Tax Problem Attorney Blog

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.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Disputes , Tax Fraud , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy , Tax Preparer Penalties

Bookmark:

Internal Revenue Code § 6672 provides that so-called responsible persons who willfully fail to pay corporate payroll taxes may be held personally responsible for the payment of the trust fund portion of these taxes. Internal Revenue Code § 6672 is sometimes referred to as the trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP). Who is a responsible person? As the court in Horovitz v. United States (WD PA 2008) explained: “responsibility is a matter of status, duty or authority.” The definition of responsible person is not limited to the person with the final say on which bills get paid, but includes others as well.

Horovitz illustrates the principle that more than one person can have liability for the trust fund recovery penalty. The CFO was deemed to be a responsible person since he had the full authority to sign checks, could hire and fire employees, signed payroll tax returns, was a corporate officer, and a 20% owner. The CEO was also held liable for the trust fund recovery penalty since he invested several million dollars in the business, owned 80% of the stock, had unlimited hiring and firing ability and check writing authority, and served as the CEO with day to day involvement in the business.

If you have payroll tax problems, and the IRS is threatening to impose the trust fund recovery penalty contact the Los Angeles, California tax litigation lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Payroll Tax Audits , Payroll Tax Problems , Tax Disputes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increased the number of tax audits of small and medium size corporations between fiscal year 2005, and 2007 according to a report by TRAC. The number of tax audits for corporations with assets of less than $5 million increased by 41%, and tax audits for corporations with assets of between $5 million and 10 million increased by 24%. Tax audits of corporations with assets from $10 to $50 million in assets rose by 29%. On the other hand IRS tax audits of the largest corporations, those with assets over $250 million, dropped by 38%. The number of tax audits for those corporations with between $100 million and $250 million dropped by 31%. Some see this as a sign that the IRS is cracking down on small businesses while it is easing up on the largest companies. However, the IRS says that in fact the IRS doesn’t need to audit as many large corporations because of the success of the IRS pre-filing agreement programs.

Whatever the merits of the argument, small and medium size business need to be aware of the increased risk of a tax audits

If your small or medium size business has an IRS, SBE, FTB or EDD tax audit, and you need help contact the Los Angeles, California tax dispute attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Sometimes taxpayers want to be “creative” in filling out IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals). Stephen Miller got too creative, and he was found guilty of tax evasion in violation of Internal Revenue Code § 7201. He was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Stephen Miller (No. 06-11078) (5th Cir. 2008). Miller, who owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about 2 million dollars filed an offer in compromise with the IRS in which he stated he had insufficient assets and income to pay the tax debt. The IRS Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals) he filed stated he only had $40,000 in assets including an IRA with a balance of $25,000. What he didn’t tell the IRS was that he had withdrawn $1,000,000 from his IRA, and transferred it offshore. When the IRS asked about the money taken out of the IRA he responded that the money had been used to pay off a loan Euromex Leasing Corporation in the Isle of Mann. As it turned out Euromex was a shell corporation controlled and formed by a financial planner that Miller consulted to hide his money from the IRS. And how did the IRS find out that it was all a lie? Simple, the financial planner turned Miller in when he wound up with his own tax fraud problems with the IRS.

If you have tax debts and don't want to be convicted of tax evasion call the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Offers in Compromise , Tax Debt , Tax Fraud

Bookmark:

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.
• An IRS offset of a refund claim for a different year, as long as the IRS notified the taxpayer about her right to file for innocent spouse relief.
• The filing of a lawsuit by the IRS to collect the tax due
• The issuance by the IRS of a collection due process (CDP) notice pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §6330.

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has similar rules to the Internal Revenue Service for taxpayers who are requesting innocent spouse relief for taxes owed to the State of California.

If you have a tax problem, and believe that you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief , and wish to have one our tax lawyers represent you please contact us.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

The United States Tax Court held that the IRS did not abuse its discretion when the Appeals Division upheld a notice of intent to levy issued under Internal Revenue Code § 6330. In West v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2008-30, the Wests had obtained an offer in compromise from the IRS, but then violated its terms by failing to pay estimated taxes, failing to timely file tax returns, and failing to pay multiple tax penalties assessed against them during the 5 year period following the acceptance of their offer in compromise.

To make matters worse the IRS tried to notify the Wests about the impending default of the their offer in compromise, but the Wests had moved, and failed to notify the IRS of their new address. The Wests tried to rely on the failure of the IRS to notify their representative that their offer in compromise was in danger, but the Tax Court held that the IRS had no duty to notify their representative.

Points to Remember:

• If your offer in compromise has been accepted don’t forget to pay and file your taxes on time for at least the next five years.
• If you are involved in any type of tax dispute with the IRS make sure that you keep them updated with your current address.

If you have a tax dispute and need a tax lawyer call the tax attorneys, at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Offers in Compromise , Tax Debt

Bookmark:

When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) files a tax lien it is required by Internal Revenue Code § 6320 to notify taxpayers within 5 business days of the filing of the tax lien. In addition, under Internal Revenue Code § 6320(b) it must provide for a hearing before the Internal Revenue Service’s Appeals Division. According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the IRS may not have complied with Internal Revenue Code § 6320in all cases. For example, the IRS is required to send the tax lien notice to the last known address of the taxpayer; yet in some cases it failed to do so. The TIGTA report noted that the failure to do so was a legal violation by the IRS.

The TIGTA report also noted that the IRS failed to follow its own internal guidelines for sending copies of the tax lien notices to the taxpayer’s representatives in 40% per cent of the cases it sampled. Tax attorneys must be alert to the possiblity, that the IRS is not sending copies of all tax lien notices and other required documents to them. Taxpayers need to send copies of all important notices to their tax lawyers even if they think the IRS should be sending the notices directly to their representatives.

If the IRS has filed a tax lien against you contact Los Angeles, California tax attorney Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Tax Debt

Bookmark:

A jury found a Colorado man guilty of failure to pay federal payroll taxes pursuant to IRC § 7202 and of filing false payroll tax returns pursuant to IRC § 7206(1). He was, however, acquitted of charges of tax evasion. Failure to pay IRS payroll taxes carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, and/or a $10,000 fine per count. Filing false tax returns, including false payroll tax returns carries a penalty of not more than 3 years in federal prison, and/or a $100,000 fine per count.

Like all employers Crabbe was required to file payroll tax returns, and to withhold income income taxes, social security taxes and Medicare taxes from employee paychecks, and to pay those amounts over to the IRS. When he failed to do so he exposed himself to both criminal tax liability, and to the trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) as well. Once Crabbe has been sentenced it is likely the IRS will go after him to pay the unpaid payroll taxes. In general, responsible corporate officers who willfully fail to pay payroll taxes become personal liable pursuant to IRC § 6672 to pay those taxes. While many business owners get stuck paying corporate payroll taxes out of their own pocket, not too many go to jail for failure to pay. Nevertheless the case is a reminder that in appropriate situations the IRS can and does criminally prosecute people for failure to pay.

If you have payroll tax problems contact the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Payroll Tax Problems , Tax Fraud

Bookmark:

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) joined with the California Tax Education Council (CTEC) to warn taxpayers about unregistered tax return preparers. In California only certified public accountants (CPA), attorneys, Internal Revenue Service enrolled agents, and CTEC-Registered tax return preparers are legally permitted to charge for preparing tax returns. According to the FTB it is believed that there are 3,000 to 4,000 tax return preparers throughout California breaking the law. The FTB then set forth some signs that should set off alarm bells. For example if a tax preparer:

Claims to be a registered tax preparer but is not listed on CTEC’s Website.
Fails to give you a name, address, phone number, and bond information.
Refuses to sign your tax return.
Asks you to sign a blank tax form.
Refuses to provide copies of any documents you have signed.
Promises a refund, without even looking at your tax information.
Charges a fee based on a percentage of your refund.

If you are a tax return preparer who has been unjustly accused by the IRS or the Franchise Tax Board of filing improper tax returns call Los Angles, California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Franchise Tax Board , Miscellaneous Tax Information

Bookmark:

California Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager the founder of the Brager Tax Law Group, a P.C. , was quoted in an article published in the March 7, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, a leading California legal publication. The article discussed a new law which provides tax benefits for federal judges who sell their proposal to avoid recusals. Specifically Internal Revenue Code § 1043 provides that certain government officials such as federal judges including United States Tax Court judges who sells property to avoid conflict of interest rules may defer gain on the property if they acquire certain replacement property until the replacement property is sold.

If you have a tax problem and would like to have your case heard in the United States Tax Court, call tax litigation attorney Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Miscellaneous Tax Information

Bookmark:

The California State Board of Equalization (BOE or SBE) was handed a defeat by the California Appellate Court in Dell Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco 159 Cal.App.4th 911 (2008) . The court held that the value of the Dell service contracts purchased by consumers was not subject to California Sales Tax even though the price of the contract was not separately stated in the invoice. The case has potentially wide reaching application to other California sales tax audits.

The facts in Dell indicated that the service contracts were optional, and that they were priced separately from the underlying computer equipment. For example, a consumer purchasing a computer could check a box on Dell’s website to add a service contract for an additional $x. The amount would be added to the purchase price but the invoice issued to the customer would indicate a lump sum price for the computer and the service contract. Everyone agreed that if sold separately the service contracts were intangible property, not subject to California sales tax. It was also agreed that if the Dell service contracts were sold with computers they would not be subject to California sales tax provided that the price of the sales contract is separately stated in the invoice or other contract of sale.

The BOE argued, however, that in the absence of a separate statement of the charge for the service contracts they are subject to California sales tax. The Court disagreed, and found that the transaction was a “mixed transaction” involving separately identifiable transfers of goods and services. It differentiated the sale from a “bundled transaction” involving goods and services that are inextricably intertwined in a single sale. As such as long as the value of the separable identified parts can be established then the value attributable to the transfer of intangible property or services is not subject to California sales tax.

If you have California sales tax problems contact Los Angeles, California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager.

Posted by Dennis N. Brager | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Sales Tax Problems

Bookmark: