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

Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case

by , and | Jun 21, 2024 | ,

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 opinion in Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. __ (2024), ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Moore concerned whether US Congress and the IRS could tax US shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) on those corporations’ earnings even though the earnings were not distributed to the shareholders. The case specifically focused on the so-called “mandatory repatriation tax” under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 965, a one-time tax on certain undistributed income of a CFC that is payable not by the CFC but by its US shareholders. Some viewed the case as hinging upon whether Congress has the power to tax economic gains that have not been “realized.” (i.e., In the case of a house whose value has appreciated from $500,000 to $600,000, the increased value is “realized” only when the house is sold and the additional $100,000 reaches the taxpayer’s coffers.)

However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected that position on the ground that the mandatory repatriation tax “does tax realized income,” albeit income realized by a CFC. On this basis, they reasoned that the question at issue was whether Congress has the power to attribute realized income of a CFC to (and tax) US shareholders on their respective shares of the undistributed income. This group of justices ultimately decided Congress does have the power.

The majority went out of its way to avoid expressing any opinion as to whether Congress can tax unrealized appreciation, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence and Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent asserting that it cannot. Perhaps the Court was signaling a distaste for the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax proposed by US President Joe Biden, which would impose a minimum 20% tax on the total income of the wealthiest American households, including both realized and unrealized amounts, among other Democratic proposals.

Practice Point: We previously noted that certain taxpayers should consider filing protective refund claims contingent on the possibility that Moore would be decided in favor of the taxpayers. In light of the case’s outcome, however, those protective claims are now moot.



read more

Is the IRS Finally Receiving Increased Funding?

by and | Jul 28, 2022 | , ,

After months of back and forth, it appears that additional funding is on its way to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) released a statement yesterday on his agreement with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) on the FY2022 Budget Reconciliation legislation and plans to hold a vote in the US Senate next week. A summary of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Act) provides the following topline estimates:

Total Revenue Raised $739 billion 15% Corporate Minimum Tax $313 billion* Prescription Drug Pricing Reform $288 billion** IRS Tax Enforcement $124 billion** Carried Interest Loophole $14 billion* Total Investments $433 billion Energy Security and Climate Change $369 billion** Affordable Care Act Extension $64 billion** Total Deficit Reduction $300+ billion * = Joint Committee on Taxation Estimate ** = Congressional Budget Office Estimate

 

With respect to taxes, the summary states that the Act will “[m]ake the biggest corporations and ultra-wealthy pay their fair share” and “[t]here are no new taxes on families making $400,000 or less and no new taxes on small business – we are closing tax loopholes and enforcing the tax code.”

Section 10301 of the Act, entitled “Enhancement of Internal Revenue Service Resources,” provides the following appropriations:

  • IRS: $78,911,000,000
    • Taxpayer Services: $3,181,500,000
      • Provide taxpayer services, including pre-filing assistance and education; filing and account services; taxpayer advocacy services; and other services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 (relating to employment of excerpts and consultants on a temporary or intermittent basis)
    • Enforcement: $45,637,400,000
      • Conduct tax enforcement activities to determine and collect owed taxes; provide legal and litigation support; conduct criminal investigations; provide digital asset monitoring and compliance activities; enforce criminal statutes related to violations of internal revenue laws and other financial crimes; purchase and hire passenger motor vehicles; and provide other services authorized by 3109
    • Operations Support: $25,326,400,000
      • Support taxpayer services and enforcement programs, including rent payments; facilities services; printing; postage; physical security; headquarters and other IRS-wide administrative activities; research and statistics of income; telecommunications; information technology development, enhancement, operations, maintenance and security; hire of passenger motor vehicles, operations of the IRS Oversight Board; and other services authorized by 3109
    • Business Systems Modernization: $4,750,700,000
      • Improve the business systems modernization program, including development of callback technology and other technology to provide a more personalized customer service experience but do not include the operation and maintenance of legacy systems.
    • Report on IRS-Run Free “Direct Efile” Tax Return System: $15,000,000
      • Deliver to US Congress (within nine months) a report on the cost of developing and running a free direct efile tax return system; taxpayer opinions, expectations and level of trust—based on surveys—for such a system; and opinions of an independent third party on the overall feasibility, approach, schedule, cost, organizational design and the IRS’s capacity to deliver such a system
    • Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA): $403,000,000


read more

Tax Reform Insight: IRS Slams Door on Refunds/Credits for Taxpayers with Section 965 Transition Tax Liability

by , , and | Aug 21, 2018 | , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued PMTA 2018-016, reaffirming its position that for taxpayers making an election under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 965(h) to pay the transition tax over eight years through installment payments, any overpayments of 2017 tax liabilities cannot be used as credits for 2018 estimated tax payments or refunded, unless and until the overpayment amount exceeds the full eight years of installment payments.

The IRS’s position has affected many taxpayers, and practitioners expressed their concerns to the IRS to no avail.

Access the full article.

 



read more

Tax Reform Insight: IRS Doubles Down on Retention of 2017 Overpayments to Satisfy Future Section 965 Installment Payments

by , , and | Jun 19, 2018 | , ,

We previously discussed the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) surprising position that for taxpayers making an election under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 965(h) to pay the transition tax over 8 years through installment payments, any overpayments of 2017 tax liabilities cannot be used as credits for 2018 estimated tax payments or refunded, unless and until the overpayment amount exceeds the full 8 years of installment payments. The IRS’s position has affected many taxpayers, and practitioners have expressed their concerns to the IRS.

On June 4, 2018, the IRS responded to these concerns. Rather than changing its position, the IRS has doubled down; however, the IRS has taken the small but welcome step of allowing some penalty relief for taxpayers affected by the earlier guidance as set forth in new Questions and Answers 15, 16 and 17.

Based on discussions with the IRS, it appears that the IRS’s position is based on the view that it has broad authority under Code Section 6402 to apply overpayments against other taxes owed, and that Code Section 6403 requires an overpayment of an installment payment to be applied against unpaid installments. Thus, the IRS maintains that the Code Section 965 tax liability is simply a part of the tax year 2017 liability, and it is, except for Code Section 965(h) and a timely election thereunder, payable and due by the due date of the 2017 tax return. Any future installments for the Code Section 965 liability are, in the IRS’s view, not part of a tax for a future tax year that has yet to have been determined, as the tax has already been self-assessed by the taxpayer for 2017. Accordingly, the IRS views any overpayments as being applied within the same tax period to the outstanding Code Section 965 tax owed by the taxpayer even though taxpayers making a timely Code Section 965(h) election are not legally required to make additional payments until subsequent years. (more…)



read more

Impact of Government Shutdown on IRS

by | Jan 22, 2018 | ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has posted the following regarding the impact of the government shutdown on IRS employees:

This message applies to all IRS employees.

Due to the lapse in federal appropriations, the Internal Revenue Service began an IRS-wide furlough January 20, 2018. All IRS employees with the exception of those notified and deemed “excepted” employees are furloughed. Those furloughed (or “non-excepted) are being placed in a non-pay and non-duty status until further notice. To achieve an orderly shutdown, all furloughed employees must contact their supervisors for procedures to account for government-issued equipment, personal effects requiring retrieval and to transition to furlough status. Employees are allotted up to four (4) hours for orderly shutdown activities.

For continuing information on the furlough, IRS employees are encouraged to monitor this page, news outlets, OPM.gov and the 24/7 Emergency Hotline — 866-743-5748. For TTY access (Federal Relay Service), call 800-877-8339.

We’ll update this page as new information becomes available.

As a reminder, the Employee Assistance Program is available for all IRS employees and their immediate family members at any time, day or night, by calling 800-977-7631 (TDD: 800-697-0353). This no-cost counseling service could help address stress and other issues you and your family may face.

According to its website, the US Tax Court remains open for business today and will continue normal operations for as long as funding permits. Trial sessions scheduled for this week will proceed as scheduled.

Discussions are underway in Congress to reopen the government, but even if an agreement is reached, additional funding may be required in the coming weeks to avoid another shutdown.

Practice Point: Taxpayers and advisors with active matters before the IRS should be aware that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to interact with IRS employees during the shutdown. The shutdown may push back timelines related to the conduct of examinations and matters in litigation.



read more

Base Erosion Minimum Tax May Mean Change for Foreign Affiliates of US Multinationals

by and | Dec 22, 2017 | ,

On November 16, 2017, we participated in a panel discussion at Tax Executives Institute’s (TEI’s) Chicago International Tax Forum regarding base erosion measures under the (then proposed) House and Senate tax reform bills. The House proposed a new 20 percent excise tax on most related-party payments (other than interest) that are deductible or includible in cost of goods sold or depreciable/amortizable basis. The Senate proposed a base erosion minimum tax on certain outbound base erosion payments paid by a corporation to foreign related parties. The conference committee has since submitted a conference report to accompany the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that adopts the Senate’s proposed base erosion measure, with some changes. The base erosion minimum tax is equal to the excess of 10 percent of the modified taxable income of the corporation over an amount equal to the taxpayer’s regular tax liability reduced by certain Chapter 1 credits. The base erosion minimum tax could impact any multinational group in which foreign affiliates provide services, intellectual property, depreciable or amortizable property and other deductible items to related US corporations. It remains to be seen how the base erosion minimum tax will affect businesses in practice, and how countries with which the United States has a tax treaty will respond.



read more

M&A Tax Aspects of Republican Tax Reform Framework

by , and | Oct 11, 2017 | ,

The outline of pending tax reform provisions remain vague, but a significant impact on M&A activity is expected by way of corporate tax cuts, interest deductibility, changes to the expensing of capital investments, a reduction of the pass-through tax rate and changes to our international (territorial) tax system.

Continue Reading



read more

Is a Business Tax Reform Game Plan Beginning to Take Shape?

by , and | Sep 22, 2017 |

Substantial tax reform is underway and the business community is intently awaiting details of this activity with the aim of positioning themselves to maximize opportunities and minimize any costs or risks that reform may present. How will a cut in the corporate income tax rate, the potential adoption of a “territorial” dividend exemption system or the elimination or altering of recent regulations impact companies?

Continue Reading



read more

John Doe Intervenes in Virtual Currency Summons Enforcement Case

by | Jul 21, 2017 | , , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has broad authority under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7602 to issue administrative summonses to taxpayers and third parties to gather information to ascertain the correctness of any return. If the IRS does not know the identity of the parties whose records are covered by the summons, the IRS may issue a “John Doe” summons only upon receipt of a court order. The court will issue the order if the IRS has satisfied the three criteria provided in IRC Section 7609(f):

  • The summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,
  • There is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law, and
  • The information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records (and the identity of the person or persons with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge