Internal Revenue Service Archives - Page 18 of 38

Internal Revenue Service

IRS Litigation Guideline Memorandums Obsoleted

by McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 7, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issues many forms of public and private guidance, both to government personnel and to taxpayers. Litigation Guideline Memorandums (LGMs) are one such type of guidance, and were issued by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel through 1999 to provide information and instruction relating to litigating procedures and method, and standards and criteria on issues and matters of significant interest to litigating attorneys in the Office of Chief Counsel. LGMs have been cited many times as evidence of the IRS’s position on a matter, and courts have ranged from citing LGMs as supporting authority to dismissing them as inconsistent with other IRS guidance and/or merely reflecting the IRS’s litigating position.

On November 2, 2016, the IRS announced in Office of Chief Counsel Notice CC-2017-001 that, to the extent existing LGMs have not been formally obsoleted or withdrawn, they may now be considered obsolete. However, the IRS recognized that LGMs can serve as useful tools and historical records of previous positions taken by the IRS in litigation, and that IRS attorneys seeking guidance on issues that were previously covered by an LGM should determine whether updated guidance has been provided or request advice from the IRS National Office. This indicates that LGMs may continue to be relevant for both taxpayers and IRS personnel in determining the IRS’s position on a particular issue.

Timing of a US Federal Tax Controversy

by K. Christy Vouri-Misso | Oct 18, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Understanding the timing of a US Federal tax controversy is helpful in creating a sound and efficient strategy. This timeline shows the typical timing of a US Federal tax controversy, from the IRS’s examination of the return, through administrative appeals, litigation in Tax Court, Circuit Court appeal, and to ultimate assessment of tax.

Deference Denied to IRS Notice Issued Post-Litigation

by Robin L. Greenhouse | Oct 10, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Sometimes a loss in a discovery battle is really a win. That is certainly the outcome in Sunoco, Inc. v. United States, 2016 WL 334578 (Fed. Cl., No. 1:15-cv-00587, 10/6/16). In Sunoco, Judge Wheeler of the Court of Federal Claims denied Sunoco’s motion to compel production of the background file documents for Notice 2015-56 (Aug. 15, 2015). The court, however, denied the motion on the grounds that the requested documents are unnecessary because the Notice is not entitled to Skidmore deference.

Under Skidmore v. Swift, courts may give deference to an agency’s interpretation of its governing laws even when the agency does not use its rulemaking powers. In deciding whether to give deference to the agency’s interpretation, courts consider the interpretation’s “thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” 323 U.S. 134, 139-140 (1944).

In June 2015, Sunoco filed a complaint seeking refunds for federal income taxes relating to the tax treatment of the alcohol fuel mixture credit. Sixty-five days after the complaint was filed, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-56 taking a position contrary to Sunoco’s. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment. In its filings, the government claimed, among other things, that Notice 2015-56 was entitled to Skidmore deference. In response, Sunoco sought internal IRS documents relating to the issuance of Notice 2015-56 that it contended would assist the court in determining whether Skidmore deference was appropriate.

In denying Skidmore deference to Notice 2015-56, the court identified three factors – the timing of the Notice, the lack of authority and the inconsistency with prior IRS advice. The court found the Notice to be self-serving because it was issued when “it was actually litigating.” Additionally, the Notice provided no authority for its position, which the court would have expected considering its finding that the position conflicted with the Internal Revenue Service’s position in a Chief Counsel Advice issued two years earlier. Thus, the court denied Sunoco’s motion to compel on the ground that it was moot because Notice 2015-56 is not entitled to deference.

In situations where the government is claiming deference to agency pronouncements, taxpayers should consider requesting the background files. These files might shed light on the matters considered by the government and provide a defense to the deference argument.

Privileged Materials Provided Without Taxpayers’ Consent Should Not Waive Privilege

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 16, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Uncategorized

In today’s tax environment and with the potential monetary awards to whistleblowers under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7623, taxpayers are facing the increased possibility that their confidential and privileged materials may be provided to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without the taxpayer’s consent. This raises serious privilege and ethical issues related to the attorney-client, work product and Code Section 7525 tax practitioner privileges.

In a welcome development, Drita Tonuzi, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), stated at a DC Bar Association event on September 8, 2016, that if someone who is not authorized to release a taxpayer’s documents turns them over to the government, they will first be reviewed to determine if the information is protected by federal laws or the Code. The Whistleblower Office will then redact confidential information before releasing it to examination agents. However, this leaves some unanswered questions.

Case law reflects that the unauthorized production of privileged materials by an ex-employee or by an employee without the authority to waive the privilege for the taxpayer should not be viewed as a waiver of the privilege. The problem is that taxpayers may not know that privileged materials have been provided to the IRS without the IRS’s consent and therefore would not be able to take steps to assert the privilege and request the return of such documents from the IRS. Taxpayers may want to make a request to the IRS at the beginning of an audit to provide it with a list of all materials received by third-parties so that the taxpayer can assess whether any privileged documents have been provided to the IRS without the taxpayer’s consent. If the IRS does not provide the list or refuses to acknowledge the taxpayer’s request, the taxpayer may have at least preserved its right to later assert privilege if it turns out privileged materials were provided to the IRS without the taxpayer’s consent.

If an IRS attorney receives privileged documents and does not return them to the taxpayer, this raises potential ethical issues. Attorneys who receive privileged documents where it is clear that such documents are privileged and were not intended to be disclosed by the taxpayer or the privilege was intended to be waived, may have a duty to not examine those materials and instead return them to the taxpayer. The IRS’s recent comment about reviewing and redacting what it believes is privileged before sending to the examining agent appears at odds with this duty.

In fact, since at least 2009, the IRS has demonstrated a growing awareness of the privilege concerns raised by whistleblowers that stand in a privileged relationship to a taxpayer, even while the IRS’s current policies have not fully addressed the problem. In August 2015, the Internal Revenue Manual was amended to provide that the IRS generally must assume that any “current employee whistleblower has access to information that may be subject to a privilege that has not been affirmatively waived by the taxpayer.” I.R.M. 25.2.2.4.4. That same section of the Manual and [...]

Continue Reading

GAO Reports on IRS Guidance Procedures

by Jeffrey M. Glassman and McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 8, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report regarding how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) communicates tax guidance to the public.This report was prepared following bipartisan requests from members of both houses of Congress.

The GAO report: (1) analyzed documents that defined IRS guidance types; (2) reviewed the IRS’s policies and procedures for issuing guidance; (3) reviewed literature on the IRS’s issuance of guidance; (4) interviewed individuals at relevant government and tax practitioner organizations; and (5) reviewed IRS guidance issued during 2013 through 2015. Below is a chart included in the GAO report that illustrates various forms of guidance, and the weight that the IRS says attaches to each.

GAO blog post

The GAO found that the IRS uses many different forms of guidance to communicate its interpretation of tax laws to the public, but considers only the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) guidance to be authoritative. The IRS’s statement that only IRB guidance is authoritative could be considered an oversimplification. We previously wrote (here, here, and here) about how deference principles may apply to various forms of guidance.

The GAO found further that while the IRS has detailed procedures for identifying, prioritizing, and issuing new guidance, the IRS lacks procedures for documenting the decision about what form of guidance to issue.

(more…)

IRS Begins Formal Assessment of CAP Program

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 29, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Tax Refunds, Uncategorized

On August 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that its Large Business & International (LB&I) division is in the process of assessing the Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) program. CAP is a real-time audit program that seeks to resolve the tax treatment of all or most return issues before the tax return is filed. CAP began as a pilot program in 2005 with 17 taxpayers and has grown to currently include 181 taxpayers. In 2011, the CAP program was made permanent and expanded to include Pre-Cap and Compliance Maintenance. Pre-Cap provides interested taxpayers with a roadmap of the steps required for gaining entry into CAP, which as noted above is the standard real-time audit program whereby the IRS examines relevant transactions and proposed reporting positions before the tax return is filed. Cap Maintenance is intended for taxpayers who have been in CAP, have fewer complex issues, and have a track record of working cooperatively and transparently with the IRS. Under this phase, there is a reduced level of review with respect to the pre-filing review and the post-filing examination.

We previously wrote about the potential death of the CAP program. Based on the recent announcement, it appears that CAP is now on its deathbed. The recent announcement states that no new taxpayers will be accepted into the CAP program for the 2017 application season that begins in September 2016, which means that only taxpayers currently in the CAP and Compliance Maintenance phases may continue in the program. No new Pre-Cap application will be accepted and taxpayers currently in pre-Cap will not be accepted into the CAP phase. However, taxpayers currently in the CAP phase may be moved into the Compliance Maintenance phase, as appropriate. The announcement is not surprising in light of recent reorganization changes by the IRS and shifts to a “campaigns” approach, which we have written about here and here. The announcement explains that the CAP assessment is necessary given the IRS’s limited resources and constraints, combined with a business need to evaluate existing IRS programs to ensure that they are aligned with LB&I’s strategic vision. We will continue to monitor developments on this front, but for now any taxpayers that were planning on applying for the CAP program will no longer have that opportunity.

Inversions and Debt/Equity Regulations Top Treasury’s 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan

by Kevin Spencer | Aug 16, 2016 | Appellate Courts, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Yesterday, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released the 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan (Plan) containing 281 projects that are priorities for Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the period July 2016 through June 2017. The Plan contains several categories of topics, starting with consolidated returns and ending with tax-exempt bonds. The Plan also contains an appendix that lists more routine guidance that is generally published each year. Treasury and the IRS will update and republish the plan during the next 12 months to reflect additional items that have become priorities and guidance that has been published during the year. The public is invited to continue to provide comments and suggestions as guidance is written throughout the year. (more…)

IRS UPDATES FATCA FAQs

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 15, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On August 8, 2016, the IRS updated the “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) on the FATCA IDES Technical FAQs section at IRS.gov.

IDES stands for the “International Data Exchange Services” system that allows the IRS to exchange taxpayer information with foreign tax authorities. While the FAQs are focused primarily on technical issues, such as data preparation, testing and security, several of the revisions provide guidance on substantive FATCA reporting issues.

New Q:A18 clarifies that reports made by “Direct Reporting Non-Financial Foreign Entities” (NFFE) located in Model One IGA jurisdictions are to be made directly to the IRS rather than through their Host Country Tax Authority (HCTA). Generally when using IDES, files uploaded by a foreign financial institution (FFI) in a “M1O2” jurisdiction will be routed to the HCTA. The FAQ provides that “when a Direct Reporting NFFE applies for its Global Intermediary Identification Number(GIIN) through the FATCA Online Registration portal it must specify its jurisdiction as ‘Other’ if it is located in a M1O2 jurisdiction.” The GIIN assigned as a result of this registration option then instructs IDES to route transmissions directly to the IRS.

M1O2 stands for “Model 1, Option 2” which enables FFIs located in jurisdictions with Model 1 IGAs to report directly through IDES rather than to their HCTA, if such procedure is permitted by their HCTA.

The IRS also updated Q:C20, which deals with “nil” FATCA reports (i.e., FATCA reports in which no US accounts are reported). The revised FAQ confirms that generally, only Direct Reporting Non-Financial Foreign Entities and Sponsoring Entities’ reporting on behalf of a Sponsored Direct Reporting NFFEs are required to submit a nil report. Nil reports are optional for all other filers. The FAQ clarifies that while nil reporting may not be required by the IRS, it may be required by the local jurisdiction under that jurisdiction’s FATCA legislation, and reminds taxpayers to consult with local tax administration before filing FATCA reports.

The IRS continues to periodically update both the technical and substantive FATCA FAQs on its website to provide guidance to affected entities as compliance issues arise.

Facebook Battles IRS In Summons Enforcement Case

by Jean A. Pawlow and Kevin Spencer | Aug 12, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Facebook is in a protracted battle with the IRS related to its off-shoring of IP to an Irish affiliate. Read more here. The IRS issued an administrative summons for the documents, and Facebook has refused to comply with the summons. The IRS is asking the court to enforce the summons and force Facebook to turn over the requested documents. The court agreed that on its face, the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. Facebook will now have to tell the court why it refuses to turn over the documents. Review the court order here. Assumedly, Facebook is asserting that it is not required to disclose the requested materials based upon a claim of privilege. The case demonstrates that the IRS is aggressively seeking documents and information from taxpayers and their representatives in cases involving international tax issues.

Proposed New IRS Rules for Valuing Interest in Family-Controlled Entities May Curb Discounts For Estate, Gift and Generation-Skipping Tax Purposes

by Carlyn S. McCaffrey and Richard L. Dees | Aug 5, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On August 2, 2016, the US Department of the Treasury issued long-awaited, proposed regulations on the valuation of interests in family-controlled entities for estate, gift and generation-skipping tax purposes. If finalized, these new rules are likely to substantially increase estate taxes payable by the estates of owners of family-controlled businesses, farms, real estate companies and investment companies. They would overturn well-settled law that for decades has allowed valuation discounts to be applied to these interests. Estate planners have long relied on the current rules in minimizing the transfer tax cost of passing family-controlled entities from one generation to the next.

The new rules are in proposed form and are not effective until issued in final form. This will probably not occur until sometime next year at the earliest. Proposed regulations often are changed, sometimes materially, before they are finalized. And sometimes they are not finalized quickly or at all. As a result, no one can be certain of the final form that these rules will take or when they will become effective, if at all.

That said, for some of you this may be an opportunity to plan your estate under current law for at least a few more months. We recommend that you discuss with your estate planner whether you should consider further steps now in light of these possible rule changes. If you have transactions in process, you may want to consider accelerating their completion. At a minimum, this possible law change may act as a prompt for families to have needed—perhaps long overdue—tax, succession and estate planning discussions with their professional advisers.

View recent press coverage of the proposed regulations.

Read our past discussions of these regulations and also our post on recent developments.