testimony Archives - TAX CONTROVERSY 360

New Proposed Regulations Limit Use of Non-Government Attorneys

by K. Christy Vouri-Misso | Mar 29, 2018 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Uncategorized

On March 28, 2018, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published Proposed Regulation § 301.7601-1(b)(3)(i) and (ii) which permits the IRS to hire outside specialists to assist in determining the correctness of a taxpayer’s tax liability. The Proposed Regulation also contains an exception specifically prohibiting the IRS from hiring outside attorneys to review summoned information or question witnesses providing testimony under oath.

The participation of outside attorneys became controversial during the audit of a large technology company when the IRS hired an outside law firm to augment its own resources for the transfer pricing audit of the company. On October 16, 2017, in response to the requirements of Executive Order 13789, requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to review all regulations issued after January 1, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that they were considering proposing an amendment to Treas. Reg. § 301.7602-1(b)(3) in order to narrow the scope with respect to non-government attorneys. See our prior coverage here. (more…)

Tax Court Considering Allowing Remote Testimony

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 31, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

We have previously reported on the various forums in which taxpayers can litigate tax cases, noting that the vast majority of tax cases are litigated in the US Tax Court (Tax Court). The Tax Court is the preferred forum for several reasons, including that the judges are all tax specialists, and taxpayers can litigate their case without having to pay the tax beforehand. Trial sessions and other work of the Tax court are conducted by presidentially appointed judges, senior judges serving on recall and Special Trial Judges. These judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in designated cities.

We have also previously noted important procedural developments and other news from the Tax Court, such as proposals to changes the Court’s rules: Tax Court Considering Requiring Notice of Non-Party Subpoenas, Tax Court Anticipates Releasing Revisions to its Rules in the Near Future and Tax Court Adopts Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Complaints. According to recent media reports, the Tax Court is currently considering whether to use teleconference technology to take testimony from witnesses remotely, rather than requiring a witness’ physical appearance in Court. (more…)

IRS Valuation Expert for Michael Jackson Estate Case Almost Thrown Out!

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 2, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On September 29, 2017, Judge Mark Holmes of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) issued an order in the estate tax valuation case brought by the Estate of Michael Jackson (the Estate). In the case, the Estate moved to strike the testimony of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) valuation expert witness on the grounds that he lied. The IRS acknowledged that its expert “did not tell the truth when he testified that he did not work on or write a valuation report for the IRS Examination Division in the third-party taxpayer audit.” Apparently, the expert had worked on the valuation of Whitney Houston’s Estate on behalf of the IRS, and failed to list the engagement in his report. He also omitted one publication that he wrote and one case in which he provided expert-witness testimony at a deposition.

The question for the Court was the proper remedy for the omissions, with sanctions ranging from striking all of the expert’s testimony (and thereby depriving the IRS of the only evidence in its favor on the key issues in the case) to discounting the expert’s testimony and weight to be given to his opinions. The Court decided to take the latter route.

The Court explained that striking expert testimony pursuant to Tax Court Practice and Procedure Rule 143(g) (governing expert witness reports) occurs when a putative expert omits information from the report without good cause for the omission. In this case, the Court explained that the IRS’s expert failed to disclose his valuation work on his long list of expert-testimony engagements attached to his resume, but ruled that the omission was merely a “clerical error.” However, the expert did provide false testimony at trial when he testified he did not work on or write a valuation report in the matter involving Whitney Houston’s Estate. The Court determined that there had to be some negative consequences for the expert’s false testimony, and settled on discounting his credibility and opinions.

Practice Point: The order in Estate of Michael Jackson, as well as the Tax Court’s prior opinion in Tucker v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2017-183, highlight a very important aspect of preparing an expert report for submission in Tax Court: it must be complete and accurate at the time of its submission. It is good practice to run a litigation database search (e.g., Lexis or Westlaw) on your expert’s testimony experience as a check on what the expert has listed in his report.