Monday, April 26, 2021

Naturalized Citizen Can't Get FBAR Penalties Overturned

According to Law360, A naturalized citizen must face tax penalties for his failure to report foreign bank accounts to the Internal Revenue Service because the government proved he willfully attempted to hide his income overseas, the Eleventh Circuit said Friday.

A three-judge panel affirmed that a Florida federal court correctly held Said Rum liable for the maximum penalty for his failure to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, according to the per curiam opinion. 

Rum Failed To Prove That The Penalty, Which The IRS Set At 50% Of The Funds In His Unreported Account, Was Arbitrary And Capricious, According To The Opinion.

"In sum, the evidence was overwhelming that Rum sought to hide his overseas accounts from the United States government," the opinion said. "Repeatedly he took steps to conceal the accounts and not report his income to the government."

Rum was born in Jerusalem and has been a naturalized U.S. citizen since 1988, and has owned and operated a number of businesses, including a convenience store and delicatessen, according to the opinion. In 1998, Rum opened a Swiss UBS bank account and deposited $1.1 million to conceal the money from judgment creditors, the opinion said.

Rum failed to report to the IRS the funds in the UBS account, which was eventually closed in 2008 as $1.4 million was transferred to Arab Bank, according to court documents. Rum transferred the $1.4 million to a U.S. account in 2009, and he reported roughly $40,000 of the $300,000 in investment income generated when the funds were held in the foreign banks on his 2009 tax return, the opinion said.

Rum's 2009 tax return triggered an IRS examination that led to the agency's assessment of unpaid taxes and proposal of a maximum willful FBAR penalty for the 2007 tax year related to his failure to report the foreign bank accounts, according to the opinion.

Rum challenged the IRS' assessed taxes and penalty in the U.S. Tax Court, which determined that he would be liable not for civil fraud penalties but for accuracy-related penalties for his understatement of income during the time he concealed his foreign bank account.

The IRS sued Rum in Florida federal court seeking to enforce the FBAR penalty against him, and won summary judgment in its favor, which Rum appealed, according to court documents.

On appeal, Rum argued that the lower court incorrectly applied a standard of willfulness to find him liable for the FBAR penalty and should have determined that the penalty was improper and arbitrary, according to the opinion.

In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit found that Rum failed to prove how the district court incorrectly interpreted willfulness to include "recklessness," a conclusion that several other appeals courts have determined.

Rum's arguments related to whether there remained issues of material fact during the district court proceedings were also proved insufficient by mounts of evidence presented by the IRS, the appeals court said.

Rum's using numbers instead of his name on his foreign bank accounts and requests that his funds not be invested in U.S. securities while they were held by UBS were clear signs that he willfully attempted to hide his income, the Eleventh Circuit said.

The case is U.S. v. Said Rum, case number 19-14464, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Do You Have Undeclared Offshore Income?

 
Want to Know if the OVDP Program is Right for You? 

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

for a FREE Tax Consultation contact us at:
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243



Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Disregarded Entities Are Not Always Disregarded

 

Under the check the box rules, entities owned by one person can often be disregarded for federal tax purposes. Such entities are referred to as "disregarded entities." 

As time has progressed since the passage of the check the box rules, the IRS has created more and more exceptions to the disregarded treatment. The following is a summary of the principal exceptions, but is not intended to be exhaustive. If any readers think we have missed anything major, please feel free to comment to this posting.
  1. Status is modified if the single owner of the entity is a bank. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2) (iii). 
  2. Status is modified for certain tax liabilities. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iii). These include: (1) federal tax liabilities of the entity with respect to any taxable period for which the entity was not disregarded; (2) federal tax liabilities of any other entity for which the entity is liable; and (3) refunds or credits of federal tax. 
  3. Disregarded status ignored or modified for taxes imposed under Subtitle - Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax (Chapters 21, 22, 23, 23A 24, and 25 of the Code) and taxes imposed under Subtitle A including Chapter 2 - Tax on SelffEmployment Income. Treas. Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c) (2) (iv) (A). 
  4. Status is modified for certain excise taxes, as described in Treas.Regs. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2J(v). Although liability for excise taxes isn't dependent on an entity's classification, an entity's classification is relevant for certain tax administration purposes, such as determining the proper location for filing a notice of federal tax lien and the place for hand-carrying a return under Code Section 6091
  5. Conduit financing proposed regulations will treat a disregarded entity as separate from its single member. Code Section 7701 (I).
  6. Special rules will apply in hybrid situations. Hybrid situations are circumstances where an entity is not disregarded in one jurisdiction but is disregarded in another.
  7. Final regulations (TD 9796) that treat domestic disregarded entities wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign persons  as domestic corporations solely for purposes of making them subject to the reporting requirements under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6038A that apply to 25% foreign-owned domestic corporations.
 
Have a Tax Problem?  
 


 
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact us at
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).
 
 
 

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Bitcoin Cash Received as a Result of Bitcoin Hard Fork is Included in Gross Income: CCA 202114020

In CCA 202114020, the IRS ruled on the issue of whether a taxpayer who received Bitcoin Cash as a result of the August 1, 2017, Bitcoin hard fork has gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code)?

The IRS reached the conclusion that, yes, a taxpayer who received Bitcoin Cash as a result of the August 1, 2017, Bitcoin hard fork has gross income because the taxpayer had an accession to wealth under section 61 of the Code. See Revenue Ruling 2019-24. The date of receipt and fair market value to be included in income will be dependent on when the taxpayer obtained.

IRC Sec. 61(a)(3) provides that gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including gains from the sale or exchange of a property. The term "property" includes services and the right to use property, but it does not include money. (Code Sec. 1273(b)(5))

Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency. (FAQ 1, Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (3/3/2021))

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that utilizes cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality. (FAQ 3, Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (3/3/2021))

A "hard fork" occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger. (FAQ 22, Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (3/3/2021))

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. (FAQ 22, Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (3/3/2021))

 Have a Virtual Currency Tax Problem?




Value Your Freedom?



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). 

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

The Tax Gap Could Exceed $1 Trillion - IRS Enforcement is The Answer

According to Law360, the gap between taxes owed each year and those actually paid could be more than $1 trillion, much larger than the most recent estimate of $441 billion, IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig told the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday.

IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig told the Senate Finance Committee on April 13, 2021 that his agency is making the most of its resources, but "we do get outgunned." 

The Ballooning Of The Tax Gap, Rettig Said, Can Be Partly Attributed To The Growth In Popularity Of Cryptocurrency, Which Was Still A Relative Novelty The Last Time The Internal Revenue Service Released An Official Estimate Of The Tax Gap, Which Covered Tax Years 2011 Through 2013.

There are now more than 8,600 virtual currencies with a global market capitalization of about $2 trillion, he said. Rettig added that the estimates for 2011 through 2013 didn't have information about foreign-sourced and illegally sourced income.

"I Think It Would Not Be Outlandish To Believe That
The Actual Tax Gap Could Approach And Possibly Exceed
$1 Trillion Per Year," Rettig Said.

The $441 billion tax gap estimate, according to the IRS, is an average gross yearly estimated tax gap based on data from tax years 2011 through 2013. After late payments and enforcement work are factored in, the estimated net tax gap is $381 billion, according to the agency's website.

Rettig also noted that a recently released report found that the top 1% of all earners fail to report about 20% of their income and that some outside estimates have said the tax gap could exceed $7.5 trillion over the next decade.

The IRS will issue a new estimate next year, Rettig said. Meaningfully reducing the tax gap will take a multifaceted effort, he said.

Rettig said the agency has lost about 17,000 employees in the enforcement area over the last decade. It has about 6,500 frontline revenue agents who now handle the most complex individual and corporate tax matters and substantially all of them are dedicated to the most egregious cases, wealthy individuals or the largest corporations, he said. The IRS is using its resources to the best of its ability, he said, but it needs more.

"We do get outgunned. I mean there's no other way to say it," he said. "We are today able to identify evidence of tax fraud and signatures of tax fraud, if you will, and tax evasion that even two years ago we could not identify. But it's an example of we're heading in the right direction. We need to get there ahead of time."

President Joe Biden's Fiscal 2022 Budget Request Calls For A 10.4% Funding Increase For The IRS.

The request would include an increase of $417 million in funding to improve tax compliance and revenue collection under a multiyear project.

Have as 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) 


Tax Evasion is No Longer a Civil Matter According to the DoJ

According to the DoJ, as tax filing season continues, the Department of Justice's Tax Division reminds taxpayers to pay careful attention to their reporting and filing obligations and to timely pay all taxes due. Willfully filing false tax returns or deliberately evading paying taxes are serious criminal offenses. 

“Our criminal prosecutors are prepared for tax filing season too,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Tax Division. “Honest, law abiding taxpayers should know that the Tax Division is aggressively using its resources and expertise to identify, investigate, and prosecute those attempting to defraud and obstruct the IRS.” 

Throughout the past year, the Tax Division, in collaboration with U.S. Attorney’s Offices, other Justice Department litigating offices and the IRS, has investigated and prosecuted a broad array of tax offenses from businesses and white-collar professionals underreporting income to employment tax fraud to identity theft. Enforcement efforts are continually ongoing. Here are a few recent examples: 

Prosecution of Business Owners 

  • On Dec. 1, 2020, a New York City restaurateur was sentenced to 24 months in prison for tax
    evasion. Adel Kellel, the owner of Raffles Bistro, diverted business income for personal expenses, including rent for a high-end Manhattan apartment, college tuition payments for his children, and purchases from luxury retailers. As part of his sentence, Kellel was ordered to pay $613,478 to the IRS. 
  • On Oct. 20, 2020, two biofuel company owners were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to defraud the IRS and preparing a false tax claim, among other offenses. Ben Wootton, 55 of Savannah, Georgia, was sentenced to 70 months and Race Miner, 51, of Marco Island, Florida, was sentenced to 66 months, after a jury convicted both defendants and their company, Keystone Biofuels Inc., in April 2019. 
Prosecution of White-Collar Professionals & Individuals 
  • On Dec. 21, 2020, two Atlanta-area tax professionals pleaded guilty to promoting a syndicated conservation easement tax scheme involving more than $1.2 billion in fraudulent charitable deductions. Stein Agee of Canton, Georgia, and Corey Agee of Atlanta, Georgia, are currently awaiting sentencing for their role in the scheme. 
  • On Nov. 2, 2020, a New Jersey man was sentenced to 78 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the United States, filing false claims, and obstructing the internal revenue laws, following his conviction at trial. According to evidence presented at trial, between 2015 and 2016, Kenneth Crawford Jr. and his co-conspirators promoted and sold a “mortgage recovery” tax fraud scheme in which they obtained fraudulent refunds from the IRS for their clients. As a result of Crawford’s scheme, more than $2.5 million in fraudulent refunds were sought from the IRS. 
  • On Aug. 21, 2020, a North Carolina risk consultant pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return and illegally possessing a firearm. From 2011 through 2017, Charles Atkins underreported income from several risk consulting businesses, causing a tax loss of more than $800,000 to the IRS. Atkins is currently awaiting sentencing. 4/8/2021 Justice Department Tax Enforcement Already in Gear | OPA | Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-tax-enforcement-already-gear 2/2 Employment Tax Prosecutions 
  • On April 7, 2021, the manager of the San Diego Home Cooking restaurant chain was sentenced to 30 months in prison for employment tax fraud. According to court records, from the last quarter of 2014 through 2017, Aleksandar Sreckovic did not file employment tax returns nor pay employment taxes for San Diego Home Cooking, causing a tax loss of over $1.5 million. Instead of paying employment taxes, Sreckovic paid other creditors and his own personal expenses. 
  • On March 24, 2021, A Montana businessman pleaded guilty today to employment tax fraud. According to court documents, Thomas O’Connell owned and operated three plumbing businesses, Quality Plumbing and Heating, Orbit Plumbing and Heating, and Orbit PHC, each based in Great Falls. From at least 2005 through 2016, O’Connell did not pay employment taxes for several quarters, despite being obligated to ensure such taxes were paid to the IRS. Instead, he directed payments to other creditors and to his own personal expenses. The total tax loss to the IRS from O’Connell’s conduct is more than $550,000. 
Identity Theft Prosecutions 
  • On Oct. 7, 2020, a Las Vegas, Nevada, man was sentenced to 70 months in prison for mail and wire fraud conspiracy, following his jury trial convictions. The trial evidence proved that from January 2009 through April 2011, Terry Williamson and his co-conspirators filed false tax returns with the IRS to fraudulently obtain tax refunds. To facilitate the fraud, they used the names and social security numbers of deceased taxpayers. More than 480 fraudulent tax refund checks totaling almost $2 million were deposited into Williamson’s account. More information about the Tax Division’s enforcement efforts in these and other areas can be found on the division’s website.
Have as 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) 


Tuesday, April 13, 2021

IRS Appeals Now Requires Virtual Conferences For Taxpayers Who Request a Face to Face Conference

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals (“Appeals”) has issued a procedural memo,  AP-08-0321-0009: Memorandum for Required Use of Virtual Conferences, that requires Appeals employees to offer a virtual conference to taxpayers who request an in-person conference that can't be accommodated. Offering a virtual Appeals conference previously wasn't required in this situation. 

Most taxpayers with an active tax controversy can request a conference with Appeals to try to settle their tax controversy. (Code Sec. 7803(e)(4))

This new procedural memo requires Appeals employees to offer taxpayers a “virtual conference” in certain circumstances. 

For example, an Appeals employee is required to offer and conduct a virtual conference if the taxpayer (or their representative) has requested one. In addition, the Appeals employee should offer a virtual conference if the taxpayer (or their representative) has requested an in-person conference, but that request can’t be accommodated by Appeals.

Prior to COVID, Appeals would generally hold an in-person conference if a taxpayer requests one. However, Appeals stopped conducting in-person conferences at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and has not yet resumed holding them. 

Appeals employees are not required to offer a virtual conference when a taxpayer (or their representative) has requested a phone or correspondence conference. In this case, the Appeals employee should use their judgment and experience to determine whether to voluntarily offer a virtual conference to that taxpayer. 

If the taxpayer declines the offer of a virtual conference, then the Appeals employee should continue with normal case processing procedures.

The Memo notes that this procedural deviation doesn't replace in-person conferences when Appeals begins holding them again. Appeals will still hold in-person conferences when Appeals can accommodate them and such conferences are appropriate. 

This guidance is effective as of March 22, 2021and will be incorporated into IRM 8.6.1 within two years of this date.

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) 

Abusive Micro-Captive Insurance Arrangements Participants Are Urged to Exit These Arrangements By The IRS


Internal Revenue Service officials on April 9, 2021 urged participants in abusive micro-captive insurance arrangements to exit these transactions as soon as possible (
IR-2021-82). 

The IRS Has Stepped Up Examinations of These Arrangements And Has Recently Won Yet Another Case In U.S. Tax Court
That Such Arrangements Are Not Eligible
For The Tax Benefits Claimed.

On March 10, 2021, the U.S. Tax Court held in Caylor Land & Dev. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-30 (2021), that yet another micro-captive arrangement failed to qualify as insurance for federal tax purposes. This decision follows several earlier Tax Court decisions that also confirmed the IRS’s determinations that certain micro-captive arrangements were not eligible for the claimed federal tax benefits. In Caylor, the Tax Court also sustained the IRS’s determination of accuracy-related penalties and rejected the taxpayer’s claim of reliance on tax advice.

Taxpayers who engaged in abusive micro-captive transactions are once again encouraged to consult an independent tax advisor prior to filing their 2020 tax returns. Taxpayers should consider exiting the transaction and not reporting deductions associated with abusive micro-captive insurance transactions.

“In multiple cases before the courts, judges have held that these ‘fanciful’ and ‘unreasonable’ arrangements don’t add up to insurance in the commonly accepted sense,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “I strongly urge participants in these arrangements to get independent legal advice separate from those who helped steer them into these abusive arrangements.”. 


In Notice 2016-66, the IRS advised that micro-captive insurance transactions have the potential for tax avoidance or evasion. The notice designated transactions that are the same as or substantially similar to transactions that are described in the notice as “Transactions of Interest.” The notice established reporting requirements for those entering into such transactions on or after Nov. 2, 2006 and created disclosure and list maintenance obligations for material advisors.

In March and July 2020, IRS issued letters to taxpayers who participated in a Notice 2016-66 transaction alerting them that IRS enforcement activity in this area will be expanding significantly and providing them with the opportunity to tell the IRS if they've discontinued their participation in this transaction before the IRS initiates examinations. Early responses indicate that a significant number of taxpayers who participated in these transactions have exited the transaction.

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)