Hand-Delivered Documents No Longer Accepted By The Tax Court

In Tax Court Press Release (10/29/2020) the Tax Court has announced that, effective Friday, October 30, 2020, it is suspending, until further notice, in-person acceptance of hand-delivered documents. 

On March 18, the Tax Court closed its building due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On July 10, the Tax Court resumed accepting hand-delivered documents between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. 

While in-person acceptance of hand-delivered documents has been suspended until further notice, the Tax Court will continue to receive mail and other deliveries. 

Litigants and representatives may comply with deadlines for filing petitions or notices of appeal by timely mailing the petition or notice of appeal to the Court.

To be timely mailed, the petition or notice of appeal must be postmarked on or before the last day for filing and mailed using the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) or a designated private delivery service. (Code Sec. 7502) 

The Press Release notes that the Court’s eAccess and eFiling systems remain operational. Litigants can use the eFiling system to file documents that can be e-filed, and use eAccess to view documents filed in their case.

The Press Release recommends that litigants and others with questions contact the Court's Public Affairs Office at (202) 521-3355.

Have a Tax Court 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) 

DC Court Finds The Taxpayer Was Reckless & Willfully Blind for FBAR Penalty but Not Fraudulently Fail to File Associated Tax Returns.

A New Hampshire woman owes the federal government around $824,000 in penalties for failing to report her foreign bank accounts but doesn't owe $885,608 of fraud penalties, plus interest because the U.S. didn't show she intended to evade taxes, a federal court ruled.

An Ocean Boulevard woman is alleged to have failed to report interest from $3 million worth of bank accounts she held in Switzerland, then the Czech Republic, for which the Internal Revenue Service now claims she owes $885,608 in penalties.

By not seeking professional tax advice on foreign accounts she knew were earning income, Annette DeMauro was willful in failing to file her foreign bank account reports for 2007 through 2009, the U.S. federal court for the District of New Hampshire ruled.

But while DeMauro took steps to conceal her foreign accounts and money transfers, she did so in an attempt to hide assets from her abusive ex-husband, said the ruling by Judge Joseph Laplante. 

The U.S. Therefore Failed To Meet Its Burden For Assessing Enhanced Late-Filing Penalties, He Said.

In a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Demauro is accused by the federal secretary of the Treasury of failing to file Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Report (FBAR) forms for 2007, 2008 and 2009. The federal government alleges her failure to file the forms was “willful” and she now owes FBAR penalties of $274,695 for each of those three years.

In the court complaint, the government also seeks interest and late-payment penalties, bringing the total Demauro allegedly owes to $885,608, “plus interest or other statutory additions accruing after March 2, 2017.”

Demauro's attorney summarizes Demauro’s defense as claiming the government has not demonstrated she willfully failed to file the reports, that she is not liable for the penalties and she’s owed at least $51,675 in taxes “wrongfully collected” from her.

In her counterclaim, Demauro is described as 80 years old and “not sophisticated in tax and financial matters.” Her suit says she never filed a tax return until after her second divorce in 2001 and first opened the Swiss bank account, on the advice of her divorce lawyer, to protect money from theft by a former husband.

“Ms. Demauro did not even know what an FBAR was until after she was contacted by the IRS and notified of the audit,” her counterclaim states.

In The District Court District Of New Hampshire Decision On 08/28/2020 The Court Finds In Favor of The United States
On Its Willful FBAR-Penalty Claim, See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314, 5321, But Against The United States on the Counterclaims Challenging The IRS's Fraudulent-Failure-To-File Penalties,
See 26 U.S.C. § 6651.

With respect to FBAR, the United States showed by a preponderance of the evidence that DeMauro acted recklessly, and thus “willfully,” by failing to seek professional tax advice on foreign accounts she knew were earning income, even though she had consistently relied on professionals in the past and also had paid taxes on real property gained through her divorce. Even if DeMauro did not consciously avoid learning about the FBAR reporting requirement, she at the very least should have surmised that there was a grave risk she was not meeting her tax-filing obligations. Her conduct therefore constitutes a willful civil violation.

For DeMauro's Counterclaims, However, The United States Did Not Meet Its Burden of Showing By Clear And Convincing Evidence That DeMauro Failed To Timely File Returns 

With The Specific, Fraudulent Intent To Evade Taxes.

While the United States correctly notes that DeMauro took steps to conceal her foreign bank accounts and money transfers, she credibly testified that she did so in an attempt to hide assets from her abusive ex-husband—an explanation that even the IRS investigating agent believed and found compelling—and because she trusted the many professionals around her to handle the finer details of her finances. Given these mitigating explanations, the counterclaims pose a closer question than the affirmative FBAR claim. 

On this record, the court finds that the United States did not meet its burden for assessing enhanced late-filing penalties by clear and convincing evidence, and thus orders the return of penalties already exacted. A separate entry of judgment shall follow this order.

The case is U.S. v. Annette B. DeMauro, case number 1:17-cv-00640, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Have You Been Assessed an FBAR Penalty 
or a Fraudulent-Failure-To-File Penalty?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation

at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms

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

 

Sources

Law360

TC Ruled That IRS is Correct in Denying a Noncompliant Taxpayer Collection Alternatives after a CDP Hearing

The Tax Court has held that an IRS settlement officer (SO) did not abuse their discretion by denying an individual’s request for a collection alternative because she failed to meet her estimated tax payment obligations and, therefore, she was not eligible for an installment agreement (IA). Further, the SO's rejection of the individual’s offer in compromise (OIC) was justified because the individual failed to propose specific terms for her OIC.

During a collection due process (CDP) hearing, an IRS settlement officer (SO) should: (1) verify that the requirements of applicable law or administrative procedure were met; (2) consider any relevant issues raised by the taxpayer, including collection alternatives; and (3) consider whether the proposed collection action balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. (Code Sec. 6330(c)(3))

It is not an abuse of discretion for an SO to reject a taxpayer's collection alternative when the taxpayer does not propose any terms for an IA or OIC. (Walker, TC Memo 2014-187) 

It is not an abuse of discretion when an SO rejects a collection alternative for a taxpayer who fails to comply with current estimated tax obligations. (Ransom, TC Memo 2018-211)

Carol Biggs-Owen owned two home healthcare businesses during 2013 and 2014. She failed to pay all of the tax due, and IRS assessed the reported tax, additions to tax for failure to timely pay and failure to pay estimated tax, and interest. Biggs-Owen entered into an IA with IRS, but it was terminated six months later. 

When IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien, Biggs-Owen requested a CDP hearing, checking the box for “installment agreement” but identifying no further issues.

At the hearing, Biggs-Owen inquired about an OIC, and the SO gave her 14 days to submit an OIC and supporting financial information. She submitted some financial information but not an actual OIC.

After reviewing Biggs-Owen's financial information, the SO found that that Biggs-Owen had over $17,000 per month to pay her tax obligations. Further, the SO explained to Biggs-Owen she was not eligible for an IA because she was not in compliance with her estimated tax payment obligations. On July 5, 2017, the SO sustained IRS's lien filing. 

The Tax Court found that Biggs-Owen’s noncompliance with her estimated tax payment obligations justified the SO's rejection of her proposed IA. Also, the SO did not abuse their discretion by refusing Biggs-Owen's OIC because Biggs-Owen failed to propose specific terms for the OIC.  

Have an IRS Problem?  

 

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 

 

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation at: 

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