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

Understanding LB&I “Campaigns”

by and | Mar 8, 2017 | , ,

On March 3, 2017, KPMG and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) held a joint webcast presentation regarding the Large Business & International’s (LB&I) new “Campaign” examination process.  The IRS speakers for the presentation were Tina Meaux (Assistant Deputy Commissioner Compliance Integration) and Kathy Robbins, Director (Enterprise Activities Practice Area). On February 1, 2017, we blogged about this new IRS program.

The IRS explained that Campaigns are a fundamental change in the way the IRS will conduct examinations in the future, and are the result of the IRS’s ever-shrinking resources.  The Campaigns reflect the LB&I Division’s need to focus on risks, drive compliance objectives, and efficiently and effectively respond with a variety of work streams.

The general principles that guide the Campaign program are:

  • Flexible and well-trained work force.  Because of funding cuts, the IRS has not been able to hire examiners in recent years.  In connection with the Campaigns, the IRS will implement additional training, including “just-in-time” training, to help the IRS react to a dynamic examination environment.
  • Better selection of work.  The IRS is using data analytics and internal and external feedback to assist in shaping Campaigns.
  • Tailored treatment.  The IRS is developing an integrated process to identify compliance risks, and identify the work streams needed to address those risks.
  • Integrate feedback loop.  This is the cornerstone of the Campaign program.  The IRS admitted that it cannot implement an effective and efficient process without feedback from both internal and external stakeholders.  To be successful the feedback needs to be “just-in-time,” not merely post-audit.

(more…)



read more

Final Code Sec. 367(a) and (d) Regulations

by | Mar 7, 2017 | , ,

“The IRS and Treasury recently issued final regulations under Code Sec. 367(a)and (d) that make a monumental change in how those provisions have applied since they were enacted over 30 years ago. For the first time, the regulations subject to taxation the otherwise tax free transfer of foreign goodwill and going concern value by a domestic corporation to a foreign subsidiary for use in a trade or business outside the United States.”

Continue Reading

Originally published in CCH International Tax Journal (Note from the Editor in Chief)



read more

Final §385 Regulations Apply to CFC Loans to Domestic Corporations

by | Mar 3, 2017 | , ,

The Treasury and IRS recently issued final regulations under §385 that reclassify certain indebtedness as equity. While the final regulations have limited application to U.S.-based multinationals, they do apply to obligations of domestic corporations to related controlled foreign corporations (‘‘CFCs’’). It is critical to avoid such debt being reclassified as stock under the regulations because of the significant adverse U.S. tax consequences.

Continue Reading

Originally published in Bloomberg BNA Tax Management International Journal, February 10, 2017.



read more

IRS Releases IPU Summarizing Foreign and Domestic Loss Impacts on FTCs

by | Mar 2, 2017 | ,

On March 1, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a new International Practice Unit (IPU) summarizing foreign and domestic loss impacts on foreign tax credits (FTC).  The IPU provides a summary of the law regarding worldwide taxation and FTC limitations, followed by explanations and analysis for IRS agents examining FTC issues.  As we have noted previously, this high-level guidance to field examiners signals the IRS’s continued focus on international tax issues.



read more

IRS Criminal Investigation Division Continues to Face Core Mission Challenges Due to Budget Cuts

by | Feb 28, 2017 | ,

This week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation Division (CID) released its annual report for 2016, continuing a message sent for several years now: that IRS CID’s staffing declines are affecting its core mission tax work. Core mission tax work is distinguished from other types of IRS CID investigations—such as terrorism or health care fraud—where tax elements are not the central focus of the investigation. Over the past four years, since 2012, the division has lost 447 agents, and this loss has resulted in a decline in “core mission” prosecutions (485 fewer cases than in 2012).

Despite these challenges, IRS CID continues to possess a high success rate, with an incarceration rate at or around 80 percent for at least the last 4 years. In 2016, IRS CID initiated 3,395 investigations, down from 5,314 in 2013. Of those, 2,699 were sentenced, with an average sentence of 41 months.

Practice Point: The 2016 annual report is yet more documentation of the long-term decline in IRS CID investigations; however, practitioners and taxpayers cannot count on this trend continuing in the new administration. In his confirmation hearings, Steven Mnuchin, the new Treasury Secretary expressed concern about lowered IRS staffing levels overall, but it is unclear whether these comments will result in substantive changes to reverse this trend. In this report, IRS CID is sending a clear message that budget restrictions and staffing attrition are impacting the division’s core mission of encouraging voluntary compliance through criminal deterrence.



read more

Giving Back – Providing Pro Bono Tax Assistance

by , and | Feb 23, 2017 | ,

Here at McDermott, we value giving back to the community through pro bono efforts.  In particular, we provide substantial assistance in pro bono tax cases to low-income individuals through our relationships with low-income taxpayer clinics throughout the country.  Over the years, we have settled dozens of cases for low-income taxpayers in docketed tax cases and routinely reduced or eliminated deficiencies asserted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  When settlement has not been possible, we have litigated cases in the Tax Court and obtained favorable results not just for our clients but for the low-income taxpayer community as a whole.  For example, we represented a husband and wife on a penalty issue involving an issue of first impression and convinced the Tax Court that the IRS had for years been improperly asserting and collecting penalties on improperly claimed refundable tax credits. In a recent article, we detail some of the pro bono efforts by low-income taxpayer clinics and private practitioners.

Practice Point:  In addition to assisting low-income individuals who cannot afford legal representation, providing pro bono tax services benefits tax practitioners in many ways.  It provides the opportunity for younger attorneys to take responsibility for a case and to get valuable experience in dealing with clients, negotiating with the IRS, and potentially gaining courtroom experience.  Assisting taxpayers on a pro bono basis is also rewarding and can make a significant difference in the lives of low-income individuals.



read more

Retaliation Claims By Corporate Whistleblowers – What Is Too Far?

by | Feb 22, 2017 | , , ,

This week, a French court announced an indictment against UBS related to its alleged treatment of Nicholas Forissier, a former audit manager who provided information to French authorities a decade ago in a tax evasion investigation of UBS.  According to at least one press account, the indictment alleges that Forissier was “forced to work under difficult conditions, including internal criticism and eventual dismissal for gross misconduct in 2009” in retaliation for his cooperation with French authorities. Forissier’s case is apparently one of several whistleblower retaliation claims percolating in the French courts against UBS regarding non-disclosure of offshore accounts for tax purposes.

US law provides significant protections of potential whistleblowers for alleged tax violations. Revisions to IRC section 7623, effective from December 20, 2006, make whistleblower awards mandatory in some cases. The revised law has resulted in several large, public awards (the $104 million award given to Bradley Birkenfeld, for example, also related to UBS disclosures).

Protection for IRS whistleblower claimants is found under a number of statutes and rules.  IRC section 6103(i)(6) provides stringent confidentiality rules (including personal liability for government violators) regarding the government’s disclosure of information tending to reveal the existence of a whistleblower or confidential informant.  Also, the grand jury secrecy rule, Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), may provide an additional protection in an ongoing grand jury investigation. Further, OSHA, the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act may provide protections against termination of whistleblowers and against adverse employment decisions related to a current employee’s status as a whistleblower, in an appropriate case.

Practice point:  It is also worth noting that these protections are not absolute. In fact, because an IRS whistleblower claimant may be in a privileged relationship with the target of an investigation, the IRS has more recently been called upon to clarify that the agency cannot and should not gather or use privileged information to develop a case, or else undermine the entire case as a violation of that privilege, i.e., the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. See our prior coverage on this issue here.



read more

Sixth Circuit Sets Limits on the Application of the Substance-Over-Form Doctrine

by and | Feb 21, 2017 | ,

The judicial substance-over-form doctrine provides the IRS with the ability to set aside carefully orchestrated tax planning arrangements to treat a transaction consistent with its substance.  However, the doctrine does not give the Service carte blanche to deny tax benefits. In Summa Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 16-1712 (available here), the Sixth Circuit overturned the Tax Court and declined to apply the substance-over-form doctrine when faced with taxpayers who, “to [their] good fortune, had the time and patience (and money) to understand how a complex set of tax provisions could lower [their] taxes” and “complied in full with the printed and accessible words of the tax laws.”

Summa Holdings involved a closely held corporation (Summa Holdings, Inc.) that supercharged the tax benefits provided by paying commissions to an interest charge domestic international sales corporation (IC-DISC) by having the IC-DISC owned by two Roth IRAs. While the dividends paid by the IC-DISC were taxable upon receipt, the dividend amounts (totaling $6 million over 7 years) were vastly larger than the annual contribution limits placed on Roth IRAs. For unfathomable reasons, the IRS did not challenge the $3,000 price that the Roth IRAs paid for the IC-DISC stock. Instead, the IRS asserted that that the substance of the arrangement was that the corporation paid dividends to its shareholders and the shareholders made excess contributions to the Roth IRAs.

(more…)



read more

Should Taxpayers File Amicus Briefs in Tax Court Cases?

by and | Feb 15, 2017 | , , ,

Amicus–or “friend of the court”–briefs are not uncommon in Supreme Court and appellate court cases.  The purpose of an amicus brief is generally to provide assistance to the court by presenting additional arguments either in support or opposition of one of the litigant’s positions.  Amicus briefs should not rehash the same arguments presented by one of the parties, but rather should provide insights and a different perspective that is not presented by the parties, and to inform the court of the impact of the issues in the case on other affected parties.  The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide detailed rules on how and when to file an amicus brief.  See here for Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which governs amicus filings.

Sometimes, amicus parties want to get involved at the trial court level before the trial record is fixed.  Thus, increasingly, amicus briefs are being filed in trial courts, and in particular in the United States Tax Court (Tax Court).  When, why and how to file an amicus brief in a trial court is not clear.  Indeed, most trial courts do not have procedural rules that directly address those filings.  This post provides an overview of some of the considerations and procedures for filing such briefs in a Tax Court case.

Whether to allow an amicus to participate in a case is within the sound discretion of the court.  Because the filing of an amicus brief is discretionary, the typical practice is to file a motion seeking permission or“leave” of the court to file an amicus brief accompanied with a statement stating that the litigants do, or do not, object to the filing of the amicus brief.

In deciding whether to grant permission to file anamicus brief, the Tax Court generally examines whether “the proffered information is timely, useful or otherwise helpful.”  The court also considers whether amici are advocates for one of the parties, have an interest in the outcome of the case and possess unique information or perspective.  This is consistent with the standards applied by other courts in making the determination.

Practice Point:  Several factors should be considered by taxpayers in deciding whether to file an amicus brief in Tax Court.  In addition to the cost, taxpayers may want to consider whether their position is being adequately represented by another taxpayer’s case and whether they believe that they can provide arguments that might persuade the court to adopt their position.  Participation as an amicus can also be helpful to taxpayers in coordinating legal positions and ensuring that the best possible arguments are presented on issues of first impression.  An effective amicus brief has the potential to persuade the court, and can be an effective tool to resolve an issue favorably.  This is especially true when, because of the specific facts of the taxpayer, the perspectives of other taxpayers are not adequately addressed.



read more

Busy Start to Trump Administration Bodes Major Changes Are on the Way

by and | Feb 14, 2017 | , ,

In the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we have seen several indications that tax lawyers are going to be busy keeping up with the shifting sands of tax reform.

We learned from an Executive Order released on January 30, 2017 that for every new regulation that will be issued, two regulations must be eliminated In a release on February 2, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clarified the edict explaining that it applies only to significant regulatory actions issued between January 20 and September 30, 2017.  This would apply to any regulation that:  (1) has annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affects the economy; (2) created serious inconsistencies or otherwise interferes with action taken or planned by another agency; or (3) raises a novel legal or policy issue.

Officials at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have stated that the IRS will not issue much guidance in the near future, but will be focusing its limited resources on comprehensive tax reform. Accordingly, other than necessary releases (for example, monthly interest rates), we expect based on comments from the IRS that there will be a substantial slow-down in the issuance of revenue rulings, revenue procedures and other types of published guidance. However, the IRS will continue to release private guidance, such as private letter rulings and chief counsel advice memoranda. Indeed, the IRS has indicated that it will look to open up the process for private letter rulings, and is seeking input from practitioners regarding important subjects.

In other news, the Senate last night confirmed Steven Mnuchin as the Secretary of the Treasury by a narrow margin of 53-47. With a new captain at the helm, and the Trump Administration’s stated desire for major tax reform, we expect a new direction for Treasury and substantial resources devoted to what our tax system may look like in the future.

Practice Point: It remains to be seen how the recent Executive Order will impact guidance from the Treasury and IRS, but all signs point to a slow-down in the issuance of published guidance. We expect that with less guidance, there is a potential for more controversy. For the foreseeable future, taxpayers and their advisors should to continue to monitor these new developments and how it may impact their operations.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge