Tax Problem Attorney Blog

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

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

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

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

Bookmark:

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

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

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

Continue reading "Innocent Spouse Relief Not Permitted by Ninth Circuit" »

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

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

Bookmark:

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:

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

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

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

Contact Los Angeles, California Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. if you or your business needs help with a tax audit, tax appeal or tax debt.

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

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

Bookmark:

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

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

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

Although the U.S. Tax Court is located in Washington, D.C. it holds hearings around the United States including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Fresno, California.

If you have a tax dispute with the IRS, and need tax litigation or tax controversy help please contact the Southern California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. We handle cases not only in the United States Tax Court, but also the federal district courts, and the United States Court of Federal Claims.

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

Posted In: Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

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

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

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

Perhaps the most important thing to know about a wrongful levy claim is that it must be made within 9 months of the seizure, so you need to act very quickly. If you think that the IRS has improperly served a levy on your property please contact the California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

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

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

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has long been required to send notices to a Taxpayer’s last known address. However, California state law has never specifically provided the address to which notices are sent, although according to the legislative history the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has as a matter of internal practice generally followed the IRS rules. New legislation which is effective on Jan. 1, 2008, now requires that the FTB send notices to a taxpayer’s last know address. Much like federal law the new state law defines “last know address” as the address that appears on the taxpayer's last return filed with the FTB, unless the taxpayer has provided to the Franchise Tax Board clear and concise written or electronic notification of a different address, or the Franchise Tax Board has an address it has reason to believe is the most current address for the taxpayer. Revenue and Taxation Code 18416(c).

TIP. If you move after you have filed your federal or state income tax returns it’s a good idea to notify both the IRS, and Franchise Tax Board, just in case they want to contact you. Who knows, sometimes they actually need your address to send you good news.

If you are undergoing a tax audit, and you move it would be foolhardy not to notify them. Why? This is one time when out of sight, out of mind it is not a good rule to rely on. If the IRS or the FTB sends a notice to your last know address, and you don’t get it because you have moved you are still responsible for responding in a timely fashion. If you don’t you could be subject to penalties, or lose various rights of appeal. In my practice I consistently meet with new clients who have lost their rights because they didn’t receive IRS and FTB notices because they moved, and didn’t notify the taxing agencies. On the other hand, Brager Tax Law Group has had great success helping clients who didn’t receive notices because the IRS failed to follow its own procedures in determining their last known address.

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

Posted In: California Franchise Tax Board , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark:

The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen has released her 2007 Annual Report to Congress. It consists of two large volumes outlining:

• The Most Serious Problems Encountered by Taxpayers
• Key Legislative Recommendations, and Additional Legislative Recommendations
• Most Litigated Issues
• Case and Systemic Advocacy.

The Taxpayer Advocate’s Report has a great deal to say, and we will be commenting on many of those items over the next months. Number 9 on the list is tax preparer penalties, and the bypass of taxpayer representatives including tax attorneys, and CPAs. The Taxpayer Advocate’s Report criticizes the IRS for not doing more to enforce tax preparer penalties. She notes that only $2.8 million in penalties were assessed for FYE Sept. 2007. However, this is about a 50% increase over the prior year.

The Internal Revenue Service’s top tax attorney, IRS Chief Counsel Don Korb has already been quoted in IRS Notice, IR-2007-213 as saying that looking at the tax preparer penalty regulations will be a “top priority” for the IRS in 2008. It looks like a bumpy ride for tax preparers, tax attorneys, and CPAs in 2008.

If you are a tax preparer, tax attorney, or CPA who has been targeted by the IRS, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager.

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

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

Bookmark:

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has been given the green light by the California Legislature to disallow deductions for payments made for personal services if the payor fails to provide a Form 1099 or a W-2. For many years the California Revenue and Taxation Code has provided that the FTB may disallow any deductions for personal services if the individual making the payments fails to file the appropriate reporting forms when due. An identical statute applies to corporations. There was some concern that there were technical problems with the statute so the FTB sponsored a bill to “clarify” the statute. That bill became effective on January 1, 2008.

Note that the statute says “may” not must or will. This leaves some room for arguing that this discretion should not be exercised, perhaps because the failure to file the documents wasn’t willful, or was otherwise due to excusable neglect.

In addition to the deductions being disallowed taxpayers can be hit with a penalty of $50 for each form not filed. Perhaps that’s not much for each form, but for even a mid-size company it can add up pretty quickly. In addition the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) imposes a $50 penalty under Internal Revenue Code § 6721, and in cases of intentional disregard of the filing requirement the penalty goes to $100 per form.

If you have a California income tax audit or a IRS or California tax dispute, and you need tax representation call the Southern California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C. We represent clients with California tax problems in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and the rest of Southern California, and the country.

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

Posted In: California Franchise Tax Board , Tax Disputes , Tax Litigation and Tax Controversy

Bookmark: