Procedurally Taxing

Legal Tax Blog

Subscribe to our Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Having trouble subscribing? Click here for help.

  • About the Blog

Summary Opinions for the week ending 8/28/15

September 28, 2015 by Stephen Olsen 2 Comments

IMG_0286I’m pretty sure every single week is a good week to be Keith Fogg, but two weeks ago was good even by his standards.  The adorable baby girl to the left is Keith’s first granddaughter, Lily.  Keith’s daughter and Lily are both doing wonderful, and the entire family is ecstatic.  Also cool, Keith presented at the ABA Tax Section meeting last week in Chicago.  The panel was entitled Basic and Trending Issues in Tax Collection, which also featured Nina Olson and Mary Gillum.  At the presentation, he used many PT posts to highlight a number of cases implicating these issues.  Those materials can be found here for free!…which makes sense, because they are on the blog for free also.

To the other tax procedure:

read more...
  • This is actually from September, but I thought I would include it now, since it is receiving a fair amount of attention.  The IRS has announced it is terminating its appeals arbitration program.  Jack Townsend has coverage on his Federal Tax Procedure Blog, as does Prof. Timothy Todd on Forbes.  In the Revenue Ruling announcing the termination of the program, the Service noted only two cases were successfully handled with the arbitration.  The mediation programs are still available.
  • Also from September, but making the news last week, Coca-Cola had disclosed on its Form 8-K with the SEC that the IRS has issued a SNOD indicating it intends to assess $3.3 billion (with a B) in taxes and interest due to transfer pricing matters for licensing intangibles to related foreign entities.   Kelly Phillips Erb over at Forbes has some additional coverage, indicating this will be designated for trial, which would impact CC’s ability to seek administrative solutions in Appeals or in the Advanced Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program.  It also means the IRS thinks this case will have significant impact on the tax law.  Interestingly, the 8-K notes the transfer pricing methodology was approved in a closing agreement with the Service in ’96, and confirmed on audit through ’06.   We’ll be following this moving forward, and seems like it should implicate a handful of tax procedure items.
  • Agostino & Associates has issued its September Monthly Journal of Tax Controversy, and this month drifts into tax policy to go along with its usual high quality practice articles. The first article touches on the need to educate Congress on the negative impacts to customer service for taxpayers and the issues it creates for practitioners.  In addition, there is a great article on collateral sanctions in tax administration, and a substantial FAQ on FATCA.
  • The Ninth Circuit upheld the negligence penalties on a taxpayer (lawyer) and his spouse for the improper deduction of a conservation easement due to the fact that a mortgage on the property was not properly subordinated.  See Minnick v. Comm’r for the primary holding, and this ancillary opinion for the negligence penalty discussion.   When an easement is placed on property, it must be done so in perpetuity, and having a pre-existing mortgage that could foreclose on the property thwarts that requirement.  Treasury Regulations 1.170A-14(g)(2) requires any mortgage to be subordinated to the easement in order to obtain the deduction.  In Minnick, the taxpayer took out loans against a property of $1.5MM by 2005.  Shortly thereafter, land development plans were approved to develop a portion of the property, and the taxpayer made a donation of an easement allegedly worth about $941,000 to a land conservation group.  In 2011, when the taxpayer found out about the subordination requirement, the bank agreed to subordinate the debt.  The Court does not specify, but it seems like the property was worth far more than the debt and easement value.  The taxpayer argued that the fact that the easement remained in place, and the fact that the mortgage was eventually subordinated (no harm, no foul) should allow for the deduction.  The Ninth Circuit held that the statute and regulations were clear that the debt had to be subordinated at the time of the easement, and therefore no deduction was allowed.  Ouch!  I should have pulled the briefs on the penalty issue, but did not have time.  The Ninth Circuit gives a nod to a reasonable cause defense for taking the deduction, but states Mr. Minnick was a lawyer who could have read the code and regulations.   If that is the full reason for the lack of reasonable cause, it is somewhat alarming.   Mr. Minnick may not be the one holding the bag at the end of the day, as he sued his lawyer for malpractice relating to the setup of the easement.
  • In Shockley v. Comm’r, we have another Tax Court case dealing with transferee liability and the two prong test under Section 6901 requiring independent liability under state law and the federal law. Marilyn Ames recently covered this topic in great detail for us as it related to the Slone case in the Ninth Circuit just a few days ago.
  • PMTA 2015-010 was released by the Service, which deals with how best to remove the assessment of employment taxes on a professional employer organization (company that handles payroll and pays over withholding taxes), so that the Service could assess against the actual employer.  The PMTA gives an interesting look into the Service processes, but may not be that useful to practitioners in advocating for clients.  There is a line in the memo that I found somewhat confusing, which seemed to indicate only one assessment for the period could be made for the taxes.  This prevented the assessment on the actual employer.  In this case, the withholding agent was actually not a withholding agent under the statute or the common law, so the assessment was incorrect; however, there are situations where the assessment would be correct, and I can’t imagine the Service is then barred from assessing against the employer (or the folks controlling the employer as transferee).  The Service decided to abate the assessment under Section 6404(a) against the withholding agent, which, if it had been a proper assessment does not seem like the correct choice.  The issue present and conclusion were as follows:

Issue:  Whether Code sections 6020 and 6404 provide authority to the Service to prepare and file a Form 941-X in order to remove or abate employment tax liabilities of a professional employer organization.

Conclusion:  Code section 6404 is the legal authority upon which the Service may abate employment tax liabilities assessed against a professional employer organization in the circumstances noted below. Section 6020, which authorizes substitutes for return against non-filers, is an insufficient legal basis for removing or abating a previously made assessment of tax.

  • Another fairly specific issue, but also interesting.  The 11th Circuit vacated its August 4th opinion in Taylor v. Pekerol, and issued a new opinion on August 14th dealing with the unlawful disclosure of tax information related to a taxpayer’s tax crimes prosecution to other criminal suspects and the local news.  The case was tossed at the district level, finding the pro se litigant failed to state a claim regarding the potential violations of Section 6103(k) and 7431(a), and, any such claim would be futile because it was (1) Heck-barred (great term) and that (2) the good faith exceptions to the statutes covered the alleged conduct.

The Circuit Court remanded and gave leave to amend the complaint, finding that there was potential for violations, and Heck was inapplicable.  Two quick interesting notes.  First, Heck is a gosh darn case that holds a criminal cannot bring a civil suit for damages if the judgement would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 477 (1994).  Here, the Court found the disclosure of tax information would not cast doubt on the conviction.  Another issue raised by the government was that the District Court had dismissed the case without prejudice, which it argued should prevent the plaintiff from amending his complaint.  The thought being that he could have refiled.  The 11th generally agreed, but said that if the dismissal was tantamount to being with prejudice, it could allow the amendment.  In Taylor, the statute had closed on the claims, preventing him from refiling the case, so amendment was proper.

  • Section 6707A can be tough on taxpayers who fail to recognize they have entered into a reportable transaction and failed to disclose the same (sure the to-good-to-be-true alarm should probably be sounding off, but it is understandable that some folks think those types of results can be accomplished with good tax planning ).  The Service actually suspended collection efforts on certain penalties under the Section from ’09 to ’10, and the penalty amount was drastically reduced after 2006. The Service has issued proposed regulations on how to calculate the lower penalty amount for failure to report reportable transactions under the amended statute.  Still no reasonable cause exception though.
  • Last January, we covered the 5th Circuit holding in US v. Marshall, which dealt with the extent of transferee liability for gift tax, and whether the tax assessed can surpass the face value of the gift when taking into account interest that may have accrued.  The Marshall in question was J. Howard Marshall, who was involved in a May/very-late-December (like after Christmas) relationship with Anna Nicole Smith (I just read her Wikipedia entry and her first movie was The Hudsucker Proxie?!?!).  She has nothing to do with this case, as it pertains to gifts he made to other family members and trusts for other family members.   The 5th Circuit in August withdrew the prior November order, denied a petition for rehearing, and issued a new decision.  You can find a link to the updated order on TaxProfBlog here.  For all the details, check out the prior posting linked above.  The prior holding stated that the donees were responsible for the tax and interest, which was not capped by the language.  In the updated holding, the 5th Circuit reversed its position, stating that the tax and interest imposed on the donee is limited to the value of the gift under Section 6324(b).  Apparently, Judge Reavley changed his position on this matter, perhaps convinced by Judge Owen, or the very persuasive writing found in the Procedurally Taxing post in January.
  • Former Bears’ QB Kyle Orton thought something stunk, and it wasn’t his play, or the landfills his investment was dealing with, or the methane gas those landfills were supposed to be creating for sale.  What stunk was the faulty tax advice he received in investing in those entities and the creation of the same that resulted in expected tax credits not being issued.  In Green Gas Delaware Statutory Trust v. Commissioner, the Service disallowed the tax credits and assessed substantial tax pursuant to a final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA).  The TMP sought to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the FPAA was invalid because the IRS failed to follow the 120 day timeframe in issuing the NBAP and FPAA, and failed to give a hearing before issuing the FPAA.  The Court held that the issuance of the NBAP in an untimely fashion did not invalidate the issuance of the FPAA, following Bedrosian v. Comm, and Wind Energy Tech Assoc. II v. Comm.  The Court noted that Section 6223(e) provided the remedy for the failure to timely file the notice, and it would not expand that relief to include invalidating the FPAA.  Similarly, the Court found the failure to offer the partnership or partners the ability to participate in an administrative proceeding violated Section 6224, but, like the untimely notice, it did not invalidate the FPAA.   The Court found the partners “may” participate under the statute, but there was no affirmative obligation on the Service to attempt to have a meeting with all parties involved.

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Advanced Pricing, Appeals, Civil Penalties, Collection Activity, Collection Due Process, Disclosure, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Reasonable Cause, TEFRA, Transferee Liability

FinCEN Financial Institution Due Diligence: A Role Model?

October 16, 2014 by Leslie Book 5 Comments

Earlier this year Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed rules to require US financial institutions to conduct due diligence to ensure that US institutions identify the beneficial owners of US accounts. The rules have a significant non tax purpose, and are part of broader efforts to combat international money laundering and combat the flow of funds to terrorist organizations. The proposed rules do, however, have a significant tax purpose. The rulemaking states that one of its purposes is “facilitating reporting and investigations in support of tax compliance, and advancing national commitments made to foreign counterparts in connection with the provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).” FATCA imposes significant burden on banks in other countries. In effect the rules extend due diligence obligations on US institutions in a similar way FACTA imposes obligations on foreign financial institutions. These rules demonstrate that we are willing to impose similar rules on our own banks.

I have not spent considerable time with FATCA reporting obligations, though we do summarize the main parts of the provisions in Saltzman and Book Chapter 17. Two things in particular interest me about the FINCEN proposed rules: 1) its extensive discussion of its proposal and its reaction to earlier comments in the preamble to the proposed rules and 2) its adoption of a simple proposed “Certification of Beneficial Ownership” that all financial institutions could use to ensure that they are collecting required information.

read more...

As to the first point, the preamble’s extensive discussion of its rationale and proposal, this takes us back to Pat Smith’s excellent post last week on the nontax Perez case involving the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before the Supreme Court and the issue as to whether agencies must go through notice and comment when offering a new interpretation of most regulations. There is much discussion in administrative law generally about the pros and cons of pushing agencies into the formality of notice and comment. I will not get much into that discussion here (although I do discuss it extensively in an article I wrote in 2012 for the Florida Tax Review called A New Paradigm for IRS Guidance) but I do offer two brief observations about the benefits of input. One, input from interested parties can lead to better rules. Bureaucrats’ limited experiences often mean that getting comments from regulated parties can help agencies think about issues in different ways than when crafting proposed rules. Second, there is a strong participatory value in allowing parties to exchange ideas with the agency making rules. Even if an agency fails to adopt a commentator’s proposal, a regulated party may respect the rules and the process if the agency engages the regulated party and discusses reasons why, for example, it failed to adopt a suggestion made in a comment.

Treasury and IRS often adopt tax rules without meaningful notice and comment. Sometimes there are strong reasons to do so; other times not as much. In a system predicated on voluntary compliance, the default should be an approach that solicits meaningful and transparent input. The FinCEN proposed rulemaking reflects a greater fidelity to the APA then typically associated with Internal Revenue Code guidance; IRS and Treasury employees engaged in the rulemaking process may be able to learn from the folks over at FinCEN.

As to the second point, as I have previously written (and as championed by one of my favorite authors Atul Gawande in the book The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right), I believe that the creation of checklists or standard forms is an important way to improve tax compliance.

The FinCEN rules in Appendix A contain a fairly clean and straightforward form that institutions can complete and retain. Here is what the preamble says about the comments it received relating to ensuring a standardized approach to collecting beneficial ownership information:

[FinCEN] proposes that a financial institution must satisfy the requirement to identify beneficial owners by obtaining, at the time a new account is opened, the standard certification form attached hereto as Appendix A. To promote consistent customer expectations and understanding, the form in Appendix A plainly describes the beneficial ownership requirement and the information sought from the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer. To facilitate reliance by financial institutions, the form also requires the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer to certify that the information provided on the form is true and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge.

As to reliance on information that the customer tells the bank, the preamble discusses how institutions are to focus on the identity of the individual, rather than the status. In other words, the bank generally does not have to conduct its own investigation as to whether the person identifying himself as the beneficial owner is in fact the beneficial owner. Instead, the rules push on to the banks the requirement to verify the identity of the purported owner. Moreover the rules defer to the banks whether they will “verify the identity of a beneficial owner using documentary or non-documentary methods, as it deems appropriate under its procedures for verifying the identity of customers that are natural persons.”

The rules reflect comments that institutions made about the possible cost associated with pushing on banks the requirement to verify with certainty the status of an individual. In addition, FinCEN’s proposal seems to leverage existing procedures banks use under already in place customer identification rules:

These procedures should enable the financial institution to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the beneficial owner of each legal entity customer. A financial institution must also include procedures for responding to circumstances in which it cannot form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the beneficial owner, as described under the CIP (Customer Identification Program) rules. Because these practices are already well- established and understood at covered financial institutions, FinCEN expects that these institutions will leverage existing compliance procedures.

Some Observations and Parting Thoughts

I am intrigued by the idea of more specific due diligence obligations closely tethered to areas of systemic tax noncompliance. I think the IRS should use due diligence more and particularly with small businesses. It could look to learn from Treasury’s experience with FATCA as well as its own experience with EITC to craft due diligence rules that would promote greater compliance across the board.

One of the complaints about due diligence is its effect on increasing costs of return preparation. Another is its putting preparers in the uncomfortable position of challenging the veracity of clients. There is very limited information to gauge the impact of the due diligence rules in the tax system. As to EITC, the only specific Code-based due diligence requirement, research shows steady decline in reported preparer usage for EITC over the last few years. That period coincides with a heightened statutory penalty for EITC due diligence failures and Treasury’s adoption of more robust due diligence rules. (I discuss the EITC data in an earlier post, which has shown paid preparer usage among EITC returns decline to 62% in the 2012 filing season from 72% in the 2008 filing season; I have also discussed TIGTA’s study of IRS’s failure to assess hundreds of millions of dollars in preparer due diligence penalties). The paid preparer decline in EITC returns may have other causes, such as greater taxpayer facility with tax prep software or preparers failing to sign the returns to avoid the sting of potential penalties for failing to comply with the due diligence rules.

Perhaps it is time for IRS to take a more concerted effort at soliciting feedback on ways it can use targeted due diligence rules. That discussion in the form of proposed rules with meaningful comment and response could perhaps shift the adversarial posture that has dominated the IRS’s efforts to more directly regulate preparers through testing and education, manifesting itself now in for example the AICPA’s suit to stop the IRS’s voluntary certification plan.

A meaningful discussion with the preparer community can also highlight what information IRS may need to solicit from self-prepared returns so the IRS does not create unintended problems if it enhances the information that preparers have to solicit. The problem IRS has to address is noncompliance generally, and additional obligations that only stick to preparer-generated returns are likely to create an even larger problem of ghost prepared returns leaving preparers off the radar and ultimately placing taxpayers at great risk.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Earned Income Credit, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA)

Summary Opinions for 6/27/14

July 7, 2014 by Stephen Olsen 1 Comment

We hope you all had a wonderful 4th of July!  Here is the Summary Opinions for two weeks ago, which would have been posted last week but we had too much other great content.  Last week’s SumOp will be posted later this week.

Special thanks to our guest posters from two weeks ago.  Stu Gibson wrote a really wonderful post on Clarke, highlighting the pros and cons of the decision.  Not to be outdone, Professors Stephanie Hoffer and Christopher Walker provided additional commentary on the Kuretstki decision, including responses to comments made by Patrick Smith and Kristin Hickman.

  • From the Post and Shell E-Flash, comes an excellent write up of the In Re Kellogg Brown & Root case decided by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirming attorney-client privilege to documents created for internal investigations for corporate compliance.  The post contains a nice summary of the background on privilege and the four main holdings in the case.  The last of which the authors found to be the most important, where the Court reversed the District Court in applying the “primary purpose” test as a “but for” test or a “sole purpose” test. The post also contains a number of practice tips I would commend to readers, including when to mark documents as privileged and when to include counsel to ensure protection of communications.
  • Wells Fargo had a busy week last week.  We will be writing up a post on a case decided last week in favor of Wells Fargo regarding what constitutes the “same taxpayer” in a merger, when offsetting underpayments and overpayments.  The case was very timely, as it impacts interest calculations, and Les just submitted a revised Chapter 6 on Interest for Saltzman and Book, which should be available this fall.  The US District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled against WF’s last week on its objections to the master’s application of privilege.  The Court did not put stock in WF’s claim that the master lacked the authority to determine the matter, and quickly moved to the privilege question.  The Court found there was no evidence that the in-house lawyers were reviewing the documents in question for legal accuracy or for legal advice, but instead only for factual accuracy.  It is worth mentioning that the attorneys were not the original drafters off the board memorandums in question, and that the Court did not find actual evidence that the memorandums were actually reviewed by in-house counsel.  I would suggest in-house and corporate counsel review the suggestions in the Post and Shell blog post above, as it is possible that these memorandums could have been privileged if handled in a different manner.
  • On Jack Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes Blog, he has posted a letter from the IRS to Congressman Bill Posey defending the implementation of FATCA.  And, also from Jack’s blog, an excerpt from the JCT report on proposed changes to the multilateral convention on tax administration, which has a summary of the laws of international enforcement.
  • Paul Daugerdas was sentenced last week to 15 years in the slammer for orchestrating one of the largest tax fraud schemes in US history.  Here is the DOJ release.  Tax Girl has some wonderful and comprehensive coverage here.  Every time I see white collar criminals going to jail, I immediately think of Office Space.  I would link to the scene, but I think it is too inappropriate for our blog.
  • I’m not sure this counts as procedure or policy, but we’ve reserved the right to write about other things that interest us.  In United States v. Peters, the ED of Missouri, has held that a taxpayer could not characterize a sale forced by a court as an involuntary conversion under Section 1033.  It appears that the taxpayers did not actually follow the Section 1033 requirements, which was probably fatal, but what I found interesting was that the holding states this would not have qualified because the taxpayers originally agreed to the sale of the property.  Around closing, the taxpayers walked away from the sale, and the purchaser sued for specific performance, and won.  The Court concluded that was a voluntary sale, and the other court was simply enforcing the terms of the contract.   This makes sense to me, but I had never researched the issue and found the holding interesting.  I couldn’t find a free link yet, but the case number is 4:12CV01395 AGF.
  • I am working with Les on Chapter 5 of Saltz and Book right now, which deals with statutes of limitations, and I think this Chief Counsel Advice will make its way into the revised chapter, as well as the revised chapter on returns (Chapter 4).  In CCA 201425011, the Service indicated a P’ship or LLC return that was filed but not signed by an authorized  person is not a valid return, but this does not impact the limitations period for the partners, as the partners’ returns are the applicable return for starting the statute.  This does not offer any new guidance, but in the CCA the pass-through nature of the return alters the general rule that would otherwise provide that the failure to submit a valid return triggers an indefinite SOL on assessment.
  • If you intentionally ignore your mail and actively thwart delivery, you aren’t going to be able to claim you never received notice of your notice of deficiency and question the underlying tax.  See Onyango v. Comm’r.
  • Daisy Barton, from www.accounting-degree.org, asked me to post this infographic her page created on tax policy and income inequality.  I have not fact checked this content.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Collection Activity, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Information document request (IDR), Notice of deficiency, Privilege, Summons

Summary Opinions for 5/9/14

May 14, 2014 by Stephen Olsen Leave a Comment

The ABA Tax Section meeting was great, and we got a lot of wonderful ideas for writing (and hopefully roped in a few excellent guest bloggers, including Dan Alban from yesterday’s Loving post).  And although we were on a posting vacation in DC, the tax procedure did not stop.  Here are the things we missed last week while basking in the glory of three days of tax talk:

read more...
  • The Tax Court decision in Carpentier v. Comm’r reviewed the request for fees and costs for an interest abatement case.  The taxpayer attempted to lump some of the fees and costs from the underlying deficiency battle in with the interest abatement case, and the Court held that was “statutorily, jurisdictionally, and chronologically separate and distinct” from the abatement review.  The Court also noted an inefficiency and inequity created by the statutory structure that prevented the taxpayer from raising the interest abatement during her deficiency action, stating:

We recognize that petitioner’s inability to raise an interest abatement claim in her 2004 deficiency proceedings resulted in her inability to be the prevailing party in those proceedings and to recover costs and fees for respondent’s delay. Under existing law, however, a taxpayer is left with no remedy or ability to recover costs caused by the delay or actions of the Commissioner’s employees during the period giving rise to the abatement of interest claim. That result, as highlighted by the circumstances of this case, is unfortunate and ironic, but something that can be remedied only by Congress.

 The Court did allow fees for the abatement action, but cut the fees for both a paid professional and a clinic that was assisting.  The Court appeared to look closely at each bill, and culled away portions that it thought were not specific enough or backed by the facts of the case.  This could be instructive for practitioners contemplating such a request, who should be very specific and accurate in keeping time.

  • In an opinion (Flake v. Comm’r) stay at home parents around the world should love, the Tax Court has held that poor recordkeeping and being disorganized was not indicative of fraud, but “attributable to…[the taxpayer’s] competing duties as a mother to numerous children rather than fraudulent intent.”  My wife just said, “told you so, what is your excuse.”  Uncool.  I parent…sometimes.
  • SBSE has  released internal guidance on its Fast Track Settlement (FTS) program.  SB/SE FTS is a non-mandatory dispute resolution program where SB/SE and a taxpayer can take specific issues to Appeals for review, however, the case remains in SB/SE.  The guidance provides a strong overview of which taxpayers may be eligible, when SB/SE should consider using FTS, the process and how resolution may be obtained.  FTS and other alternative dispute resolution methods available before the various Exam groups are discussed in great detail in Saltzman and Book, Chapter 8.16, which was recently rewritten this past year.
  • Another week, another FATCA notice (Notice 2014-33), this time with the Service indicating that for 2014 and 2015 it will consider whether a FFI made a good faith effort to comply with the FATCA regs.  The notice contains a fair amount of information, full coverage of which is beyond the scope of SumOp, but it is worth noting that the Service will look at good faith in enforcement in certain circumstances.  Also worth noting is that some accounts opened from July 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015 can be treated as preexisting obligations for due diligence, withholding and reporting.  Both of these points were hot topics at the ABA FATCA Update for Onshore and Offshore Private Investment Funds talk, as was how to actually use the online registration.  The panel did a great job, but could not add much as to what “good faith” was.  They did say to start the process ASAP, and to create written policies to follow.
  • I suspect someone at DOJ invested slightly too much of his or her allowance in Beanie Babies and is now looking for retribution.  Here is a nice summary by Janet Novack at Forbes of the DOJ’s argument in its appeals brief on the Ty Warner weak slap on the wrist.  They have called this “substantively unreasonable”.  Ms. Novak notes the government hasn’t won this type of appeal since SCOTUS said the sentencing guidelines were deemed not binding.  Jack Townsend also has a great summary on his Federal Tax Crimes Blog, where he discusses if Mr. Warner’s sentence will survive appeal.  From Jack’s post, the line of the day (week, year?): when the criminal tax client asks his lawyer if he will get the same leniency in sentence, the response should probably be, “You’re not rich enough to get that quality of justice.”   

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Civil Penalties, Collection Activity, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Interest

Summary Opinions for 04/11/2014

April 14, 2014 by Stephen Olsen Leave a Comment

 

IMG_3122Villanova Law rained down its superior basketball talent on Temple Law at the fourth annual Deans’ Cup Basketball Tournament.  It wasn’t the rain, or thunder or lightning, that had Temple quivering in fear.  It was the blanketing Fogg that kept them in check.  Our own Keith Fogg, sporting the recreational spectacles (Rec Specs), participated again in this great fundraiser for the public interest fellows of both schools.  A crowd favorite, the raucous backing of his fans helped propel ‘Nova to a victory.

The cases in the round up this week are almost as entertaining as the spectacular sign in the photo.  We have jeopardy levies being upheld, even though the settlement officer wrongly decided the request for review was untimely, the Service failing to prove notice in TFRP cases with its computer log, bad puns involving Courtney Love and her band Hole, Mr. Hom claiming FBAR disclosure to DOJ is inappropriate again, and TFRP refund rejections not being an “IRS position” for administrative cost recovery:

read more...
  • The Tax Court upheld a jeopardy levy in Lee Ang v. Comm’r (not to be confused with the incomparable director, Ang Lee, although both did appear to attend NYU), where the settlement officer incorrectly determined that the request for review was untimely. As a side note, this case involved a nominee lien, which Keith wrote a great post on last week that generated some very interesting comments. In Mr. Ang’s case, the Court found that he was not prejudiced by the settlement officer’s incorrect finding that the request for administrative review of the levy was untimely.  Based on the record, and IRS settlement notes, that determination appeared to have little or nothing to do with the sustaining of the jeopardy levy, and it was Mr. Ang’s actions to obfuscate his holdings that resulting in the levy remaining in place.
  • Courtney Love has found herself in a tax Hole.  The IRS has slapped a $320k notice of tax lien on her.  One of greatest things about the notice of federal tax lien is the regular opportunities it gives to observe “stars” who do not pay their federal taxes.  While most federal tax matters are private, the notice of federal tax lien tells the world that someone owes taxes and it tells the amount due at the time of the filing of the notice.  Stars who fail to pay their federal taxes do for the collection division what high rollers who cheat on their taxes do for the criminal division.  This is the best advertising the IRS can get.
  • The District Court for Northern Florida in Thomas v. US  (couldn’t find the order online yet for free, but this link will take you to information on the docket) granted summary judgment for a taxpayer on a TFRP case finding the Service failed to meet its burden of proving proper notice.   In the case, proper notice was described as follows:

 

That statute states, “No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) unless the Secretary notifies the taxpayer in writing by mail to an address as determined under section 6212(b) or in person that the taxpayer shall be subject to an assessment of such penalty.” 26 U.S.C. § 6672(b)(1). The notice “shall precede any notice and demand of any penalty under subsection (a) by at least 60 days.” 26 U.S.C. § 6672(b)(2). The Internal Revenue Manual §5.7.4.7 explains that the IRS should fulfill this notice requirement by hand delivering or sending via certified mail a Form 1153 letter to the taxpayer. The Form 1153 letter gives notices of the assessment, contains a description of appeal rights, and allows the responsible party the opportunity to agree or appeal the penalty. I.R.M. §5.7.4.7. The notice must be sent to the taxpayer’s last known address, but proof of receipt is not required.

Relying on the 11th Cir. case in Bonaventure (almost identical facts but unreported), the Court found an unsigned Form 1153, and statements about proper procedure were not sufficient to show certified mailing of the notice to the taxpayer. Although other Circuits have dealt with what is proper notice, I could not find another Circuit dealing with this particular issue.  Court did not find that Service was entitled to presumption of official regularity.

  • From TaxProfBlog, we found this OIC settlement rate table on Cleanslatetax.com.  The rate shows a steady increase in accepted OICs from 2008 to now, with an acceptance rates around 42% last year. Keith said to me he thought this had to do with more low income taxpayers using the program, and clearly qualifying, and few high income or asset taxpayers trying to qualify, but failing.
  • The IRS has updated its FATCA FAQs, increasing the content on registration of various entities.
  • Mr. Hom is tenacious.  The Northern District of California has tossed another of his counterclaims for wrongful disclosure between Treasury and the DOJ in his FBAR case (Docket No. C 13-03721).  We have covered Mr. Hom’s tax issues before on this issue here, and on his 90 day letter being invalid because it failed to include some TAS info here.
  • The Tax Court in Purciello v. Comm’r has decided that the Service was substantially justified in its positions taken against a taxpayer in a penalty case, when it seemed pretty clear the IRS did a terrible job in handling the matter…in this instance, the failures had nothing to do with the difficult to attain Section 7430 administrative costs.  The Purciellos had already recouped some legal fees related to a refund stemming from the same case, where the Service took the position that the refund claim was improper.  In the tax case related to the administrative handling of Purciellos’ claim, the Service eventually decided its position was incorrect.  The Court found that the Letters 3784 denying the claim did not officially take a position, and it wasn’t until the penalties were abated had the Service taken a substantially justified position.  The Service apparently also lost the case file, failed to follow proper assessment procedure, and was unresponsive for many years.  For Section 7430, the first of a notice of deficiency or an Appeals determination can generally be the Service position.  Courts have held that notice of deficiency has the same meaning as under Section 6212 (90 day letter), which isn’t applicable in TFRP cases. We’ve extolled the virtue of qualified offers in this blog in the past, but since the Service had not taken a position, I am not sure it would have helped the taxpayer here.  Perhaps it makes sense to consider a revision to the statute allowing a TFRP refund denial to be a position of the IRS.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Appeals, Civil Penalties, Collection Activity, Collection Due Process, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Levy, Offer in Compromise, Qualified Offer

Summary Opinions for 03/07/2014

March 11, 2014 by Stephen Olsen Leave a Comment

Post covers a diverse and interesting range of cases and news.  Seemingly important bankrutcy decision out of the 7th Cir., Lil Wayne being Lil Wayne when it comes to taxes, interesting Chief Counsel notice on amended S-corp returns after the statutory period has passed, people getting choked, employment tax audits…

read more...
  • First up is In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., a 7th Circuit bankruptcy holding from early February that did not land on my radar until a recent article was published in the Legal Intelligencer.  In the case, the Circuit Court held that a debtor in possession could not attempt to recoup federal tax payments pursuant to Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code ( authorizing a trustee to bring a state law fraudulent transfer claim).  Other lower courts had held that Section 106(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code extended the waiver of sovereign immunity to Section 544 also, but the 7th Circuit disagreed, stating the bankruptcy provision requires a valid paid creditor under state law, which would not extend to the United States because of sovereign immunity.
  • Joshua Blank, of NYU, added his article “Tax Privacy and Tax Compliance in the United States” to SSRN.  This article appears to borrow from Mr. Blank’s prior scholarship on this topic, and was put together for a symposium in Brazil on tax administration.  The impact on compliance of privacy of tax information or public disclosure is a topic often discussed in our blog, and this article provides a nice summary.
  •   In CCA 201409005, the Service has indicated it will review on a case by case basis the processing of amended S corporation returns after the period for assessment under Section 6501 and the period for a refund under Section 6511 have both run when the return shows no change in the amount of tax due by the corporation.  The Service decided it has no obligation to accept the return, and it found no prohibition.  Why would you file such a return?  In this case, the amended return modified flow through income and credits passing to a shareholder who had made a timely personal refund claim based on these flow through.  The shareholder needed/wanted the Form 1120S to back up his claims on the personal return.  Although not binding, the Service did state that that since the late amended Form 1120S would impact the timely filed personal return, that may provide justification for processing the amended Form 1120S.  A fairly taxpayer favorable decision, if implemented.
  • Lew Taishoff on the Taishoff Law Firm blog has posted regarding Murphy v. Comm’r, where Judge Holmes did not allow the taxpayer to change her legal argument at the calendar call.  The post is worthwhile.  It does shed some light on the use of Rule 41.  More importantly, it involves black magic, a stalker, and Mr. Taishoff used two words in just the first sentence that I had to look up.
  • Mr. Jack Townsend offered a lot of great content this week on both his federal procedure and his federal tax crimes blog.  Our favorite for the week may have been the review of the Motion for Summary Judgment in the Zwerner case.  Jack has some great comments on the standard the Service is claiming is applicable, and the Service’s view on willfulness.
  • From Mauled Again, on March 7, Professor James Maule provides additional discussion of the Walter tax protestor case, which we discussed before because of the time devoted by the Court to discussing protestor arguments, in particular the B.S. offered by author and tax protestor Peter Hendrickson. Prof. Maule has had a bunch of great posts over the last week, including the tax treatment of the found gold bullion in California.  From his February 28th post, there is a sad study showing that Philly has lost a substantial portion of its middle class.  I (a New Yorker) have to stop making jokes about Philly being low class.  Feels less funny when it is true.
  • Net investment tax FAQs have been updated by the IRS.
  • Welcome to the internet Tax-Expatriation Blog.  A nice collections of articles and opinions on expatriation so far.
  • I found this summary of reasonable compensation for s-corporation shareholders who are also employees through LinkedIn.  The article has some helpful pointers in documenting the amount of work the shareholder does prior to audit, and some information on handling an audit on this point.  The article doesn’t discuss much of the case law in this area, but does have a nice discussion on the Davis v. Comm’r case from 2011, and affirmed in 2013, discussing arm length transactions in this context.
  • To quote Lil Wayne, “you got money and you know it.  Take it out your pocket and show it and throw it”…just not at the IRS.  I honestly do not read TMZ, even if my posts would indicate otherwise.  The Journal of Sophistication and High Class is reporting (?) that the Service has slapped a tax lien on Mr. Carter for close to $12MM.
  • Life is hard on The Block!  I’m not talking about the seedy 400 block of East Baltimore Street in B-more, MD known as the Block.  I’m talking about H&R, where a not-so-gentleman choked out his tax return preparer based on his dissatisfaction over the computation.  Not as bad, though, as the guy in Detroit who beat up a tax return preparer over someone else’s return (gun shots were fired).
  • If you haven’t seen this Pittsburgh criminal lawyer’s advertisement it is worth three minutes of your day.  “I may have a law degree, but I think like a criminal.”  So, he possibly has a law degree?
  • I hate daylight savings time, and unfortunately tax laws have a hand in it being this weekend.
  • As the father of three very strong-willed young women, I am fairly conscious of the different reactions that others have to their behavior and the behavior of boys of their age.  This WSJ essay by Sheryl Sandberg and Anna Maria Chavez discusses our use of the term “bossy” when describing confident, decisive girls, and the subtle (or not so subtle) constraints this puts on them.  I completely agree…but…my four year old is bossy.
  • March Madness is almost here, and last week we covered accountants being downers, and blocking access to the games during work hours.  This week, we have lawyers being completely uncool, and explaining why bracket pools are probably illegal. 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Bankruptcy, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Lien, Return Preparer Regulation, Statutes of Limitation

Summary Opinions for 02/21/2014

February 25, 2014 by Stephen Olsen 2 Comments

VillanovaWildcatsShort but sweet this week.  Apparently, no one is bringing tax cases in federal court any more (we’ve got the stats), and including all the schedules on your tax form is important (Deutsche Bank lost some interest).  Villanova’s LLM/MT has found the web.  Also, a road map for transfer pricing audits, and a road map for getting drunk on the cheap.  Finally, a summary of Patrick’s Smith’s Florida Bankers article from Tax Notes, and some FATCA regs.  Special thanks to our guest posters from last week, Rachel Rubenstein and Andre Anziani with their first and second part of their Kaplan post, and Carlton Smith for his Howerter/Rev. Proc. 2013-34 post.

read more...
  • Patrick Smith, of Ivins, Phillips & Barker, who we have discussed before, has published an article in Tax Notes, which is available here, discussing why in his view the DC District Court’s application of the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard in Florida Bankers Association was wrong.  Mr. Smith argues the Court incorrectly relied on the Service’s flawed reasoning for regulations requiring banks to report interest paid to nonresident aliens, and did not properly apply the State Farm arbitrary and capricious standard.  In APA and Challenges to Agency Guidance, Les has previously covered a different aspect of Florida Bankers, namely whether the district court should have heard the case to begin with in light of the APA and Anti-Injunction Act.  Mr. Smith’s article highlights the growing importance of traditional administrative law doctrines in examining the adequacy of IRS guidance, and explores in depth why under State Farm courts will be paying close attention to preambles to explore the adequacy of the IRS’s legal and factual assumptions in issuing the regulations.
  • Interest (ing) case from the Federal Circuit in Deutsche Bank AG v. United States, where the Circuit Court ruled on when a return or other document was in “processible form” for starting interest.  KPMG has a good summary.  The vastly oversimplified version of this case is that the taxpayer submitted its Form 1120 on Date X but did not itemize the taxes and sources from which they were withheld, and some of the required forms were not included.  The Service returned the Form 1120 and requested back up information and the additional forms.  The taxpayer provided the additional information on Date B.  On Date C, the taxpayer amended its return requesting a large refund, which the Service issued, along with interest back to Date B and not Date A.  Taxpayer then requested interest back to Date A, and the Service stated the taxpayer’s first return was garbage, and not processible.  Section 6611(g) requires the form to be processible before interest on overpayments will be issued, and the Federal Circuit agreed that without the other applicable forms, the return was not processible.  It did note that if the information were otherwise available to the Service, the return may have been processible, but that was not the case.  The concept of “processible” forms is important in other areas, and the loss of interest is unfortunate for the bank, but had a timely election been blown, or other information not properly reported, this could have been more costly.  Remember to attach those schedules and forms as we approach April 15.
  • Villanova announced this week that it is starting an online LLM and MT in Taxation program, and the press release can be found here.   In my incredibly biased opinion, I think this is a wonderful addition, allowing significantly more people access to the superb instructors in graduate tax program at Villanova.
  • Mr. Jack Townsend forwarded some interesting statistics to Les this week, which are from Syracuse University and track the tax court cases filed.  The information can be found here.  The stats show a 10% decline year over year, and a 30% decline over the last five years.  The page also indicates where these cases are being brought, how often the Service is plaintiff, what the most frequent causes of action are, and has a list of many (all?) the docketed cases.  These stats can be misleading regarding the decrease in litigation, as Tax Court cases are not included.  Les pointed out there is a good chance that some or all of the decrease is due to CDP cases now having to be heard by the Tax Court.
  • This is the new IRS transfer pricing audit roadmap.  This seems fairly useful for those navigating this process.
  • The Service has issued final and additional temporary FATCA regs, the press release can be found here.  There is a link to the regulations on the press release.  I am not going to provide any commentary on this, as I have not reviewed the regulations.  My initial reaction is that there are many small but important changes made.  The Service claims this is the last batch of guidance needed to implement; we shall see.
  • The Tax Foundation has a tax map showing how much each state taxes booze.  Good to be a drunk in Wyoming, not Washington.

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Advanced Pricing, Collection Due Process, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Interest, Overpayment Interest

Summary Opinions for 01/03/2014

January 6, 2014 by Stephen Olsen Leave a Comment

Happy New Year!!!  Procedurally Taxing is looking forward to its first full year, and next week we will get back to our normal posting schedule.  As a kick off, here is our first Summary Opinions for 2014.  Here are the tax procedure items we were reading this week.

read more...
  • Let’s start the New Year will a reference to one or our favorite blogs, Jack Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes Blog, where he uses Les’ recent post on tax snakes on a plane to discuss civil fraud, and does a brief comparison to evasion.   Specifically, Mr. Townsend considers Judge Holmes’ discussion of documents created after a return was filed to “evidence” the position taken, and how in civil fraud, at least in this case, it was not a major factor, but in criminal tax evasion it likely would be sufficient.
  • Journal of Accountancy and various other outlets are reporting that six additional countries have signed FATCA agreements.  The Netherlands, Malta, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man all signed Model 1a agreements, where the banks report to the home country, which is then disclosed to the Service.  Bermuda signed a Model 2 agreement, where its banks will report directly to the Service.  Are the various channel islands and Bermuda all “countries”?
  • From the United States Tax Court Group on LinkedIn, Reuben Muller has added some comments to his initial post on the Jackson case we discussed last year, where the Service was using Form 3219N as a SNOD, which the Tax Court questioned.  Mr. Muller appears to have gone “Man from Uncle” and taken pictures of the government’s response, which can be found here.  Mr. Muller has some initial comments, which I have also taken from the comment section on his post, which are worthwhile.  His comments are as follows:

Not surprisingly, petitioners haven’t responded to the judge’s order.

IRS takes position that Form 3219N is a valid NOD.

The 3219N is still being issued – but with an explanatory letter until a revised form is ready. See ¶ 15.

The response doesn’t address what happens precisely when the taxpayer sends in a tax return in response to the Notice. See ¶ 14.

  • The Fourth Circuit has joined the other Circuits in holding that the required records doctrine compels the production of bank records otherwise subject to the Bank Secrecy Act regardless of a Fifth Amendment claim of self-incrimination.  In US v. Under Seal, the Fourth Circuit stated the recordkeeping requirements of the BSA are regulatory in nature, and not targeted at illegal activity or persons suspected of criminal activity.  Further, these records were customarily kept for tax and other reporting, and accessing accounts. Finally, the records have “public aspects”, as required under the case law.  This is in line with the 5th, 7th, and 11th Circuits – and perhaps others.  I am not aware of any Circuits holding for taxpayers on this matter, and SCOTUS has declined review at least twice.  We touch on this line of cases in Saltzman and Book, Section 13.10.  Looks like an uphill battle for anyone trying to make this claim moving forward.
  • Let’s take this back towards the lowbrow.  Tax Girl has written about some exceptional tax advice given by the rapper The Game.  This is a family friendly blog, so I will forgo my normal linking of a song or quoting of lyrics.  So, what tax advice did the Game have for us?  I quote from Tax Girls’ blog:

Taxes?  You can write off damn near anything, man….You can write off strip clubs…making it rain…Buying Jordans…You can write off buying medical marijuana.

Tax Girl proceeds to explain why much of that may not actually be deductible (killjoy), or at least not fully deductible.  Interestingly, my wife said that attending a strip club and making it rain might be research for his song writing—maybe ordinary and necessary research?  She was also unequivocal in her stating that tax lawyers do not need to do that type of research, deductible or not.   Looks like I will be paying for a lot of things with ones this week.

  • A blog we haven’t linked to before, Taxable Talk, has highlighted its “tax offender of the year”.  I like this concept, and maybe we will have to select a scofflaw of the year.  The winner on Taxable Talk is the government for its handling of the 501(c)(4) scandal (not that exciting).  The two runners up, however, are more entertaining and worth a read.  They include murder for hire against a judge who sentenced someone on tax evasion, and big casino gambling on not paying taxes.
  • A recent order by the Northern District of Georgia caught my eye in Kearney Partners Fund, LLC v. US.  This case and the Florida Kearney Partners case are both interesting, and I think both stem from the same tax shelter.  The Georgia order partially granted and partially denied an accountant’s use of the Fifth Amendment to decline answering questions regarding the shelter that her accounting firm created, marketed and helped implement.  The Court held that she did not have to answer questions that were self-incriminating and went to the creation of the scheme, its marketing and the specific implementation, but she was required to answer questions about loss generation in general. The order contains the questions that were allowed.  I could not find a free version of the order, but can get a copy for readers upon request.
  • From the Ninth Circuit comes a strange tax evasion case in Kahre v. United States, which many readers may have heard about as it was working its way through the courts.  In Kahre, the 9th Cir. affirmed the criminal tax convictions of three individuals for using silver and gold coins to pay wages, who claimed they thought they could use the very low face value (not fair market value) of the currency for employment and income tax purposes.  In the underlying jury trial, the jurors did not believe that Mr. Kahre thought Congress allowed the use of the face and not fair market value—probably because that is crazy. The other facts contained in the lengthy opinion did not help Mr. Kahre’s position either.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Filed Under: Civil Penalties, Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA), Foreign financial institutions, Notice of deficiency, Privilege
Next Page »

10th Annual Blawg 100

Support the Center for Taxpayer Rights

The Center for Taxpayer Rights is a nonprofit founded by PT’s Nina Olson to further taxpayer rights in the U.S. and internationally. Click the Center’s logo to donate to support the Center for Taxpayer Rights and help further taxpayer’s awareness of and access to taxpayer rights!

Support Center for Taxpayer Rights

Support TAPS

Love PT, and want to show your gratitude for the fact this amazing content is free? Click here to donate to TAPS and help fund legal representation of underserved taxpayers!

Donate to TAPS

Leslie Book

Avatar photoProfessor Book is a Professor of Law at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Keith Fogg

Avatar photoT. Keith Fogg is a Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School where he started a tax clinic in 2015. Prior to joining the faculty at Harvard, he began his academic career at Villanova Law School in 2007 after working for over 30 years with the Office of Chief Counsel, IRS. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Christine Speidel

Christine SpeidelChristine Speidel is Associate Professor and Director of the Federal Tax Clinic at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. Prior to her appointment at Villanova she practiced law at Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. At Vermont Legal Aid Christine directed the Vermont Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic and was a staff attorney for Vermont Legal Aid's Office of the Health Care Advocate. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Stephen Olsen

Avatar photoStephen J. Olsen’s practice includes tax planning and controversy matters for individuals, businesses and exempt entities for the law firm Gawthrop Greenwood, PC.

Google Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Contributors

Nina Olson

Avatar photoNina E. Olson is the Executive Director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to advancing taxpayer rights in the US and internationally. She served as the National Taxpayer Advocate from March 2001 through July 2019. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Samantha Galvin

Samantha GalvinSamantha Galvin is an Associate Professor of the Practice of Taxation and the Director of the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) at the University of Denver. Professor Galvin has been teaching full-time at the University of Denver since October of 2013 and teaches courses in tax controversy representation, individual income tax, and tax research and writing. In the LITC, she teaches, supervises and assists students representing low income taxpayers with controversy and collection issues. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Caleb Smith

Caleb SmithCaleb Smith is Associate Clinical Professor and the Director of the Ronald M. Mankoff Tax Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School. Caleb has worked at Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics on both coasts and the Midwest, most recently completing a fellowship at Harvard Law School's Federal Tax Clinic. Prior to law school Caleb was the Tax Program Manager at Minnesota's largest Volunteer Income Tax Assistance organization, where he continues to remain engaged as an instructor and volunteer today. Read More…

View My Blog Posts

Guest Bloggers

Avatar photoProcedurally Taxing is happy to have frequent guest bloggers who are experts in the area of tax procedure. To read all the posts by our guest bloggers, please click here.

Follow Us!

Twitter Google+ RSS

Post Topics

Helpful Links

0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×
  • IRS Practice and Procedure (The Thomson Reuters preeminent treatise on tax procedure, originally authored by Michael Saltzman, with Les now the lead successor author and Keith and Stephen contributing chapter authors and all three updating the treatise).
  • Effectively Representing Your Client (ABA’s book on practice before the Service, which is edited by Christine).
  • Leslie Book’s SSRN Page (Les’ other scholarly work).
  • Keith Fogg’s SSRN Page (Keith’s other scholarly work).
  • Christine Speidel’s SSRN Page (Christine’s other scholarly work).
  • NTA Blog (National Taxpayer Advocate’s tax analysis blog).
  • Tax Prof Blog (Prof. Paul Caron’s blog on all things tax).
  • Federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/ (Great criminal tax blog by Jack Townsend).
  • Federal Tax Procedure Blogspot (Jack Townsend’s excellent tax procedure blog).
  • Appellatetax.com/ (Good appellate tax blog by the law firm Miller and Chevalier).
  • Gawthrop Greenwood, PC (Stephen’s law firm, which handles various types of tax matters).
  • Tax Litigation Survey (Articles regarding tax litigation decisions by Prof. Timothy Todd).
  • Internal Revenue Manual Online
  • Internal Revenue Code (Legal Information Institute’s frequently updated Internal Revenue Code online).
  • Treasury Regulations (Legal Information Institute’s frequently updated Treasury Regulations).
  • Mauledagain (Tax and other musings by the venerable Professor James Maule).
  • Forbes Tax Blogs
  • Villanova Law
  • Villanova Grad Tax Program

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

This website is intended for general information purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any particular situation. Visitors should obtain legal advice from their own attorney to suit their particular situation. The creation of an attorney-client relationship is not intended nor created by any communication through this website.

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2023 · Prose on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...