Summary Opinions 11/15/2013

0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×

I’ve been pressed into action on some other writing, so this week is a little light on content and commentary.  Feel free to comment on anything important that I may have missed.  I also wanted to thank you all for the comments, emails and other messages regarding the Tax Atturkey; Anna, my six year old, was very proud and happy to receive such kind words from such an esteemed group.  Here are a few things that were on our radar this week:

read more...
  • The Service has updated the IRM regarding FBAR appeals, and Jack Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes Blog has the updated language.
  • We’ll stick with Mr. Townsend, but this time from his Tax Procedure Blog , a good discussion of Reifler v. Comm’r, where the Tax Court ruled on an equitable estoppel issue, but took a detour through a Beard discussion as to what is required for a valid tax return.  The taxpayer attempted to invoke the tacit consent rule regarding the spouse’s signature, which the Court denied.  Usually, the Service is making that argument.  Interesting case, and the post gives away an amazing amount of information.
  • Last week we highlighted the story of the Dehkos, who run a grocery store in Michigan, and had their checking account seized by the Service.  It looks like the Service has returned the funds; coverage by Tax Girl can be found here.
  • Musicians are making all kinds of tax news.  Tina “no tax” Turner relinquished her US citizenship.  And Ron Isley lost his Tax Court case and his offer in compromise.  Peter Reilly at Forbes has comprehensive coverage, as does Jack Townsend on his Federal Tax Crimes Blog.  Mr. Biggs is still in the clink, and now out a fairly good tax deal.
  • Tax News by Mr. Monte Jackel, has a summary of the recent Diebold Foundation case out of the Second Circuit, which deals with the standard of review in transferee liability cases and the application of the two part test under Section 6901.  The discussions of both holdings are interesting.  I will hold off on any other commentary, as we may have more to say on this case during the week.
  • From the Journal of Accountancy, a new story regarding an IRS email blast to practitioners (which I did not get or I deleted) indicating it will send letters in November and December to preparers it “suspected of filing inaccurate EITC claims.”  In addition to a thinly veiled threat, the letter appears to be a teaching opportunity, indicating issues commonly found on the returns.  I guess the Service has been listening to everyone gripe about the improper refunds based on the credits.
  • Christopher Bergin on the Tax Analysts Blog has a commentary on Nina Olson’s recent remarks regarding IRS funding and the taxpayer bill of rights. Congress is putting the Service in a bad position.
  • WSJ (subscription required) and Forbes have articles on the use of John Doe summonses to Citi, Chase, BoA, Mellon and HSBC to obtain information about offshore accounts held at related foreign banks. Thankfully, my wealth is all tied up in student loans (“it’s an investment in your future” – I should have gone into plastics).
Stephen Olsen About Stephen Olsen

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

Google

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Speak Your Mind

*