Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Tax Fraud Scheme Alleged by IRS

June 5, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is alleging a massive tax fraud scheme by two European bankers. They have been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to defraud the IRS pursuant to 18 U.S.C 371. According to the indictment among other things Bradley Birkenfeld, a former USB banker and US citizen, and Mario Staggl, a Liechtenstein citizen and resident, assisted an unnamed United States real estate developer in evading United States income taxes on approximately $200 million of assets held in offshore bank accounts.

The defendants allegedly committed tax fraud by falsifying Swiss Bank documents, by falsifying IRS Forms W-8BEN, by failing to issue IRS Forms 1099, by failing to prepare IRS Forms W-9, and by failing to adhere to the terms of the Qualified Intermediary Agreement with the IRS. The Qualified Intermediary Agreement was a voluntary agreement made between the Swiss Bank and the IRS in 2001 to which the Swiss Bank agreed to identify and document any customers who received reportable United States source income, as well as file appropriate tax documents with the IRS. This agreement was a departure from previous Swiss Bank secrecy laws which concealed bank information for US clients from the IRS. The defendants helped their US clients conceal their ownership of the accounts therefore evading the Swiss Banks obligation to report that information to the IRS.

According to the press release issued by the Department of Justice Tax Division the defendants marketed their services to wealthy United States clients by claiming that Swiss and Liechtenstein bank secrecy was impenetrable and could help their clients evade United States income taxes. The conspirators allegedly assisted their US clients in preparing false IRS documents, advised their clients to destroy any records of offshore bank accounts, and facilitated the filing of false IRS tax returns.

IRS Tax Fraud Charges Upheld

May 30, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss tax fraud charges leveled by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the owner of a small business. United States v. Greve, 490 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2007). The case illustrates the perils of representing yourself in a civil tax audit involving significant omissions of income because one never knows when a civil tax audit can turn into a criminal tax problem. The facts were that Mr. Greve operated a snow plow business, and prepared his own tax returns. In preparing those tax returns he omitted a portion of his income. When the tax audit began he proceeded to confess his sins to the IRS tax auditor, but at the same time withheld significant information from her. In addition, he apparently provided false documents to the IRS in the course of the tax audit. To top it off he transferred his home into a trust shortly before the tax audit began.

After the tax audit was part-way done Greve got around to hiring a tax lawyer. The court’s opinion does not disclose whether the tax attorney had experience handling criminal tax problems. The tax attorney met with the IRS agent, and apparently received assurances that the tax audit would be “wrapped up pretty quickly” once certain requested documents were turned over. Behind the scenes, however, the IRS agent was meeting with the Tax Fraud Coordinator, and plotting a criminal tax case. After he was indicted, Greve attempted to have evidence supressed on the theory that his cooperation had been induced by false promises that if he cooperated the matter would be resolved without a referal to the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Divsion (CID). The Court did not see it that way. Although the IRS agent failed to inform Greve that she was considering referring the case for referral to CID the Court held she was not required to do so.

The Greve case illustrates a classic eggshell tax audit, and how treachorous the waters are for those who have omitted signficant income from their tax returns who are picked for a tax audit. For anyone in that situation representation by a skilled tax lawyer is critical.

Southern California Tax Return Preparer Convicted of Tax Fraud

May 16, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

A Southern California tax return preparer, Matthew Carl Berry, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS pursuant to 18 U.S.C 371, and three counts of filing false federal income tax returns. According to the indictment among other things Berry prepared false documents to be used in IRS tax audits. According to the press release issued by the Department of Justice Tax Division’s criminal tax attorneys, Berry prepared fraudulent tax returns by claiming mortgage interest deductions for taxpayers who did not own homes. Berry faces up to 5 years imprisonment, and a fine of up to $250,000 for the conspiracy conviction, and another three years for the criminal tax convictions for filing false income tax returns. Berry could also be subject to civil tax preparer penalties pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6694.

If you have concerns about exposure to criminal tax fraud penalties or civil tax fraud penalties contact the tax dispute lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Innocent Spouse Relief Not Permitted by Ninth Circuit

May 15, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California upheld a decision of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) denying innocent spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally spouses filing joint income tax returns are both liable for any taxes due. In certain circumstances, however, one spouse may be entitled to so-called innocent spouse relief. One of the keys to obtaining innocent spouse relief, however, is making the request in a timely manner. There are a number of different deadlines which must be met, or else innocent spouse relief will be lost. In Huynh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-180 the taxpayer ran afoul of Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) . Not surprisingly the tax law requires that if a taxpayer wishes to claim innocent spouse relief it must be asserted in the same Tax Court case in which the taxpayer is disputing an income tax deficiency. However, Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) creates an exception if the innocent spouse claim was not an issue in the Tax Court proceeding. The exception to the exception, however, is that if the putative innocent spouse “participated meaningfully” in the proceeding than she can not later claim innocent spouse status.

The Tax Court noted that Mrs. Huynh participated in the prior tax deficiency proceeding by among other things, being present at meetings with the IRS’ Appeals Office, as well participating in pre-trial preparations, and settlement negotiations. Under these circumstances the Tax Court refines to allow Mrs. Huynh to later claim innocent spouse relief. Ms. Huynh was not represented by a tax attorney in either the first or second proceeding. Had she been properly advised by a tax attorney she would have raised her innocent spouse claim in the first proceeding.

If you believe you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager, Esq.
Continue Reading ›

Tax Fraud Involves NFL Players

May 8, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

Tax lawyers from the Department of Justice are seeking to enjoin two tax return preparers from representing anyone before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) , acting as tax preparers or engaging in any other tax related conduct. The IRS complaint also seeks an injunction barring the tax preparers from engaging in conduct which is subject to the tax preparer penalties of Internal Revenue Code § 6694. The injunction was requested pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 7407 and Internal Revenue Code § 7408.

According to the IRS complaint the tax return preparers committed tax fraud by filing fraudulent tax returns, and fraudulent amended tax returns claiming deductions for bogus mining development costs. Interestingly the IRS complaint alleges that 7 of the customers who had fraudulent tax returns prepared were NFL football players. The IRS complaint does not reveal the names of the players, and there is no indication in the complaint that the players knew that tax fraud had been committed.

If you are a tax preparer who has been accused by the IRS of tax fraud, tax evasion or violation of the tax return preparer penalty rules under Internal Revenue Code § 6694 contact the Southern California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. Our tax lawyers represent clients throughout California, including Orange County, the Inland Empire, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County including the cities of Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Santa Ana.

Tax Court Collection Due Process Case Dismissed

May 2, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

In Kennedy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-33, the United States Tax Court determined that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could not serve a tax levy on the taxpayer’s assets since it failed to send the collection due process (CDP) notice to the taxpayer’s last know address. Generally in order for the IRS to issue a tax levy it must first mail a Notice of Intent to Levy, and Right to Request Hearing, commonly referred to as a CDP Notice, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In Kennedy, the IRS mailed its notices to two different addresses. However, Mr. Kennedy never received them. Apparently this was because both addresses were incorrect. In fact the way Mr. Kennedy found out about the collection due process notice was when the IRS served a tax levy on his bank.

The Tax Court pointed out that Internal Revenue Code § 6330(a)(2) provides that the CDP notice must either be given in person, left at the person’s dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail to the person’s last known address. Since the IRS failed to send the CDP notice to Mr. Kennedy’s last known address the CDP notice was invalid. By the time the case got to the Tax Court the IRS realizing this and had refunded the money seized by the tax levy. That, however, was not sufficient. In order for the IRS to serve any additional tax levies the Tax Court required that the IRS issue a new CDP notice, and give Mr. Kennedy an opportunity for a hearing first in the IRS’ Appeals Division, and then if Mr. Kennedy was not satisfied with the result he would be entitled to a brand new hearing in the Tax Court.

If you have received a tax levy, have tax debts, or other tax problems call the tax controversy lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

IRS Innocent Spouse Relief Publication Released

April 15, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Publication 971 on Innocent Spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally, individuals who sign joint tax returns with their spouses are both jointly and severally liable for any taxes not paid with the return without regard to which spouse created the tax problem. Under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code § 6015, however, some spouses may be able to get out from under their tax problems. Publication 971 gives the IRS take on innocent spouse relief. If you want to read the opinions of our tax lawyers on innocent spouse relief you can see the innocent spouse articles on our website.

Publication 971 points out the time periods for filing for innocent spouse relief. Requests for innocent spouse relief must be filed on IRS Form 8857 no later than two years from the date the IRS first attempts to collect the tax due. IRS attempts to collect the tax due are limited to:

• The filing of a claim for by the IRS in a court proceeding, including a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Tax Audits by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Up

January 30, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says that tax audits have increased during the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. For example the IRS audited 84% more returns of individuals with income of over $1 million dollars than the previous year. This amounted to a tax audit rate of almost 10%.Tax audits of individuals with income of $200,000 or more rose almost 30%. Overall the IRS conducted tax audits of more individuals than at any time since 1998.

Business also came in for an increased tax audit rate. S corporation tax audits were up 26%, and partnership tax audits were up by almost 25%.

Tax levies, and tax liens by the IRS were also a growth area, with the IRS filing 3.8 million tax levies and almost 700,000 tax liens during 2007

United States Tax Court Amends Rules for Access to Tax Documents

January 29, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court John Colvin announced the other day that the Tax Court has adopted amendments to the Tax Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Most of these changes are effective as of March 1, 2008. However, the rules relating to remote access to electronic files will be effective at some point in the future on a date to be announced by the Tax Court. For most taxpayers the Tax Court is the only place for a tax controversy to be heard by independent judge, and not the Internal Revenue Service. It is where the bulk of federal tax litigation occurs.

In the past when a Tax Court Petition was filed the Tax Court’s rules required that the taxpayer list his or her social security number along with his address. Due to privacy concerns new U.S. Tax Court Rule 20(b) provides for the submission of a separate statement with the taxpayer’s social security number. That statement will not, however, be part of the Court’s file, and hence not available to the general public. New Tax Court Rule 27 directs all parties including the IRS to redact taxpayer identification numbers, dates of birth, names of minor children and financial account numbers in filings with the Tax Court.

In addition U.S. Tax Court Rule 27(b) provides for internet access to case documents to the parties and their counsel.

Wrongful Levy Claim Instructions Provided by Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

January 22, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has provided new instructions for persons who wish to file wrongful levy claims against the IRS pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6343(b). These instructions are set forth in IRS Publication 4528 (Rev. Nov. 2007). If the IRS were to take your property to pay taxes that someone else owed a wrongful levy claim is one of the ways to get your property back.

Why would the IRS seize your property to pay someone else’s taxes? Well it might just be a mistake, but that’s unlikely. One way it might happen is if a closely held corporation ran into IRS or California payroll tax problems. Perhaps the owner decided that rather than deal with this tax problem he would start another company; we will call it “Newco.” When the IRS gets wind of this if it determines that Newco is a transferee, nominee or alter ego of the original company (let’s call it “Oldco”) it will levy (that is seize) the assets of Newco to satisfy the payroll tax liability of Oldco.

Newco may have some defenses to the IRS levy. For example in some cases if Newco paid fair market value for the assets of Oldco it is possible that Newco may not be responsible for Oldco’s payroll taxes. In order to get the money back it would be appropriate to file a wrongful levy claim with the IRS. Another possible remedy is to file suit in United States District Court under Internal Revenue Code Section 7426(a)(1).