The tax community is currently embroiled in a heated debate over proposed IRS guidelines concerning timing provisions, the broad scope of individuals eligible to approve penalties and exemptions related to automated penalty calculations.
At the heart of the controversy lies Section 6751(b), which mandates that the immediate supervisor of a revenue agent must personally provide
On September 8, 2023, the IRS announced a multitude of compliance initiatives aimed at high-income taxpayers, partnerships, digital assets, FBARs and labor brokers. According to the announcement, the IRS has finalized its “top-to-bottom review” of current enforcement efforts and intends to zero in on these matters in the near future. As expected, the impetus for change—according to the announcement—was Congress’s decision to provide the IRS with additional funding through its passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
A hearing is scheduled for September 11, 2023 for interested persons and organizations to provide testimony on proposed regulations on the timing and approval process for penalties. Section 6751(b) provides that:
No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.
The timing of when the approval is required by Section 6751(b) has been the subject of significant litigation. The Second Circuit in Chai v. Commissioner concluded that Congress enacted section 6751(b) to “prevent IRS agents from threatening unjustified penalties to encourage taxpayers to settle.” This has caused a lot of litigation in both the Tax Court and U.S. District Courts such that there are currently two different standards on timing of when such supervisory approval is required. If supervisory approval is to meet the goal of not being used as an unfair “bargaining chip” it must be required before such unwanted behavior can occur. Many groups have submitted comments asking for supervisory approval to be done earlier in the examination process than the proposed regulations require and that approval be done by a direct supervisor and not just anyone with penalty approval rights within the IRS.
Providers of digital asset services would be subjected to tax reporting regulations akin to those governing brokers of securities and analogous financial instruments, as outlined in the inaugural set of proposed regulations delineating protocols for assets like cryptocurrency and nonfungible tokens. These guidelines, disseminated by the Internal Revenue Service on Friday, introduce the requirement for digital asset brokers to submit information returns and payee statements relating to asset sales conducted on behalf of customers during specific transactions, in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 6045.
Additionally, the comprehensive 282-page proposal recommended that brokers incorporate gain or loss details and basis information for sales occurring on or after January 1, 2026, under specific circumstances. This provision is designed to equip customers with the requisite information for compiling their tax returns.
The effective date of these regulations is slated for transactions from the preceding year, with enforcement beginning in 2026.
Law360 covered the topic in an article on August 25, 2023 where Gray Reed Partner Joshua Smeltzer was one of the experts interviewed. Board Certified in Tax Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Joshua uses his experience as a former litigator for the U.S. Department of Justice to defend clients in tax audits, tax appeals, and litigation in Federal District Court, U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and tax issues in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has resulted in a massive influx of financial information to the IRS over the past 13 years, but the extent of this data remains unknown. Despite expectations of significant revenue, FATCA has not met its financial goals, and the IRS is grappling with the challenge of effectively utilizing the data it has received from partner jurisdictions to enforce tax compliance. Tax Notes covered the topic in an article on August 23, 2023. Gray Reed Partner Joshua Smeltzer was one of the experts interviewed. Board Certified in Tax Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Joshua uses his experience as a former litigator for the U.S. Department of Justice to defend clients in tax audits, tax appeals, and litigation in Federal District Court, U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and tax issues in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Excerpt:
Some of the funding will be used to help narrow the field of taxpayers potentially selected for audit, as the agency has been given a mandate to go after wealthy taxpayers, said Joshua D. Smeltzer of Gray Reed. “It will be difficult to target improvements in enforcement directly to FATCA because . . . dissecting enforcement increases on a granular level is just too hard,” Smeltzer said. However, because many more taxpayers in middle- and high-income brackets have worldwide finances, “the efforts by the IRS for FATCA enforcement will increase as well,” he said.
For some time, promoters have shopped around an arrangement known as a “section 643(b) trust,” known alternatively as a “non-grantor, irrevocable, complex, discretionary, spendthrift trust.” On August 9, 2023, IRS Chief Counsel issued a Memorandum that shoots down many of the contentions raised by the promoters relating to the tax benefits of these arrangements. The full Memorandum can be found here. Taxpayers who have entered into these types of arrangements should take careful note of the IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum and should discuss its implications with a tax professional.
Deadlines are important, particularly in federal tax law. Many taxpayers are aware, for example, of the significant penalties that the IRS may impose upon them for failure to timely file an income tax return or timely pay all taxes owed. But fewer taxpayers have an understanding or appreciation for the deadline rules associated with filing a timely petition with the United States Tax Court.
The IRS, like the rest of society, has faced several challenges as a result of the pandemic. Some of those challenges are still lingering, such as funding, backlog, lack of guidance and inexperienced auditors. Efforts to fix these problems are underway but will take time. As taxpayer advisors, it’s important to recognize the limitations in
UPDATE: On August 15, 2022, Judge Otis D. Write II in the Central District of California entered an order approving service of the summons by the IRS on sFOX for account and transaction records. The Department of Justice entered a press release the following day with Commissioner Chuck Rettig quoted as saying “the John Doe Summons remains a highly valuable enforcement tool that the U.S. government will use again and again to catch tax cheats and this is yet one more example of that.” Deputy Assistant Attorney General David A. Hubbert of the Department of Justice Tax Division was also quoted as well saying “taxpayers who transact with cryptocurrency should understand that income and gains from cryptocurrency transactions are taxable.”
The IRS knows it has a problem, in that it knows there are far more cryptocurrency transactions than are being reported on tax returns. The IRS may also get an $80 billion increase in funding for enforcement that will help solve that problem. What can taxpayers and cryptocurrency service providers expect? More John Doe Summonses. If there was any doubt, the IRS filed two new John Doe Summons requests (here and here) this week on cryptocurrency service provider sFOX. sFOX is the full-service crypto prime dealer for institutional investors, providing brokerage services for digital assets. It’s also now a target for information by the IRS and the Department of Justice Tax Division.
Properly navigating the IRS labyrinth of rules and regulations is difficult and sometimes taxpayers fail to dot every “i” and cross every “t”. The results can sometimes be devastating for both individuals and small businesses. Especially if the IRS chooses to assess penalties for the unknown failures and then pay those penalties from other funds the taxpayer submits through its offset power. The recent case of Special Touch Home Care Services v. United States, provides an example of how this can sometimes occur.