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

IRS Failed to Prove Supervisory Approval For Penalty Based Upon Redacted Document

by , and | Apr 8, 2020 | , , ,

In a recent order in the The Cannon Corp. v. Commissioner, No. 12466-16, the US Tax Court (Tax Court) held that a redacted email from a revenue agent’s supervisor to the agent regarding a notice of deficiency was not sufficient to satisfy the approval requirement under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6751(b) for the assertion of accuracy-related penalties.

Under IRC section 6751(b), as interpreted by case law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is permitted to assert penalties only if the initial determination to assert the penalty is approved in writing by the supervisor of the individual making such a determination. That provision has been litigated recently in several notable cases, for example, Chai v. Commissioner, 851 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2017), and Graev v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 485 (2017). Since Graev, the Tax Court has issued a series of decisions on the requirements of IRC section 6751(b). Our recent article discussing these decisions can be found here.

(more…)



read more

Taxpayer Victory in an IRC Section 199 Contract Manufacturing Case

by , and | Mar 24, 2020 | , ,

Recently, the US Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Meredith Corp. v. United States, No. 4:17-cv-00385 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 20, 2020), held that a magazine publisher was entitled to refund of federal income tax based for the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 199 domestic production deduction based upon the printing services performed by a contract manufacturer. At issue in the case was whether the publisher qualified as a printer of magazines for purposes of IRC section 199 despite hiring third-party printers to print its magazines. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued that the third-party printers, not the magazine publisher, had the “benefits and burdens of ownership,” and thus only the third-party printers were eligible for the IRC section 199 deduction. The case involved tax years 2006 through 2012. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed IRC section 199 domestic production deduction for tax years after 2018.

(more…)



read more

US Tax Court Cancels Remainder of Spring Trial Sessions

by | Mar 23, 2020 | , ,

After cancelling several trial sessions for March 2020 and April 2020, and closing its building until further notice, the US Tax Court (Tax Court) has announced that the remainder of its trial sessions through the end of June 2020 have been cancelled as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19). The cancelled trial sessions will be rescheduled at a later date. Although the Tax Court’s building is closed, the court remains operational:

Tax Court personnel are working remotely. The eAccess and eFiling systems remain operational and the Court will continue to process items received electronically, serve orders and opinions, enter and serve decisions, work with litigants, and receive telephone calls.

Practice Point: Much like prior government shutdowns, the cancellation of a large number of trial sessions stemming from COVID-19 is a major disruption for the Tax Court, taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Those taxpayers whose cases have been delayed should continue to work with IRS Chief Counsel attorneys to try and resolve their cases without the need for trial.



read more

Tax Court Closes Building and Cancels More Trial Sessions

by | Mar 16, 2020 | , ,

As the fallout from the coronavirus (COVID-19) continues, the US Tax Court (Tax Court) has cancelled additional trial sessions. As we previously discussed, the Tax Court last week cancelled all trial sessions for March 2020. Now, the Tax Court has announced that all trial sessions for April 2020 are also cancelled. Additionally, although the Tax Court will remain open to receive mail and accept hand-delivered petitions, the Tax Court building will be closed to visitors.



read more

New Tax Appointments

by and | Feb 28, 2020 | ,

This has been a busy week in the tax appointments world, with the appointment of the new National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), the reappointment of Chief Judge Foley as Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court), and the confirmation of Travis Greaves to the Tax Court.

On February 27, 2020, the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the appointment of Erin M. Collins as the new NTA. Ms. Collins fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Nina Olson last summer. Ms. Collins spent 20 years as a Managing Director for KPMG’s Tax Controversy Practices for the Western Area and was an IRS Chief Counsel attorney for 15 years.

On February 24, 2020, the Tax Court announced the re-election of Chief Judge Foley to a 2-year term starting June 1, 2020. Chief Judge Foley was originally elected as Chief Judge effective June 1, 2018.

Finally, the Senate confirmed Travis Greaves to be a Judge of the Tax Court for a 15-year term. For our prior post on Mr. Greaves’ nomination by the White House, see here. Two other nominees, Alina Ionescu and Christian Weiler, are currently awaiting action by the Senate Finance Committee.



read more

Supreme Court Tackles Tax-Related Cases

by and | Feb 26, 2020 | , , , , ,

The United States Supreme Court has picked up the pace this week, already issuing eight regular opinions and four opinions relating to orders as of today. We discuss the tax-related items here.

In Rodriguez v. FDIC, the question was how to decide which member of a consolidated group of corporations is entitled to a tax refund. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a refund to the designated agent of an affiliated group, but the dispute centered on how that refund should be distributed among the group’s members. Some courts have looked at state law to resolve the distribution issue while others crafted a federal common law rule providing that, in the absence of an unambiguous tax allocation agreement, the refund belongs to the group member responsible for the losses that led to the refund. The Supreme Court rejected the latter common law rule, finding that it was not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking. In reaching its decision, the Court noted that federal judges may craft such types of rules only in limited areas and it must be “necessary to protect uniquely federal interest.” The Court, however, did not decide who, in the case before it, was entitled to the refund, but remanded the case for further proceedings.

In Baldwin v. United States, Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari in a case asking the Court to reconsider National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). We previously discussed Baldwin here, in which the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, under Brand X, its prior construction of Internal Revenue Code section 7502 did not preclude a different interpretation by the IRS because the prior construction was based on filling a statutory gap in a reasonable manner. Because the IRS’s subsequent regulatory interpretation was reasonable (in light of ambiguous statutory language), the Ninth Circuit effectively overruled its prior precedent and accepted the IRS’s subsequent contrary interpretation.

Justice Thomas, the author of Brand X, had a change of heart and wrote that his dissent that the prior opinion appeared to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and traditional tools of statutory construction. In his dissent, he called into question the continuing viability of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), expressing the view that Chevron “is in serious tension with the Constitution, the APA, and over 100 years of judicial decisions.”

Practice Point: These latest developments from the Supreme Court should be noted by taxpayers and practitioners. As with the highly contested opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie last term, it is clear that many Justices are uncomfortable with granting a high level of deference to government agencies. Deference issues continue to be in the forefront in several tax cases, and likely will continue to be highly relevant in forthcoming challenges to many regulations in the wake of tax reform in 2017.



read more

President Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Two More Tax Court Judges

by and | Nov 7, 2019 | , ,

On November 6, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Ms. Alina Ionescu Marshall and Mr. Christian N. Weiler to serve as Judges on the United States Tax Court (Tax Court). Mr. Travis Greaves was previously approved by the Senate Finance Committee to be a Tax Court Judge and is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. Judge Mark V. Holmes, who is currently a senior Judge on the Tax Court, was previously renominated by President Trump and is awaiting action by the Senate Finance Committee. For our prior coverage related to Mr. Greaves and Judge Holmes, see here.

According to the White House Announcement and other publicly available information, Ms. Marshall is currently Counsel to the Chief Judge of the Tax Court in Washington, DC, a position she has been in since 2013. Prior to that, she was an associate at West & Feinberg, P.C. (2012–2013), clerked at the Tax Court (2010–2012), was an associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP (2004–2009), and was an associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (2002–2004). She also was an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center (2011–2013). Ms. Marshall obtained a JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School (2002) and her undergraduate degree from Yale University (1999).

According to the White House Announcement and other publicly available information, Mr. Weiler is currently a partner at Weiler & Rees, LLC, in New Orleans, where he has practiced since 2006. His practice includes all areas of tax law, with an emphasis on tax controversy and litigation matters. Mr. Weiler obtained an LLM from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law (2006), a JD from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law (2005), and his undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University (2001).

The Tax Court is composed of 19 presidentially appointed members, as well as senior judges serving on recall and special trial judges. Currently, there are 17 presidentially appointed members, meaning that two vacancies exist. At first blush, it seems odd that there are four candidates for two vacancies.  However, under IRC Section 7447(b)(1), Tax Court Judges are subject to mandatory retirement upon attaining the age of 70. Judge L. Paige Marvel and Judge Albert G. Lauber will both turn 70 within the next few months; thus, it appears that the two new nominations will be for their positions on the Tax Court.

Practice Point: Since being sworn in, President Trump has nominated eight individuals to be Tax Court Judges (four nominees have previously been confirmed), and has taken an approach of announcing the nominations earlier rather than later. For more information on the Tax Court appointment and reappointment process, see here. As the make-up of the Tax Court changes, it is important for taxpayers and practitioners that may be appearing before the new Judges to familiarize themselves with the Judges and stay informed of recent developments regarding the Court.



read more

Courtney Dunbar Jones and Emin Toro Confirmed to Tax Court

by | Aug 7, 2019 | , ,

On August 5, 2019, the Senate confirmed Courtney Dunbar Jones and Emin Toro as nominees to the US Tax Court in a voice vote before leaving for August recess. Jones and Toro will now each serve a 15-year term. President Trump had initially nominated each candidate in 2018, but the Senate was not able to confirm their appointments prior to the end of the last 2018 session—requiring the candidates to be renominated in February of 2019. We reported the initial nominations in “President Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Emin Toro to Tax Court” and “President Trump to Nominate Greaves to Tax Court; Senate Confirms Copeland and Urda.” Furthermore, we reported the renomination of these nominees in “Renominations to Fill Vacancies on the United States Tax Court.” (more…)



read more

Law360: Myers May Make It Easier to Find Equitable Relief in Tax Court

by | Jul 18, 2019 | , , ,

Laura L. Gavioli, PC, recently wrote an article for Law360 on a US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision that may provide an equitable avenue for hearing of late-filed petitions in US Tax Court. The Law360 article, “Myers May Make It Easier to Find Equitable Relief in Tax Court,” can be accessed here.



read more

Court Rules That Wind Farm Did Not Provide Proof of Development Fee to Receive 1603 Cash Grant

by , and | Jul 2, 2019 | , , ,

On June 20, 2019, the United States Court of Federal Claims published its long-awaited opinion in California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United States, No. 14-250 C. The opinion addressed how taxpayers engaging in related party transactions may appropriately determine the cost basis with respect to a wind energy project under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Central to the case was whether the taxpayer was allowed to include a $50 million development fee paid by a project entity to a related developer in the cost basis of a wind project for purposes of calculating the cash grant under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (Section 1603). Section 1603 allowed taxpayers to take a cash grant in lieu of the production tax credit of up to 30% of the eligible cost basis of a wind project. The eligible cost basis under Section 1603 is determined in the same manner as under Section 45 for purposes of the investment tax credit (ITC). The Justice Department disagreed with the taxpayer’s position that the development fee should be included in the cost basis for calculating the Section 1603 cash grant. The Justice Department argued that the development fee was a “sham.”

The court agreed, and held for the government. The court’s opinion focused on the taxpayer’s failure to provide evidence that the payment of the development fee had “economic substance.” Indeed, the court was troubled that none of the taxpayer’s witnesses could explain what was actually done to earn the $50 million development fee. Other than a three‑page development agreement and the taxpayer’s bank statements identifying the wire transfers for payment of the development fee, which started and ended with the same entity, the court found that the taxpayer provided no other factual evidence to support the payment of the fee. Indeed, the court pointed to the taxpayer’s trial testimony, which the court found lacked the specificity needed to support the development fee. Because the taxpayer failed to carry its burden of proof and persuasion, the court concluded that the taxpayer was not entitled to include the $50 million development fee in the cost basis of the wind project for purposes of computing the Section 1603 cash grant.

Importantly, the court did not, however, rule that a development fee paid to a related party is not permitted to be included in the cost basis of a facility for purposes of determining the Section 1603 cash grant. Instead, the court simply ruled that the taxpayer failed to provide it with sufficient proof that in substance the taxpayer performed development services for which a development fee is appropriately considered part of the cost basis of a facility for purposes of determining the Section 1603 cash grant.

Practice Point: In court, the plaintiff has the burden of proving its entitlement to the relief sought. Before filing a case, it’s best to make sure that you have all of the evidence you need to prove your case. Without substantial and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge