DOJ Wins $1 Billion Tax Shelter Case Against Dow Chemical.

The Justice Department has won a tax shelter case involving Dow Chemical, in which the company was accused of creating approximately $1 billion in phony tax deductions in a scheme designed by Goldman Sachs and lawyers at King & Spalding.

A federal court in Baton Rouge, La., on Monday rejected two tax shelter transactions entered into by Dow Chemical that purported to create approximately $1 billion in phony tax deductions. In addition to rejecting the tax benefits from the shelter transactions, Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson also imposed penalties. 

The schemes were allegedly created by Goldman Sachs and the law firm of King & Spalding, according to prosecutors, and involved creating a partnership that Dow operated out of its European headquarters in Switzerland. The case dates back to transactions Dow started in 1993 that involved patent transfers to company subsidiaries.

Chief Judge Jackson wrote in his 74-page opinion that the government was correct to reject the artificial tax benefits created by these schemes that were designed to exploit perceived weaknesses in the tax code and not designed for legitimate business reasons.

The judge noted that “tax law deals in economic realities, not legal abstractions.”

 

Jackson also wrote that penalties were appropriate because any reasonable and prudent person should have known that the artificial tax benefits created by the scheme were “too good to be true.”

 

He noted in his opinion that “Dow viewed its tax department as a profit center,” and had at its disposal “numerous lawyers and tax professionals.”

Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally of the Justice Department’s Tax Division praised the Louisiana court’s opinion.

“It is offensive to all taxpayers who pay their fair share when our largest corporations believe that they can claim hundreds of millions of dollars in tax deductions that are manufactured by abusive tax schemes,” Keneally said in a statement.

 

She thanked the agents and attorneys at the Internal Revenue Service who assisted the Justice Department, as well as Tax Division trial attorneys, Thomas Sawyer, Robert Welsh, Thomas Koelbl and Philip Schreiber.

"Dow is disappointed by the trial court's decision.” The company added that it believed the judge’s opinion was not supported by the facts and applicable law and it is exploring all of its options, including appeal.

 

Need Solid Tax Advise Tax Will Hold Up in Court?

 

 

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

for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.usor www.TaxLaw.ms

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

 

 Sources:

 

AccountingToday

 

Chicago Tribune

 

Aother UBS-Related FBAR Conviction!

According to Anthony Parent -- The US Department of Justice (DOJ) scored yet another victory in its crusade against Offshore tax evasion. Christopher B. Berg of Portola Valley, Calif. plead guilty in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California of one count of willful failure to file, in 2005, the required report of foreign bank account (FBAR) for a bank account he opened with UBS in Switzerland.  

According to the information, in 1999, Berg began working as a consultant. In 2000, Berg met with Beda Singenberger, a Swiss financial consultant, and a vice president of banking at UBS in San Francisco regarding setting up a bank account at UBS in Switzerland to shelter a portion of his consulting income from taxation.

 
Beginning in 2001 and continuing through 2005, funds representing $642,069 in compensation earned by Berg from consulting services were deposited by wire transfer to UBS accounts.
 
Berg used the money in these accounts at UBS in Switzerland to purchase a vehicle, to obtain cash while in Europe, and to pay the balance on a Eurocard he used while traveling in Europe.
 
Berg did not disclose the existence of his accounts at UBS in Switzerland to his certified public accountant, and did not disclose the income earned by these accounts or the consulting income deposited to the accounts.
 
If restitution is ordered, and Mr. Berg can’t pay, he will likely have a parallel civil tax assessment and an ugly tax problem. In order to settle the civil tax assessment with an Offer in Compromise, he must first pay the criminal restitution amount.
 
The other hurdle is that the IRS does not like to settle back taxes if they feel someone is dishonest or not worthy of consideration. It is very difficult to settle back taxes due to tax evasion.
 
Lastly, even discharging tax debts in bankruptcy (after waiting the appropriate time) is difficult as well, as the Chapter 7 bankruptcy code states that any tax arises from a willful attempt to evade or defeat tax is non-dischargeable. So the best hope in cases where a defendant is given an order of restitution and civil assessment that he can’t afford to to pay is, on the civil side, to get into a Partial Payment Installment Agreement, or Currently Non-Collectable status, wait out the IRS civil statute of limitations and then seek to modify the criminal restitution (which has no statute of limitations) in criminal court.
 

 

To those considering using the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program - criminal cases are very difficult to recover from financially.
 
It is nothing like settling back taxes from such calamities as divorce, unemployment, or health problems. Criminal tax problems are usually fairly catastrophic — even without jail time.

Secret Foreign Investments Keeping You Awake at Night?

Want to get right with the IRS?
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).

 

What ... More Reporting Requirements in Addition to the Dreaded FBAR Report?

Besides having to file FBAR reports for a US taxpayer's Interest in Foreign Accounts, US Taxpayers also have the following Reporting Requirement for their Investments in Foreign Entities:

· Form 5471 –Used to report that you are a 10% or more shareholder in a foreign corporation.

· Form 5472 –Used to report that a US corporation had a 25% foreign shareholder or engaged in reportable transactions.

· Form 8886 –Used to report any reportable transaction you participated in.

· Form 8865 –Used to report that you are a 10% partner in a foreign partnership.

· Form 926 –Used to report transfers of property to a foreign corporation, including undistributed earnings.

· Form 3520 –Used to report a foreign trust with a US owner.

· Form 8621 –Used to report a shareholder interest in a Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC, most foreign mutual funds) or a Qualified Electing Fund.

These forms are all information returns, meaning they do not calculate any tax but are a document that is simply for the IRS’s information. These are in addition to any tax forms an individual, business, or other entity may have to file to report income and pay tax.

These forms are among the most complex the IRS has to offer,and require meticulous record-keeping and data entry. Knowing whether a person or entity is required to file can be a difficult determination. Furthermore, the penalties for failure to file are extremely steep:

· Failure to file Form 5471 penalties: $10,000 failure to file penalty per year per person required to file.

· Failure to file Form 5472 penalties: $10,000 failure to file per year per person required to file.

· Failure to file Form 8886 penalties: minimum of $5,000 in the case of an individual, $10,000 in the case of any other entity, maximum of $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for other entities. This rises to a maximum of $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per entities for certain listed transactions for which the form is not filed.

· Failure to file Form 8865 penalties: $10,000 failure to file penalty per year per person required to file.

· Failure to file Form 926 penalties: 10% of the property transfer, up to $100,000 although not limited if the failure to file was due to “intentional disregard.”

· Failure to file Form 3520 penalties: The greater of $10,000 or 35% of the gross value of the property transferred to a foreign trust or 35% of the gross value of distributions received from a foreign trust.

· Failure to file Form 8621: There are no direct penalties for failing to report a shareholder interest in a PFIC or Qualified Electing Fund.

If these failures to file have occurred due to reasonable cause, we have been able to help several taxpayers file previous information returns and receive penalty abatements for failure to file. This is in the case of failure to file information returns only. 

 

If you have failed to file information returns and have a tax liability due to previously unreported foreign transactions or income, you may need to participate in the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program in order to protect yourself from steep penalties or other consequences.

Many taxpayers have used foreign entities as a shield to help them hide assets and income from the IRS. Yet because of FATCA such techniques may no longer work and were not advisable in the first place.

Additionally, where a taxpayer fails to report certain information regarding foreign transactions, the time for assessment of any tax with respect to any tax return, event, or period to which the information relates will not expire before the date that is three years after the date on which the information is reported. IRC §6501(c)(8).

Accordingly, it appears that the additional time for assessment applies not only to items related to the failure to report but also any other item pertinent to the return in question.

The good news is those who have failed to file any of the above returns and have unreported income may also enter in to the current IRS Voluntary Disclosure Initiative.

Secret Foreign Investments Keeping You Awake at Night?

Want to get right with the IRS?

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). 

 

 

 

Source:

Anthony Parente

 

Do You Qualify to Settle Your IRS Tax Debt For Pennies on the Dollar?

Now you no longer need to guess because the Internal Revenue Service has introduced a new tool for determining a taxpayer’s eligibility for an offer in compromise that can help lower the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debts. 

The IRS’s new Offer in Compromise Pre-qualifier tool Helps Tax Practitioners determine a taxpayer’s eligibility for an offer in compromise and calculates a preliminary offer amount before they start on the paperwork. An offer in compromise is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer’s tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed. 

The online tool asks information such as the taxpayer’s ZIP code, state, county, the total number of members of their household, including those over age 65, and the total IRS tax debt, along with the most recent tax year they are requesting to compromise. It begins by asking if the taxpayer is in an open bankruptcy proceeding, has filed all of the required federal tax returns, made all of the required estimated tax payments, and submitted all of the required federal tax deposits if they are self-employed or have employees.  

The tool also requests information on the taxpayer’s assets, income and expenses, and leads to a proposal. 

Last year, the IRS expanded its Fresh Start initiative to offer more help to unemployed and financially stressed taxpayers (see IRS Announces More Flexible Offer-in-Compromise Terms to Help a Greater Number of Struggling Taxpayers!). Those efforts included streamlined procedures for both installment agreements and offers in compromise. The IRS now has more flexibility with financial analysis for determining reasonable collection potential for distressed taxpayers. 

However, an offer generally will not be accepted if the IRS believes the liability can be paid in full as a lump sum or through a payment agreement. The IRS first examines a taxpayer’s income and assets before making a determination regarding the taxpayer’s ability to pay. 

The number of requests for offers increased by 28 percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2011. At the same time, the resources available at the IRS to work on the offers have decreased, creating an inventory backlog and delaying responses to taxpayers.  

The new OIC pre-qualifier tool could help the IRS reduce this backlog by encouraging taxpayers and tax practitioners to do the work ahead of time to determine whether an offer in compromise is worth pursuing.

IRS Problems Keeping You Awake at Night?
 

Want to Settle for Pennies on the Dollar!

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).

Source:

AccountingToday

 

Get Ready for the EU TIN ... Comming To Europe Soon!

The European Commission requested consultations from the pubic regarding establishing an EU Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

Comment Are Requested:

 

Use of an EU Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)

Title

Consultation on the "Use of an EU Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)" [short-name: EUTIN]

Policy fields

Taxation

Target groups

All citizens and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. Contributions are particularly sought from individual citizens, businesses, tax practitioners, academics, intergovernmental, non-governmental and business organizations, tax administrations.

Period of consultation

From25.02.2013 to 17.05.2013

Objective of the consultation

The Commission adopted on 27th June 2012 a Communication on the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. An Action Plan which details concrete proposals to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion was adopted on the 6th of December 2012.   One of the 34 measures contained in the Action Plan is the creation of a European Taxpayer Identification Number (EU TIN) which is described as follows (action 22):   "TINs are considered as providing the best means of identifying taxpayers under automatic exchange of information.   The national TINs are however built according to national rules which differ considerably and make it difficult for third parties (financial institutions, employers, other) to correctly identify and register foreign TINs and for the tax authorities to report back this information to the other tax jurisdictions.   The creation of an EU TIN might constitute the best solution to overcome the current difficulties faced by Member States in properly identifying all their taxpayers (natural and non-natural persons) engaged in cross border operations.   Whether this could be a unique EU number or the addition of an EU identifier to existing national TINs is an issue which should be further explored, as should be explored links with the other existing EU registration and identification systems.   Although the concept of an EU TIN is simple, its implementation is a complex issue which calls for a step-by-step approach.   A public consultation will be launched by March 2013. The presentation of a subsequent legislative proposal requires further in-depth studies and the strong support of the Member States. As a first step, a possibility would be to further develop the "TIN on EUROPA" portal, by making it possible to check the validity of national TINs by linking this application with Member States' databases." The Commission services are launching this public consultation in order to collect the opinions of all interested stakeholders on the creation of an EU Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). The Commission is seeking to collect information on the possible scope of an EU TIN (both in terms of operations and taxpayers covered), its practical aspects (including possible simplification and a step-by-step approach), its design and functioning, as well as various legal considerations (a.o. data protection).   The views expressed by the contributors will be used by the Commission services to identify the appropriate approach to the creation of an EU TIN and to develop the appropriate policy response.   The contributions may also be used in the possible preparation of the relating impact assessment.

In taking this action forward, it will be important to confirm its exact scope in addition to addressing a large set of practical and legal questions in order to ensure that any resulting proposal will reflect the needs and concerns of stakeholders.

 

Information Sharing Have You Losing Sleep?

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).

Source:

EU Taxation & Customs Union

 

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About...ATRA of 2012.

The Joint Committee Released Their Explaniation of American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) of 2012.

This document, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in consultation with the staffs of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, provides an explanation of tax legislation enacted in the 112th Congress.

The explanation follows the chronological order of the tax legislation as signed into law. For each provision, the document includes a description of present law, explanation of the provision, and effective date. Present law describes the law in effect immediately prior to enactment. It does not reflect changes to the law made by the provision or subsequent to the enactment of the provision. For many provisions, the reasons for change are also included.

In some instances, provisions included in legislation enacted in the 112th Congress were not reported out of committee before enactment. As a result, the legislative history of such provisions does not include the reasons for change normally included in a committee report.

In some cases, there is no legislative history for enacted provisions. For such provisions, this document includes a description of present law, explanation of the provision, and effective date, as prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

In some cases, technical explanations of certain bills were prepared and published by the staff of the Joint Committee. In those cases, this document follows the technical explanations.

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the ‘‘Code’’) unless otherwise indicated. 

American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 Giving you Headaches?

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).

========================================================================
 

 

JCS-2-13 Download 

FEBRUARY 25, 2013,

File Size:  904.52 Kb 

File Type: pdf

The Internet Sales Tax Exemption About To Expire?

U.S. states could collect millions of dollars in online sales taxes, with members of both parties in Congress sponsoring legislation that would resolve states' decades-long struggle to tax businesses beyond their borders.

A bipartisan group of 53 lawmakers in the Senate and House backed the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 last Thursday, Febuary 15, 2013, which aims to resolve the differences between bills introduced in the Senate and House in the last Congress. 

The proposed legislation permits States to enforce the Collection of Sales & Use Taxes from Internet Retailers, placing them on a par with brick and mortar businesses.  

This Act permits States to require qualifying Sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales, but the States must implement certain simplification requirements.  

The bills introduced in the House and Senate are substantially similar in all material respects. Each provides an important exception, the "Small Seller Exception", for businesses with less than $1 million dollars in annual domestic remote sales. 

Since 1992 when the Quill case was decided by the Supreme Court, States have been prohibited from collecting sales taxes on purchases made by in-state customers from out-of-state sellers who lack sufficient physical presence. Simplification is required because the Supreme Court ruling cited a concern that collecting sales tax for multiple states would be too difficult. 

The Marketplace Fairness Act requires that states must simplify their sales tax laws in order to ease those concerns and make multistate sales tax collection easy.  

In the last decade, Internet sales have gone from 1.6 percent of all U.S. retail sales to more than 5 percent, according to Commerce Department data, a proportion that will likely grow as shoppers turn more to handheld devices to make purchases. In the third quarter of 2012, retail "e-commerce" sales were $57 billion, the department said. 

Large Internet retailers are worried the tax could drive up the cost of doing business. They would also have to create new systems and software to collect the surcharges, adding to their costs.

Amazon said in July it prefers having the tax issue resolved at the federal level. States and cities say they can recoup billions of dollars with the tax. Some estimate around $11 billion in tax revenues are currently being lost, due to exempt internet sales.

In the last decade, Internet sales have gone from 1.6 percent of all U.S. retail sales to more than 5 percent, according to Commerce Department data, a proportion that will likely grow as shoppers turn more to handheld devices to make purchases. In the third quarter of 2012, retail "e-commerce" sales were $57 billion, the department said.

Large Internet retailers are worried the tax could drive up the cost of doing business. They would also have to create new systems and software to collect the surcharges, adding to their costs. Amazon said in July it prefers having the tax issue resolved at the federal level.

States and local jurisdictions will clearly benefit from significantly increased tax revenue, but internet purchasers will find their bargain purchases much reduced in value and businesses will find their compliance costs increased.

 

Have State & Local Tax Issues? 

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

 

for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms

Sources:

AccountingToday

Marcum Tax Flash

Reuters

 

How to Report Your Tribal Trust Settlement to the IRS? Up Dated

On Friday, February 15, 2013 we posted How to Report Your Tribal Trust Settlement to the IRS?

 

Since then the IRS announces the publication of Notyice 2013-16, which updates and supersedes Notice 2013-1. 

Notice 2013-1, 2013-3 IRB 281, provides guidance on the federal tax treatment of per capita payments that members of Indian tribes receive from proceeds of certain settlements of tribal trust cases between the United States and those Indian tribes. Additional tribes have settled tribal trust cases against the United States since publication of Notice 2013-1. This notice provides an updated Appendix that reflects the additional settlement agreements.

Notice 2013-1 Appendix is modified and superseded.  
 

Tribes That Have Entered into Settlement Agreements of Tribal Trust Cases

1. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation

2. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

3. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation

4. Bois Forte Band of Chippewa

5. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Rancheria

6. Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation

7. Coeur d’Alene Tribe

8. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

9. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

10. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

11. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation

12. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

13. Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

14. Hualapai Indian Tribe

15. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

16. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of Arizona 　

17. Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas

18. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

19. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

20. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe

21. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

22. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Reservation

23. Mescalero Apache Tribe

24. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

25. Nez Perce Tribe

26. Nooksack Indian Tribe

27. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Indians

28. Omaha Tribe o Nebraska

29. Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine

30. Pawnee Nation

31. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation

32. Pueblo of Zia

33. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation

34. Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

35. Rincon Luiseño Band of Indians

36. Rosebud Sioux Tribe

37. Round Valley Indian Tribes

38. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

39. Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska

40. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe

41. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation

42. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

43. Spirit Lake Dakotah Nation

44. Spokane Tribe of Indians

45. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

46. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

47. Summit Lake Paiute Tribe

48. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

49. Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians

50. Tohono O’odham Nation

51. Tulalip Tribes

52. Tule River Indian Tribe

53. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation

54. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

55. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

56. Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska

57. Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska

58. Northwestern Band of Shoshone Indians

59. Hoopa Valley Tribe

60. Ak-Chin Indian Community

61. Oglala Sioux Tribe

62. Yurok Tribe

63. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Need Tax Help the Tax Treatment of Tribal Trust Settlement Proceeds?

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).