Extension Time The IRS Gets Extra Time to Assess Tax Based on Preparer Fraud
|
|
- Eugene Morgan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Extension Time The IRS Gets Extra Time to Assess Tax Based on Preparer Fraud Podcast of March 10, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: Home page for Podcast: 2007 The TaxUpdate podcast is intended for tax professionals and is not designed for those not skilled in independent tax research. All readers and listeners are expected to do their own research to confirm items raised in this presentation before relying upon the positions presented. The Podcast and this document may be reproduced freely so long as no fee is charged for the use of this document. Such prohibited use would include using this podcast or document as part of a CPE presentation for which a fee is charged. This podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at Leimberg Information Services offers newsletters on tax related matters, as well as access to a library of useful information to tax practitioners that subscribe to their services. Preparer Fraud Taints Taxpayer This week the Tax Court issued a ruling that held that a tax preparer s bad acts in preparing a fraudulent tax return allowed for an unlimited extension of time for the IRS to assess tax against a taxpayer even if the taxpayer him or herself did not commit the fraud. The case in question is Allen v. Commissioner 128 TC No. 4. The case is a useful one to use to remind clients why you shouldn t merely opinion shop (or, better yet, refund shop) in selecting a tax professional to work with if someone promises something that sounds too good to be true, the taxpayer may be stuck with serious consequences if it turns out it really is too good to be true
2 Statute for Assessing Tax Reason dictates that, in general, both the IRS and the taxpayer have a limited period of time in most cases to revise a tax return. If that were not the case taxpayers would end up having to maintain all of their tax records forever, creating an unreasonable burden for compliance. For that reason, we find rules related to the limitation of time during which the IRS can ask for additional tax. If the IRS misses that deadline, the taxpayer would be able to forget about the year in question and not worry about future liability for that year. The rule on the limitation of time for the assessment of tax by the IRS is found in IRC Section The general rule is found in 6501(a) which provides: (a) General rule Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed (whether or not such return was filed on or after the date prescribed) or, if the tax is payable by stamp, at any time after such tax became due and before the expiration of 3 years after the date on which any part of such tax was paid, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such tax shall be begun after the expiration of such period. For purposes of this chapter, the term "return" means the return required to be filed by the taxpayer (and does not include a return of any person from whom the taxpayer has received an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit). The issue in this case deals with the otherwise provided provisions found in 6501, specifically 6501(c)(1) which provides: (1) False return In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. Note that if 6501(c)(1) is found to apply to a return, the tax may be assessed at any time so there s no three year statute of limitations to protect the taxpayer down the line against an assessment of tax. The key question that is looked at in the case in question is whether the taxpayer must be culpable him/herself in the fraudulent aspects of the tax returns or whether the only issue is that the IRS must show there was fraud inherent in the acts of some party to the return in question, even if that party was the paid preparer, thus creating a fraudulent return
3 The Allen Case In the Allen case, we find a UPS truck driver who engaged the services of a tax preparer and gave the preparer his W-2, 401(k) statements, mortgage interest statement and property statements for the years in question (1999 and 2000). But it turned out the preparer in question did not necessarily limit himself to just that information to prepare Mr. Allen s returns. Rather, the court notes: Mr. Goosby prepared petitioner's returns for the years at issue and claimed false and fraudulent Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, for both years. The false deductions included deductions for charitable contributions, meals and entertainment, and pager and computer expenses, as well as various other expenses. Petitioner received complete copies of petitioner's returns for the years at issue after they had been filed, but he did not file an amended tax return for either year. While not totally clear from that final sentence, it would appear likely that the preparer sent the returns themselves in through efile prior to actually providing the taxpayer with copies of the return. Thus, it appears, the taxpayer was not aware of the fraud until after the fraudulent return was filed with the IRS, at least for the first year in question. The tax preparer ended up coming to the notice of the IRS CID division and the taxpayer ended up becoming very personally aware of this matter. As the court noted: Two special agents of respondent's Criminal Investigation Division interviewed petitioner concerning Mr. Goosby's preparation of his income tax returns. Mr. Goosby was indicted, tried, and convicted of 30 violations of section 7206(2) (willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent income tax returns) in 2006, although petitioner's returns for the years at issue were not used as the basis for any counts of the indictment. Is the IRS Too Late to Collect the Tax? The IRS issued their notice adjusting the tax preparer s creative adjustments to Mr. Allen s returns on March 22, 2005 for both the 1999 and 2000 returns, after the expiration of the standard three year statute of limitations on both of those returns. The IRS position was that the returns themselves were clearly fraudulent the preparer had invented deductions with clear objective of evading the tax on behalf of taxpayer, a feat which also had the effect of helping his marketing to taxpayers who believe that the best way to judge a good tax preparer is by the size of the refund they get and clearly his were larger than those of most of his competitors who, for whatever reason, felt that they should not create works of fiction for their clients. Prior to trial, the parties specifically agreed to the following points: - 3 -
4 The parties also agree that petitioner himself did not have the intent to evade tax, but Mr. Goosby claimed the false deductions for the years at issue on petitioner's returns with the intent to evade tax. So we now are down to the issue of law can the IRS apply 6501(c)(1) in a case where the taxpayer himself had no fraudulent intent to evade tax but the preparer did? Analysis of the Issue The taxpayer contends that only the general rule of 6501(a) applies, and the IRS simply filed their assessment too late. Petitioner alleges that the limitations periods for assessment of taxes with respect to petitioner's returns for the years at issue expired before respondent issued petitioner the deficiency notice. Respondent argues that the preparer's fraudulent intent to evade tax is sufficient to keep the limitations periods open. Petitioner counters that only the intent of the taxpayer, not the preparer, is relevant to whether the returns were fraudulent so as to extend the limitations period. The Court considers this argument, but notes that they find nothing in the plain language of the statute that limits 6501(c)(1) in the way the taxpayer argues. The Court notes: The statute provides that the tax may be assessed at any time "[i]n the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax." Sec. 6501(c)(1). Notably absent from this provision is any express requirement that the fraud be the taxpayer's. Nothing in the plain meaning of the statute suggests the limitations period is extended only in the case of the taxpayer's fraud. The statute keys the extension to the fraudulent nature of the return, not to the identity of the perpetrator of the fraud. Nor do we read the words "of the taxpayer" into the statute to require the taxpayer to have the intent to evade his or her own tax. The Court goes on to explain why this result makes sense by looking that IRS s arguments in the case and notes: Respondent argues, and we agree, that statutes of limitations are strictly construed in favor of the Government. Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 391 (1984); Lucia v. United States, 474 F.2d 565, 570 (5th Cir. 1973). An extended limitations period is warranted in the case of a false or fraudulent return because of the special disadvantage to the Commissioner in investigating these types of returns. Badaracco v. Commissioner, supra at 398. Three years may not be sufficient for the Commissioner to investigate or prove fraudulent intent. Id. at
5 We agree with respondent that the special disadvantage to the Commissioner in investigating fraudulent returns is present if the income tax return preparer committed the fraud that caused the taxes on the returns to be understated. Accordingly, taking into account our obligation to construe statutes of limitations strictly in favor of the Government, we conclude that the limitations period for assessing petitioner's taxes is extended if the taxes were understated due to fraud of the preparer. The Court goes on to dismiss cases the taxpayer cites for the proposition that the fraud must be the taxpayers by noting that in the cases in question it was the taxpayer that committed the fraud so those cases do not provide guidance for cases where there was a clear indication of fraud involving another party. What About the Burden on the Taxpayer? Finally, the taxpayer argues the point that began this article that the statute of limitations is designed to limit the burden on taxpayers, and this case would taxpayers would have to keep their records forever since merely knowing that the taxpayer had not committed fraud would not be enough. The taxpayer is now charged with assessing whether his preparer acted fraudulently. The Court did not have sympathy for this argument. The Court notes: Petitioner also argues that extending the limitations period for the fraudulent intent of the preparer would be unfairly burdensome because it would require taxpayers to keep records indefinitely. We disagree. Taxpayers are charged with the knowledge, awareness, and responsibility for their tax returns. Magill v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 465, (1978), affd. 651 F.2d 1233 (6th Cir. 1981); Teschner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo The taxpayer, not the preparer, has the ultimate responsibility to file his or her return and pay the tax due. Kooyers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo This duty cannot generally be avoided by relying on an agent. Estate of Clause v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 115, (2004); Am. Props., Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100, (1957), affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958). We do not find it unduly burdensome for taxpayers to review their returns for items that are obviously false or incorrect. It is every taxpayer's obligation. Petitioner cannot hide behind an agent's fraudulent preparation of his returns and escape paying tax if the Government is unable to investigate fully the fraud within the limitations period. The Commissioner has just as much need for an extended limitations period to investigate and examine taxpayers who sign and allow to be filed returns that greatly overstate expenses or include fictitious expenses whether the fraud was committed by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's preparer. To find otherwise would allow a taxpayer to receive the benefit of a fraudulent return by hiding behind the - 5 -
6 preparer. Taxpayers whose returns are fraudulent owing to fraud committed by the preparers would escape their tax liability if the Commissioner were unable to identify or investigate the fraud within the normal 3-year period. The above analysis should prove useful when explaining to clients why they have a responsibility in selecting a competent preparer, and why at times you don t take positions that they insist other people have told them their tax guy has taken in the past and they haven t had a problem. Conclusions One item we should consider about this matter, though, is what our advice should be if we take over a client where potentially problematic returns have been filed in the past. Presuming the IRS s position is sustained in other cases (and note that this is a published Tax Court decision, so you re going to end up with this result in Tax Court so a client would have to be willing to go other routes), taxpayers who have worked with problem preparers in the past should be warned about their exposure and potential issues moving forward
IRS Loses Case on Extended Statute of Limitations
Testing the Limits What is An Understatement of Gross Income? Podcast of June 22, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: 2007
More informationPlain Speaking, Nostalgia Style-General Powers of Appointment circa 1986 Podcast of October 28, 2006
Plain Speaking, Nostalgia Style-General Powers of Appointment circa 1986 Podcast of October 28, 2006 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for
More informationBut My Kids Are Worth It! Problems with Children on the Payroll Podcast of August 26, 2006
But My Kids Are Worth It! Problems with Children on the Payroll Podcast of August 26, 2006 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More informationThe Real Estate Salesperson and 469(c)(7)(C)
A Defining Moment Brokerage Trade or Business Podcast of March 9, 2009 2009 Edward K. Zollars, CPA The TaxUpdate podcast is intended for tax professionals and is not designed for those not skilled in independent
More informationOffsets and Recognizing Income or Deduction
A Matter of Timing-When Income and Deductions are Reported February 2, 2009 2009 Edward K. Zollars, CPA The Tax Update podcast is intended for tax professionals and is not designed for those not skilled
More informationCPA Says Error, IRS Says Method March 17, 2008
CPA Says Error, IRS Says Method March 17, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com 2008 Edward K. Zollars,
More informationSharing the Credit IRS Rules on 36 Provision January 20, Edward K. Zollars, CPA
Sharing the Credit IRS Rules on 36 Provision January 20, 2009 2009 Edward K. Zollars, CPA The TaxUpdate podcast is intended for tax professionals and is not designed for those not skilled in independent
More information14 - IRS Didn't Prove That Taxpayer Convicted of Filing False Returns Intended to Evade Tax
14 - IRS Didn't Prove That Taxpayer Convicted of Filing False Returns Intended to Evade Tax Mathews, TC Memo 2018-212 The Tax Court has held that, although the taxpayer was convicted of filing false income
More informationClient Side Penalties A Look at 6662 and It s Influence on Preparer Sanctions Podcast of June 29, 2007
Client Side Penalties A Look at 6662 and It s Influence on Preparer Sanctions Podcast of June 29, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for
More informationSafe Harbor for Section 1031 Exchanges
Safe Harbor for Section 1031 Exchanges March 3, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com 2008 Edward
More information140 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT
140 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WISE GUYS HOLDINGS, LLC, PETER J. FORSTER, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6643-12. Filed April 22, 2013.
More informationCity Wide Transit, Inc. v. Comm'r 111 AFTR 2d (03/01/2013)
City Wide Transit, Inc. v. Comm'r 111 AFTR 2d 2013-1012 (03/01/2013) CLICK HERE to return to the home page WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Some have suggested that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner")
More informationDocuments for Podcast 006 Reimbursing Employee s Business Expenses July 23, 2005
Documents for Podcast 006 Reimbursing Employee s Business Expenses July 23, 2005 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More information9.37 ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT INCOME TAX (26 U.S.C. 7201)
9.37 ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT INCOME TAX (26 U.S.C. 7201) The defendant is charged in [Count of] the indictment with [specify charge] in violation of Section 7201 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
More informationDoes a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate Funds as Return of Capital?
Michigan State University College of Law Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law Faculty Publications 1-1-2008 Does a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate
More informationAll IRS Employees Are Not Equal At Least When You Try To File May 9, 2008
All IRS Employees Are Not Equal At Least When You Try To File May 9, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. STEVEN A. SODIPO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-3 UNITED STATES TAX COURT STEVEN A. SODIPO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 19156-12. Filed January 5, 2015. Steven A. Sodipo, pro se. William J. Gregg,
More informationIRS Releases Simplified Telephone Tax Refund Procedure
A Ringing in Your Ears Businesses and Telephone Tax Refunds Podcast of November 18, 2006 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-4339 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
More information142 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. EGGERTSEN P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
142 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. EGGERTSEN P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 15479-11. Filed February 12, 2014. During its taxable
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
24 RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOHN M. CRIM, Petitioner(s, v. Docket No. 1638-15 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
More informationSubstantial Understatements the Penalty under 6662(b)(2) Podcast of July 8, 2007
Substantial Understatements the Penalty under 6662(b)(2) Podcast of July 8, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: 2007 The TaxUpdate
More informationKnight Time for Investment Fees in Trusts January 17, 2008
Knight Time for Investment Fees in Trusts January 17, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com 2008 Edward
More information2017 Loscalzo Institute, a Kaplan Company
June 5, 2017 Section: Exam IRS Warns Agents Against Using IRS Website FAQs to Sustain Positions in Exam... 2 Citation: SBSE-04-0517-0030, 5/30/17... 2 Section: Payments User Fees For Certain Rulings, Including
More informationTrust Fund Recovery. A Tax Resolution Institute Publication 2016
A Tax Resolution Institute Publication 2016 Trust Fund Recovery Facing possible retributions such as civil liability for unpaid employment taxes, including penalties and interest, and possible criminal
More informationAssignment of Income to S Corporation Not Valid Self Employment Tax Assessed
November 3, 2005 Podcast Substance over Form Who Can Assert It and When? Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More information21 - CA 10 Clarifies TEFRA Partnership Audit SOL and Trial Court Jurisdiction. Omega Forex Group LC et al., (CA 10 10/22/2018) 122 AFTR 2d
21 - CA 10 Clarifies TEFRA Partnership Audit SOL and Trial Court Jurisdiction Omega Forex Group LC et al., (CA 10 10/22/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5350 The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, affirming
More informationPayment Encore: Liability of Taxpayer for Embezzlement by Payroll Service Podcast for May 18, 2007
Payment Encore: Liability of Taxpayer for Embezzlement by Payroll Service Podcast for May 18, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast:
More information119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ALEX AND TONJA ORIA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2007-226 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEX AND TONJA ORIA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 246-05. Filed August 14, 2007. Steve M. Williard, for petitioners.
More informationCedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo
Cedric R. Kotowicz TC Memo 1991-563 CLICK HERE to return to the home page GOFFE, Judge: The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax against petitioner: Taxable
More informationS Corporation Health Insurance Modification
S Corporation Owner Health Insurance Deduction December 26, 2007 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More informationsus PETITIONERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF MAY * MAY US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT 7:32 PM LAWRENCE G. GRAEV & LORNA GRAEV, Petitioners,
US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT RECEIVED y % sus efiled MAY 31 2017 * MAY 31 2017 7:32 PM LAWRENCE G. GRAEV & LORNA GRAEV, Petitioners, ELECTRONICALLY FILED v. Docket No. 30638-08 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 18-10240 Document: 00514900211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee JULISA TOLENTINO, Defendant
More information- 1 - IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
- 1-26 U.S.C. 7203 Sole Proprietorship or Partnership Employer's Quarterly Return Failure to File - Tabular Form Information Venue in District of Service Center 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
More information135 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
135 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 24178-09W, 24179-09W. Filed July 8, 2010. P filed two claims
More informationAnd You Get Your Own Car Cars Provided to Employees Podcast of September 1, 2006
And You Get Your Own Car Cars Provided to Employees Podcast of September 1, 2006 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com
More information2018 VT 21. Nos , , & v. On Appeal from Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Kenneth C. Montani
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. NICHOLAS A. AND MARJORIE E. PALEVEDA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 1997-416 UNITED STATES TAX COURT NICHOLAS A. AND MARJORIE E. PALEVEDA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 840-96. Filed September 18, 1997. Nicholas A. Paleveda,
More informationLaw Office of W. Mark Scott, PLLC
The Resurgence of Whistleblowers in IRS Bond Enforcement By: W. Mark Scott I. THERE AND BACK AGAIN The IRS Office of Tax Exempt Bonds received a significant number of whistleblower tips during my tenure
More informationThis case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page.
This case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. T.C. Memo. 1998-23 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PAUL M. AND JUNE S. SENGPIEHL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More informationRugby Productions Ltd. v. Commissioner 100 T.C. 531 (T.C. 1993)
Rugby Productions Ltd. v. Commissioner 100 T.C. 531 (T.C. 1993) CLICK HERE to return to the home page Alan G. Kirios and David J. Gullen, for petitioner. Marilyn Devin, for respondent. OPINION NIMS, Judge:
More information138 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. CHARLES J. SOPHY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
138 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT CHARLES J. SOPHY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent BRUCE H. VOSS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos.
More informationTHE ELITE QUARTERLY Ethics for Enrolled Agents
THE ELITE QUARTERLY Ethics for Enrolled Agents Published by CPElite, Inc The Leader in Continuing Professional Education Newsletters 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationPURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-94 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RAMON EMILIO PEREZ, Petitioner v.
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. KENNETH L. MALLORY AND LARITA K. MALLORY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2016-110 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KENNETH L. MALLORY AND LARITA K. MALLORY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14873-14. Filed June 6, 2016. Joseph A. Flores,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Peter McLauchlan v. Case: CIR 12-60657 Document: 00512551524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2014Doc. 502551524 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PETER A. MCLAUCHLAN, United States
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF (ACCT. NO.: ) INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT DOCKET NO.: 17-061 TAX YEAR
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. YULIA FEDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2012-10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT YULIA FEDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 1628-10. Filed January 10, 2012. Frank Agostino, Lawrence M. Brody, and Jeffrey
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:16-cv-00106-CCE-JEP Document 60 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ALICE J. COGGIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:16-CV-106 ) UNITED
More informationProposed 10.4(c) provides the requirements to be designated as a registered return preparer.
SECTION: CIRCULAR 230 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CIRCULAR 230 TO ESTABLISH REGISTERED RETURN PREPARERS, MANDATE FOR OVERSIGHT BY CHIEF TAX PRACTITIONER IN FIRM AND PENALTY FOR FAILING TO ELECTRONIC FILE MANDATED
More informationHowell v. Commissioner TC Memo
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Howell v. Commissioner TC Memo 2012-303 MARVEL, Judge MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION Respondent mailed to petitioners a notice of deficiency dated December
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RAYMOND S. MCGAUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2016-28 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RAYMOND S. MCGAUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13665-14. Filed February 24, 2016. P had a self-directed IRA of which
More informationCox v. Commissioner T.C. Memo (T.C. 1993)
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Cox v. Commissioner T.C. Memo 1993-326 (T.C. 1993) MEMORANDUM OPINION BUCKLEY, Special Trial Judge: This matter is assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3)
More information136 T.C. No. 30 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
136 T.C. No. 30 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 24178-09W, 24179-09W. Filed June 20, 2011. P filed two claims
More informationYulia Feder v. Commissioner, TC Memo , Code Sec(s) 61; 72; 6201; 7491.
Checkpoint Contents Federal Library Federal Source Materials Federal Tax Decisions Tax Court Memorandum Decisions Tax Court Memorandum Decisions (Current Year) Advance Tax Court Memorandums Yulia Feder,
More informationTHE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058
THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 1058 Pirrone, Maria St. John s University! ABSTRACT In Samueli v. Commissioner
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AMANDA N. VU, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 17-9007 ) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) Respondent-Appellee. ) APPELLANT S REPLY
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. EDWARD S. FLUME, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2017-21 UNITED STATES TAX COURT EDWARD S. FLUME, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent Docket No. 15772-14L. Filed January 30, 2017. David Rodriguez, for petitioner.
More informationBobrow v. Comm'r T.C. Memo (T.C. 2014)
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Bobrow v. Comm'r T.C. Memo 2014-21 (T.C. 2014) MEMORANDUM OPINION NEGA, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' income tax for taxable year 2008
More informationSophy v Commissioner 138 TC 204 (2012)
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Sophy v Commissioner 138 TC 204 (2012) COHEN, Judge OPINION In these consolidated cases respondent determined deficiencies of $19,613 and $6,799 in petitioner Charles
More informationCharitable Contributions: Acknowledgements, Appraisals and the IRS s Strict Rules
Charitable Contributions: Acknowledgements, Appraisals and the IRS s Strict Rules W. Roderick Gagné gagner@pepperlaw.com Lisa B. Petkun petkunl@pepperlaw.com UPON AUDIT, IF A TAXPAYER DOES NOT HAVE A CONTEMPORANEOUS
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOHN KELLER, ACTION AUTO BODY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2012-62 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN KELLER, ACTION AUTO BODY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 28991-09. Filed March 8, 2012. R determined that 10 of P
More informationIRS Errors Get Taxpayer Partial Abatement of Late Payment Interest
IRS Errors Get Taxpayer Partial Abatement of Late Payment Interest King, TC Memo 2015-36 Where a taxpayer was unable to pay his employment tax liabilities on time and asked for an installment payment agreement,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationv. Docket 'No S
UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington, D.C. 20217 GERNOT AND HELGA RUTH MUELLER, Petitioners, v. Docket 'No. 532-89S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION Pursuant to the determination of
More informationThat's Not Income, That's a Discount The Ninth Circuit Corrects the Tax Court Podcast for July 8, 2006
That's Not Income, That's a Discount The Ninth Circuit Corrects the Tax Court Podcast for July 8, 2006 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98 In the matter between: COMPUTICKET Applicant and MARCUS, M H, NO AND OTHERS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date of Hearing:
More informationWandry v. Commissioner
Wandry v. Commissioner The Secret Sauce Estate Planners Have Been Waiting For? By Tiffany B. Carmona And Tye J. Klooster Tiffany B. Carmona is a senior vice-president and associate fiduciary counsel in
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ORALIA PAVIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2008-270 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ORALIA PAVIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 640-07. Filed December 4, 2008. Oralia Pavia, pro se. Jeffrey D. Heiderscheit,
More informationTax Evasion Confusion in the Ninth Circuit
Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship 2007 Tax Evasion Confusion in the Ninth Circuit Kimberly Stanley Golden Gate University School of Law, kstanley@ggu.edu
More information143 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. PARIMAL H. SHANKAR AND MALTI S. TRIVEDI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
143 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PARIMAL H. SHANKAR AND MALTI S. TRIVEDI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 24414-12. Filed August 26, 2014. R disallowed Ps'
More informationThis case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page.
This case is referenced in an endnote at the Bradford Tax Institute. CLICK HERE to go to the home page. 123 T.C. No. 16 UNITED STATES TAX COURT TONY R. CARLOS AND JUDITH D. CARLOS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More information137 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
137 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13399-10W. Filed July 12, 2011. On Jan. 29, 2009, P filed with R a claim
More informationFINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT, March 18, Respondent.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT, v. NOBLE B. TRENHAM (CRD No. 449157) Complainant, Respondent. Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2007007377801 HEARING
More informationSANAIS 433 North Camden Drive Suite 600 Beverly Hills, California Tel Fax:
SANAIS 433 North Camden Drive Suite 600 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Tel. 310-717-9840 Fax: 310-279-5122 July 16, 2015 BY EMAIL Augusta Precious Metals 8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 515 Beverly Hills, CA
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. MURRAY S. FRIEDLAND, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2011-90 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MURRAY S. FRIEDLAND, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13926-10W. Filed April 25, 2011. Murray S. Friedland, pro se. John
More informationUILC: , , , , , ,
Office of Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service Memorandum Number: 200503031 Release Date: 01/21/2005 CC:PA:APJP:B02 ------------ SCAF-119247-04 UILC: 6702.00-00, 6702.01-00, 6611.09-00, 6501.05-00, 6501.05-07,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE EUGENE SHAW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13-50136 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00862-JFW-1
More information1 Nichols Patrick CPE, Inc. The Tax Curriculum SM
APRIL 11, 2016 Section: 61 IRS Announces Disagreement With Case That Allowed Exclusion of Tax Advice Damage Award That Caused Taxpayer to Deviate from Lifetime Plan... 2 Citation: Cosentino v. Commissioner,
More informationChapter 43 Like Kind Exchange. Rev. Rul C.B. 225
Chapter 43 Like Kind Exchange Rev. Rul. 72-151 1972-1 C.B. 225 Advice has been requested as to the application of the nonrecognition of gain or loss provisions of section 1031 under the circumstances described
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Department of Management Services.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KENNETH C. JENNE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-2959
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 02-3262 For the Seventh Circuit WARREN L. BAKER, JR. and DORRIS J. BAKER, v. Petitioners-Appellants, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appeal from the United States
More informationBANKING. Q&A with OFFSHORE STEVEN GOLDBURD ABOUT AND THE ATTORNEY
Q&A with ATTORNEY STEVEN GOLDBURD ABOUT OFFSHORE BANKING AND THE There was big news last week about Bank Leumi s $400 million deal with the Department of Justice due to allegations of tax evasion. Yes.
More information178 November 13, 2015 No. 44 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
178 November 13, 2015 No. 44 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Marlin Mike E. HILLENGA and Sheri C. Hillenga, Respondents, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Appellant. (TC-RD 5086; SC
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICEOFHEARINGS&APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION GROSS RECEIPTS TAXASSESMENT DOCKET NO.: 16-105 ACCOUNT NO.: ) JESSICA DUNCAN, ADMINISTRATIVE IA
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. MATTI KOSONEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2000-107 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MATTI KOSONEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4259-98. Filed March 28, 2000. Andrew I. Panken and Robert A. DeVellis,
More informationENFORCEMENT AND DISCLOSURES DIRECTORATE (EDD), CANADA REVENUE AGENCY (CRA)
(EDD), CANADA REVENUE AGENCY (CRA) This presentation will explain that the mission of the Canada Revenue Agency s (CRA s) enforcement area is to deter, detect, and correct tax crimes. CRA s main goal is
More informationThe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act... i The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act... 1 Definitions used throughout this document... 1 For purposes of the Fair Debt
More informationNewton A. Burgess, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. UNITED STATES TAX COURT 8 T.C. 47 January 17, 1947, Promulgated
Newton A. Burgess, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent UNITED STATES TAX COURT 8 T.C. 47 January 17, 1947, Promulgated The respondent determined a deficiency of $3,059.23 in the
More informationRestaurant Owner's Cash Skimming, Other Misdeeds, Were Civil Tax Fraud
Restaurant Owner's Cash Skimming, Other Misdeeds, Were Civil Tax Fraud Musa, TC Memo 2015-58 The Tax Court has held that a restaurant owner who did not report significant amounts of cash that he skimmed
More informationT.C. Summary Opinion UNITED STATES TAX COURT
T.C. Summary Opinion 2016-57 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MARIO JOSEPH COLLODI, JR. AND ELIZABETH LOUISE COLLODI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 17131-14S. Filed September
More informationState Tax Return. A Federal Treaty and Approximately $2.00 Will Get You A Ride on the New York Subway
April 2008 State Tax Return Volume 15 Number 2 Peter Leonardis New York (212) 326-3770 A Federal Treaty and Approximately $2.00 Will Get You A Ride on the New York Subway Tax directors of corporations
More informationA Look at the Final Section 2053 Regulations
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Look at the Final Section 2053 Regulations 2009 by Jonathan G. Blattmachr & Mitchell M. Gans All Rights Reserved. Introduction As a general rule, expenses
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT
T.C. Memo. 2014-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ESTATE OF HAZEL F. HICKS SANDERS, DECEASED, MICHAEL W. SANDERS AND SALLIE S. WILLIAMSON, CO-EXECUTORS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
More informationRussell v Commissioner TC Memo
CLICK HERE to return to the home page Russell v Commissioner TC Memo 1994-96 This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) 1 and Rules 180, 181, and 182. Respondent determined deficiencies
More informationField Service Advice Number: Internal Revenue Service April 6, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C.
Field Service Advice Number: 200128011 Internal Revenue Service April 6, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 April 6, 2001 Number: 200128011 Release Date: 7/13/2001
More informationT.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2017-104 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT LIPPOLIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18172-12W. Filed June 7, 2017. Thomas C. Pliske, for petitioner. Ashley
More informationREPRESENTING NON-FILERS. Journal of the National Association of Enrolled Agents
REPRESENTING NON-FILERS Journal of the National Association of Enrolled Agents Published September/October 2007 By Howard S. Levy Non-filers are often overwhelmed by their predicament. Many times they
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBIN BETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-C-1161 MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant. DECISION AND
More information