accuracy-related penalties.

In fact, a main priority of the Annual Report overall is to improve voluntary compliance, a fundamental element of our tax system. The TAS notes that “unnecessary coercion” by the IRS—whether through unsustained penalties or otherwise—could have the effect of reducing voluntary compliance.

Failure-to-File / Failure-to-Pay Penalties

The TAS identified 45 total decisions involving failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties in the reporting period.  Of these, 28 cases involved taxpayers representing themselves. The majority of cases involved full or partial taxpayer losses.

The TAS noted, consistent with our experience, that the IRS frequently relies upon selection of failure-to-file and failure-to-pay cases through its Reasonable Cause Assistant software, which makes the initial decision to impose the relevant penalties in most cases without significant human involvement.  Personal review of the penalty decision does not generally occur until after the taxpayer files an administrative appeal.  The TAS advocated for heightened personal review of these penalties and heightened consideration of relevant facts and circumstances potentially supporting abatement.

Trust Fund Recovery Penalties

The TAS noted that several Trust Fund Recovery Penalty cases this year had successfully challenged whether the penalty was properly noticed and assessed. United States v. Appelbaum, 117 A.F.T.R.2d 2016-633 (W.D.N.C.); Romano-Murphy v. United States, 816 F.3d 707 (11th Cir. 2016).

The TAS further discussed a number of unsuccessful taxpayer challenges to assessment of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty on grounds of [...]

Continue Reading



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

National Taxpayer Advocate Releases 2016 Annual Report to Congress

by | Jan 19, 2017 | ,

On January 10, 2017, the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson released her 2016 Annual Report to Congress.

According to the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), the report was delivered to Congress with no prior review by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Office of Management and Budget.  The primary sections of the report include:

  • 2016 Special Focus – IRS Future State: The National Taxpayer Advocate’s Vision for a Taxpayer-Centric 21st Century Tax Administration
  • Most Serious Problems Encountered by Taxpayers
  • Recommendations to Congress
  • Most Litigated Issues
  • Taxpayer Advocate Service Research and Related Studies
  • Literature Reviews

Practice Point: TAS, an independent organization within the IRS, is an excellent (and often underutilized) resource for individual and corporate taxpayers who may be at a standstill with the IRS – especially on a technical, administrative, or “red-tape” issue. Taxpayers of all shapes and sizes should consider, where appropriate, utilizing the TAS in appropriate circumstances where they are encountering delays in the administration of their tax disputes.

This post is the first in a four-part series addressing highlights of the Annual Report that may be of interest to our readers.



read more

IRS Practice Unit Advises Examiners to Use Aggregate Approach in Valuing Outbound Transfers

by and | Jan 12, 2017 | ,

On January 4, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a new “International Practice Unit” (IPU) on the value of intangibles in IRC Section 367(d) transactions in conjunction with cost sharing arrangements (CSA). See IPU here. The IPU notes that transferring highly valuable intangibles offshore has become a routine tax strategy for reducing a company’s effective tax rate for financial statement and tax purposes.

Typically, questions concerning the value of intangibles arise where a US taxpayer enters into a CSA with a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) in a low or no tax jurisdiction, and contributes resources, rights and capabilities (which may include IRC Section 936(h)(3)(B) intangibles) to the CSA. An arm’s length payment to the US taxpayer is then required for the contribution. Simultaneously with, or shortly before entering into a CSA, the US taxpayer transfers certain intangible property to the CFC in an IRC Section 351 or 361 transaction, which is taxable under IRC Section 367(d). Again, there is an arm’s length charge for the use of that intangible property.

Oftentimes in these transactions, the US taxpayer values the intangibles transferred in the IRC Section 367(d) transfer separately from the platform contributions, even though, the IRS says, the intangibles conveyed in both transactions will be exploited on a combined basis. Based on the aggregation principles in the IRC Section 482 regulations, the IPU warns that a non-aggregate approach may not provide an arm’s length result. Moreover, despite taxpayer arguments to the contrary, the IPU maintains that the scope of intangible property for purposes of IRC Section 367(d) is just as broad as the scope of platform contributions.

Practice Point: The IPU is a good source of information of what the IRS’s examination division will consider when auditing an outbound transfer of intangible rights for use in a CSA. If you have or intend to engage in such a transaction, you should study the IPU to ensure that you have adequately documented the arm’s length payments for the transfer.



read more

Court Opinions – A Year In Review

by | Jan 4, 2017 | , , , ,

Several notable court opinions were issued 2016 dealing with a variety of substantive and procedural matters. In our previous post – Tax Controversy 360 Year in Review: Court Procedure and Privilege – we discussed some of these matters. This post addresses some additional cases decided by the court during the year and highlights some other cases still in the pipeline.

(more…)



read more

Debt-Equity Regulations – A Year in Review

by | Dec 29, 2016 | ,

Section 385(a) provides that Treasury is authorized to issue regulations to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated for purposes of the Code as stock or indebtedness. On April 4, 2016, Treasury and the Service issued proposed regulations (Proposed Regulations, found here) under section 385 that treat certain purported debt between related entities as stock for US federal income tax purposes. Treasury stated specifically that the regulations under section 385 had been issued to “address the issue of earnings stripping” in three ways – (1) “[t]argeting transactions that increase related-party debt that does not finance new investment in the United States”; (2) “[a]llowing the IRS on audit to divide a purported debt instrument into part debt and part stock”; and (3) “[r]equiring documentation for members of large groups to include key information for debt-equity tax analysis[.]”

Once the Proposed Regulations were issued, practitioners and industry groups of affected companies (among others) questioned whether the Proposed Regulations were narrowly tailored to serve these stated purposes, and observed that the Proposed Regulations represented a significant departure from past practice. The Proposed Regulations received widespread attention, and practitioner groups and others submitted numerous detailed formal comments before the regulations were finalized. Among the most important critiques, practitioners criticized the Proposed Regulations for their potential overbreadth in their application to foreign-to-foreign transactions, for their lack of a de minimis exception for smaller companies, and for the anticipated burden of the contemporaneous documentation requirements.

Treasury and the Service released final and temporary section 385 regulations (Final 385 Regulations, available here), which are effective as of October 21, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register. The Final 385 Regulations provide several exceptions not contained in the Proposed Regulations, including that the Final 385 Regulations apply only to debt instruments issued by a covered member, which is defined as a domestic corporation, to members of its expanded group. The Final 385 Regulations were accompanied by an unusually lengthy Preamble which purports to address major comments received during the notice-and-comment process.

Like the Proposed Regulations, the Final 385 Regulations contain the documentation rules that require specific substantiation in order to treat related-party instruments as debt. These rules are not effective for debt instruments issued prior to January 1, 2018. The Final 385 Regulations contain several modifications to the documentation rules. For example, the Proposed Regulations automatically recharacterized a purported debt instrument as equity in the event of a documentation failure. Under the Final 385 Regulations, if an expanded group is otherwise highly compliant with the documentation rules, then the Final 385 Regulations apply a rebuttable presumption with respect to a purported debt instrument under which a taxpayer can rebut an equity presumption by satisfying specific enumerated tests.

The Final 385 Regulations contain the recast rules issued in Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.385-3, but with significant modifications. In general terms, the Final 385 Regulations reduce the debt issuance to the extent the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Ready or Not, Here They Come! The New Partnership Audit Rules

by , and | Dec 27, 2016 | , ,

On November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, (the Act), H.R. 1314, 114 Congress/Public Law No. 114-74, made significant changes to the rules governing US federal income tax audits of partnerships (New Audit Rules). The New Audit Rules are codified at Internal Revenue Code Sections 6221 through 6241. On August 4, 2016, the IRS released temporary and proposed regulations relating to certain aspects of the New Audit Rules. And, on December 6, 2016, technical corrections to the New Audit Rules (Technical Corrections) were introduced in both the House of Representatives, H.R. 6439, and in the Senate, S. 3506.

(more…)



read more

IRS Finalizes Section 367 Regulations

by | Dec 16, 2016 | ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has finalized regulations that tax transfers of certain property, including goodwill and going concern value, to foreign corporations in nonrecognition transactions described in Internal Revenue Code Section 367.  The final regulations replace proposed regulations published on September 16, 2015 and temporary regulations published in 1986.

We previously discussed the 2015 proposed regulations and why they were viewed as controversial when issued given the elimination of favorable tax treatment for transfers of foreign goodwill and going concern value to foreign corporations. The final regulations followed the proposed regulations on this point, which may lead to future litigation over the validity of the final regulations. Taxpayers should carefully review these final regulations and be aware of potential arguments that may exist for challenging the positions taken by the IRS.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge