The Internal Revenue Service said in its notice that the number of people who expatriated from the U.S. increased nearly 24% during the third quarter of 2024 compared with the previous quarter. 

The Number Of People Losing Or Renouncing Their U.S. Citizenship Increased to 2,123 For the 3rd Qtr of 2024.

A 25% Increase From The 2nd Quarter of 2024.

Included on the list are those who lost U.S. citizenship under Internal Revenue Code Section 877(a) and Section 877A, according to the notice, as well as long-term residents who are treated as losing citizenship under Section 877(e)(2).

According to CNBC the top reason why Americans abroad want to dump their U.S. citizenship include:

• Nearly 1 in 4 American expatriates say they are “seriously considering” or “planning” to ditch their U.S. citizenship, a survey from Greenback Expat Tax Services finds.  
• About 9 million U.S. citizens are living abroad, the U.S. Department of State estimates.
• More than 4 in 10 who would renounce citizenship say it’s due to the burden of filing U.S. taxes, the Greenback poll shows.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Need Advise on Expatriation?

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.   

for a FREE Tax Consultation contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Pleading Guilty to Tax Crimes, Can Cause You to Lose Your Visa or Green Card

According to Law360, a Connecticut federal judge denied a man's attempt to vacate his guilty plea for tax evasion, despite accepting that his lawyers had misled him into believing that if he received no prison time he could avoid mandatory detention and likely deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Vishal Dhar's former attorneys didn't testify under oath against his claim that they told him he could avoid deportation if he received noncustodial incarceration, but the attorneys did tell him he faced deportation for pleading guilty to an aggravated felony, according to an order issued on April 16, 2025. Dhar's former attorneys, Scott Ahroni and Kurt Erskine of Polsinelli PC, warned him as early as November 2023 that he faced deportation for tax evasion above $10,000, according to the order by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill, who sentenced Dhar to a year in federal custody in October.

Dhar, who is from India, became a U.S. legal permanent resident in 2007, the order said.

He now faces mandatory detention by ICE pending an order for his deportation after he is released from federal custody, potentially extending his original one-year sentence beyond two years since he's not eligible to reduce his sentence with time served, his new attorney said in a motion from January.

Dhar alleged that his original attorneys advised him that he would only be deported if he received a custodial incarceration sentence, according to the order. The Polsinelli attorneys objected to these allegations in an unsworn statement, but not under oath, so Judge Underhill accepted Dhar's account as accurate, according to the order.

"Polsinelli's assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when they allegedly advised Dhar that 'deportation would likely only happen' if Dhar received a custodial incarceration sentence," Judge Underhill said.

To prove ineffective counsel requires not only showing the attorneys performed below a reasonable norm for their profession, but that their performance was prejudicial against their client's defense, according to the order. In this case, Dhar argued he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial, according to the order.

Yet Dhar inaccurately claimed that he was only made aware of the deportation consequences of his conviction after sentencing, according to the order. This doesn't line up with the evidence in his communications with Polsinelli, the plea agreement, the sentencing memorandum and his own statements at the plea hearing, which all suggest he was fully aware that his guilty plea could result in deportation, the order said.

"Dhar Made The Decision To Plead Guilty Fully Aware
That Being Deported Was A Likely Consequence Of His Plea," Judge Underhill Said.

Dhar also claimed that he was prejudiced by Polsinelli not explaining the consequences of his immigration status to Judge Underhill during his sentencing hearing, according to the order.

"Polsinelli's failure to bring the relevant statutes to my attention did not prejudice Dhar because it did not impact my intent to sentence Dhar to a term of custodial incarceration," Judge Underhill said. "My underlying reasoning in sentencing Dhar is entirely separate from any immigration consequences he may face, including being placed in ICE custody and eventually deported."

Dhar was sentenced in October to just over a year in federal prison after pleading guilty to evading over $272,000 in taxes from 2013 through 2023, an amount that he paid prior to his sentencing, according to court filings. He operated three business entities, including Grey Brown Inc., a holding company for a restaurant chain called Oaxaca Taqueria, as well as NY Cloud Kitchens LLC and West Partners Inc., according to court filings.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

    

Do You Have a US Visa or Green Card?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

 

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion After Underreporting $13.1 Million in NFT Sales

According to the DoJ, a Pennsylvania man, Waylon Wilcox, has pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns after underreporting $13.1 million in income from the sale of 97 nonfungible tokens (NFTs), federal prosecutors announced Friday. The case marks one of the first major U.S. tax evasion prosecutions involving NFTs, signaling heightened scrutiny of digital asset transactions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Wilcox, 45, earned most of his unreported income from selling NFTs from the CryptoPunks collection, a popular series of 10,000 unique digital art characters. According to court documents, he sold 62 CryptoPunks for $7.4 million in 2021 and another 35 for $4.9 million in 2022. Despite these substantial earnings, Wilcox falsely reported significantly lower income on his tax returns for both years.

In 2021, Wilcox underreported his income by $8.5 million, reducing his owed taxes by nearly $2.2 million. In 2022, he underreported his income by $4.6 million, cutting his tax liability by approximately $1.1 million. On both tax filings, Wilcox falsely answered "no" to the question asking whether he had engaged in virtual currency transactions, despite earning millions from NFT sales.

Wilcox pleaded guilty to two counts of filing false individual income tax returns and now faces up to six years in prison, supervised release following imprisonment, and an undisclosed fine. His guilty plea comes just ahead of the April 15 IRS tax deadline.

"IRS Criminal Investigation is committed to unraveling complex financial schemes involving virtual currencies and nonfungible token transactions designed to conceal taxable income," said Yury Kruty, Special Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia Field Office. "In today's economic environment, it's more important than ever that the American people feel confident that everyone is playing by the rules and paying the taxes they owe."

The IRS considers NFT transactions taxable events that must be reported on individual tax returns. Taxpayers are required to disclose sales proceeds and any gains or losses from NFT sales, which may be taxed as either short-term (ordinary income rates up to 37%) or long-term capital gains (up to 20%), depending on how long the asset was held. NFTs classified as collectibles may be subject to an even higher long-term capital gains rate of up to 28%.

Wilcox's case highlights the importance of compliance with these reporting requirements as NFT markets continue to grow rapidly.

This prosecution underscores the IRS's increasing focus on digital assets like NFTs and cryptocurrencies as part of its efforts to enforce tax laws in emerging financial sectors. As virtual currencies and blockchain-based assets gain mainstream adoption, authorities are ramping up efforts to ensure taxpayers accurately report income derived from these transactions.

For individuals involved in NFTs or other digital asset markets, Wilcox's case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of failing to comply with federal tax laws.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

    

Did You Omit Income From Digital Assets?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

 

Bill to Nullify Expanded IRS Crypto Broker Rule Signed by Trump

On August 12, 2024 we posted IRS Releases Final Digital Asset Regs & New Draft of Form 1099-DA where we discussed that in IR-2024-178 dated June 28, 2024 The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations requiring custodial brokers to report sales and exchanges of digital assets, including cryptocurrency. These reporting requirements will help taxpayers to file accurate tax returns with respect to digital asset transactions, which are already subject to tax under current law.

Then on August 12, 2024 we posted TIGTA Releases Report Regarding Virtual Currency Tax Compliance Enforcement and How it Can Be Improved where we discussed that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Virtual currency (or digital assets) has grown into a trillion-dollar industry that's been challenging for the IRS to enforce for tax compliance and that during Fiscal Years 2018 to 2023, IRS CI investigated 390 cases involving virtual currency/digital assets of which 224 were recommended for prosecution.

The IRS had updated its crypto tax reporting rule in December 2024, during the final weeks of the Biden administration, to clarify that decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms would also fall under these guidelines

Well now you can forget all that, as President Donald Trump signed into law a bill to overturn a revised rule from the Internal Revenue Service that expanded the definition of a broker to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges on April 10, 2025, according to a statement from the White House.

In March 2025 The Congressional Review Act Was
Invoked By Both Chambers Of Congress  To Nullify
The IRS Revision, With Bipartisan Support.

The cryptocurrency industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi exchanges, which operate without intermediaries and allow direct transactions on blockchain networks, could not comply due to their lack of user visibility. 

Unlike centralized exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken, DeFi platforms do not collect detailed user information, making it challenging to meet IRS reporting requirements.

Trump's decision aligns with his campaign promise to support the cryptocurrency industry. He had pledged to be a "crypto president" and actively courted support from the sector during his campaign. Since taking office, Trump has taken several steps to promote digital assets, including establishing a cryptocurrency working group and signing an executive order to create a federal bitcoin stockpile.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

    

Did You Omit Income From Digital Assets?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

 

SCOTUS Stays Federal Worker Rehire Order Resulting in Them Being Fired Again?

On March 25 we posted The IRS ‘Reinstated’ 7,000 Workers, But They Are Not Returning To Work? discussing that the federal government will pay about 7,000 IRS probationary employees, who were laid off less than a month ago, not to work while lawsuits over layoffs wind their way through the court system. The email sent to probationary workers also advised them “not [to] report to duty or perform any work until receiving further guidance.”

Now The Supreme Court issued a stay on April 8, 2025, halting a lower court's preliminary injunction that required federal agencies to reinstate terminated probationary employees and barred the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from issuing workforce reduction guidance. The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup on March 13, was challenged by OPM in a case involving labor unions and nonprofit organizations. The stay will remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal in the 9th Circuit or a Supreme Court review, if certiorari is granted.

"The District Court's Injunction Was Based Solely On The Allegations Of The Nine Non-Profit-Organization Plaintiffs
In This Case," The Court Explained. "But Under Established Law, Those Allegations Are Presently Insufficient
To Support The Organizations' Standing."

In its order, the Supreme Court stated that the district court's injunction relied solely on allegations from nine nonprofit plaintiffs, which it deemed insufficient to establish standing under established legal standards. The Court explained that the plaintiffs must identify specific members harmed or demonstrate that their entire membership suffered a concrete injury to meet Article III requirements.

At an April 9 hearing, Judge Alsup questioned whether reinstated employees could be terminated again and how long they would remain protected under the injunction. He also asked whether their employment could still be linked to OPM’s allegedly unlawful February directive. The government argued that the nonprofits had failed to provide evidence of direct harm to their members.

The judge criticized both parties for delays in providing a list of affected employees and expressed little interest in assigning blame. He emphasized the need for compliance with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Alsup gave both sides until 5 p.m. Friday to submit the list of terminated employees, which is critical to determining whether the plaintiffs have standing and whether further relief is warranted. The case remains under review as the appellate process continues.

Meanwhile, other job losses loom at the IRS. The Trump administration wants to cut the IRS workforce by 20% by May 15, including those who have already left or were fired.

Officials at the Elon Musk-led group advising the administration want Acting IRS Commissioner to eliminate 18,141 jobs across the agency. This includes the roughly 12,000 employees terminated as part of new-hire layoffs.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Florida Limited Liability Company Owners Maybe Liable for Sales & Business Taxes

Florida law generally provides robust liability protection for LLC members through the Florida Revised Limited Liability Company Act, which states that debts or liabilities of an LLC are solely those of the company. However, this protection is not absolute, as Florida recognizes exceptions under Federal Tax and Florida Sales and Use Tax laws. Specifically, section 213.29, Florida Statutes, imposes personal liability on individuals responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax if they willfully fail to do so. This provision applies to officers or directors with administrative control over tax compliance and creates significant exposure for LLC members.

The Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) treats sales tax as state funds at the time of collection, viewing businesses as custodians of these funds rather than owners. Failure to remit collected sales tax can pierce the liability shield typically protecting LLC members from business debts. FDOR has pursued collection actions against individual LLC members, including liens on personal bank accounts, and in more egregious cases where taxes were collected but not remitted, has made criminal referrals to the State Attorney.

To establish personal liability, FDOR must prove "willful" failure to collect or remit taxes. This determination often involves questioning former officers or managers about their roles in tax compliance and financial decision-making. Individuals deemed "responsible persons" with authority over financial priorities face the greatest risk. Personal liability is asserted through a Notice of Assessment Personal Liability (NOAPL), which gives individuals 20 days to file an informal protest. Failure to respond promptly can result in severe financial consequences, including penalties equal to twice the unpaid tax amount.

The concept underlying this liability mirrors the "trust fund" tax approach seen in other jurisdictions, where businesses collecting sales tax are considered trustees of government funds. A notable 2022 New York Administrative Law Judge decision illustrates how strict liability could apply even without direct involvement in daily operations. In that case, an LLC member's signature on documents and status as a member sufficed for personal liability. While not binding in Florida, this reasoning could influence similar cases under Florida's statutory framework.

Given these risks, LLC members with signature authority or control over financial decisions should prioritize sales tax compliance to avoid personal liability. The FDOR may assess penalties and initiate collection actions against individuals who fail to remit taxes properly. Prompt response to any notices is critical because defaulting on a NOAPL makes reopening protest rights nearly impossible.

Marini & Associates’ tax attorneys offer assistance in mitigating these risks through voluntary disclosure agreements, audit defense, administrative appeals, and negotiated settlements. Their expertise can help LLC members abate or waive penalties and address assessments before liens or criminal referrals occur.

Have a  Florida Sales Tax Problem?

Sales Tax Problems Require

an Experienced Sales Tax Attorney

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

 

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243)

James P. Sweeney Esq - State and Local tax counsel

Mr. Sweeney is a Tax Attorney with 40 years of experience in the areas of Tax Law, both Federal & State, including Representation before the IRS and various State Taxing Agencies.

Mr. Sweeney is an accomplished attorney with a distinguished career that includes a rich background in tax law and a remarkable tenure at Arthur Andersen's State and Local Tax Practice, including serving as the Northeast Region Practice Leader and a National Office subject matter expert, where he shared a wealth of experience and expertise in State and Local Tax law.