Posts

TAS Significant Hardship Definition | International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

Sometimes, a taxpayer may find himself in a situation where his problem cannot be resolved through normal IRS channels. In this case, one of the options is to secure the help of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (“TAS”). TAS can issue a Taxpayer Assistance Order (TAO) to require the IRS to desist from a certain action that causes the taxpayer to suffer or about to suffer a significant hardship. At this point a logical question arises: what does “significant hardship” mean in this context? In this article, I will try to answer this question and introduce the readers to the Significant Hardship definition.

Significant Hardship Definition: Background Information

The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent organization within the IRS, led by the National Taxpayer Advocate (“NTA”). Each state has at least one Local Taxpayer Advocate (“LTA”), who is independent of the local IRS office and reports directly to the NTA.

 TAS helps individual and business taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS by:

  • • Ensuring that taxpayer problems not resolved through normal IRS channels are promptly and impartially handled;
  • • Assisting taxpayers who are facing hardships; identifying issues that impact taxpayer rights, increase taxpayer burden or otherwise create problems for taxpayers, and bringing these issues to the attention of IRS management; and
  • • Recommending administrative and legislative changes through the National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual Report to Congress.

Pursuant to §7811(a); 7803(c); Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(1), NTA has the authority to issue TAO when the taxpayer is suffering or is about to suffer a significant hardship as a result of the manner in the administration of tax laws, including action or inaction on the part of the IRS. TAO may have broad implications, including obligating the IRS to release a levy, stop a collection action and even stop an audit.

Significant Hardship Definition: General Definition

Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(ii) defines “significant hardship” as “a serious privation caused or about to be caused to the taxpayer as the result of the particular manner in which the revenue laws are being administered by the IRS.”  Significant hardship includes situations in which “a system or procedure fails to operate as intended or fails to resolve the taxpayer’s problem or dispute with the IRS”.

The regulations state a non-exclusive list of four situations that the IRS classifies as significant hardship:

“(A) An immediate threat of adverse action; (B) A delay of more than 30 days in resolving taxpayer account problems; (C) The incurring by the taxpayer of significant costs (including fees for professional representation) if relief is not granted; or (D) Irreparable injury to, or a long-term adverse impact on, the taxpayer if relief is not granted.” Id.

It should be pointed out that even if the taxpayer’s situation falls within any of these four situations (or a similar situation that the NTA agrees that it constitutes significant hardship), it does not mean that NTA will automatically issue TAO.  Rather, NTA must still determine whether the facts and the law support such a dramatic relief for the taxpayer.

Let’s go over each of the four categories of significant hardship one by one.

Significant Hardship Definition: Immediate Threat of Adverse Action

The Treasury Regulations do not detail the definition of this category except to provide the following example of what “immediate threat of adverse action” means:

“The IRS serves a levy on A’s bank account. A needs the bank funds to pay for a medically necessary surgical procedure that is scheduled to take place in one week. If the levy is not released, A will lack the funds necessary to have the procedure. A is experiencing an immediate threat of adverse action.”

Significant Hardship Definition: Delay of More Than 30 Days

There are two situations when a delay of more than 30 days may result in significant hardship. First, “when a taxpayer does not receive a response by the date promised by the IRS.” Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(iii). Second, “when the IRS has established a normal processing time for taking an action and the taxpayer experiences a delay of more than 30 days beyond the normal processing time.” Id.

The regulations give the following example of a delay causing significant hardship: “B files a Form 4506, ‘Request for a Copy of Tax Return.’ B does not receive the photocopy of the tax return after waiting more than 30 days beyond the normal time for processing.”

Significant Hardship Definition: Significant Costs

The Treasury Regulations again do not detail the definition of this category except to provide the following example of what “significant costs” means:

“The IRS sends XYZ, Inc. a notice requesting payment of the outstanding employment taxes and penalties owed by XYZ, Inc. The notice indicates that XYZ, Inc. has small employment tax balances with respect to 12 employment tax quarters totaling $10x. XYZ, Inc. provides documentation to the IRS that it contends shows that if all payments were applied to each quarter correctly, there would be no balance due. The IRS requests additional records and documentation. Because there are 12 quarters involved, to comply with this request XYZ, Inc. asserts that it will need to hire an accountant, who estimates he will charge at least $5x to organize all the records and provide a detailed analysis of how to apply the deposits and payments. XYZ, Inc. is facing significant costs.”  Treas. Reg. §301.7811-1(a)(4)(iv).

Significant Hardship Definition: Irreparable Injury

The IRS again fails to detail the definition of this category beyond providing an example of an “irreparable injury”:

“D has arranged with a bank to refinance his mortgage to lower his monthly payment. D is unable to make the current monthly payment. Unless the monthly payment amount is lowered, D will lose his residence to foreclosure. The IRS refuses to subordinate the Federal tax lien, as permitted by section 6325(d), or discharge the property subject to the lien, as permitted by section 6325(b). As a result, the bank will not allow D to refinance. D is facing an irreparable injury if relief is not granted.” Id.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with IRS Audits

If the IRS has informed you that your federal tax returns are subject to an audit and you have foreign assets/foreign income, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help.  We are a team of dedicated tax professionals, headed by an international tax attorney Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, with extensive experience in IRS audits of US taxpayers with foreign assets. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Internal Revenue Manual: Introduction | IRS Audit Lawyer St Paul

/in , /by

Internal Revenue Manual:  Description & Purpose

Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) is the primary, official source of IRS instructions to staff that relate to the administration and operation of the IRS. The rules set in the IRM are meant to provide guidance to the IRS employees (including managers) in their daily work life. The IRM is available on the IRS’ website. 

From time to time, the IRS also issues interim guidance regarding policy or procedure changes; eventually the IRS would modify IRM to reflect these changes.

Internal Revenue Manual:  Difference Between IRM, IRS Policy Statements and Delegation Orders

One should not confuse IRM with two other types of documents, IRS Policy Statements and Delegation Orders.  While the IRS publishes IRS Policy Statements and Delegation Orders in IRM 1.2.1, et. seq., they are not the same things.

The IRS Policy Statements are basically IRS policies that govern and guide IRS employees in the administration of the IRS itself. The Policy Statements do not contain IRS interpretation of substantive tax provisions or directors to the taxpayers; these are policies just for the IRS staff. Later, the IRS officials would use the Policy Statements to prepare procedures and instructions as part of IRM.

The IRS publishes Delegation Orders in  IRM.12.2, et. seq.. Delegation Orders specify which IRS officials have the authority to approve policies, procedures, documents and actions.

Internal Revenue Manual: Use of IRM

The key issue for US taxpayers is whether they can rely on IRM to invalidate an action of an IRS employee? In other words, if an IRS employee fails to comply with IRS in what otherwise looks like a valid course of action, can the taxpayer challenge the action itself in court?

Generally, the answer is “no”. IRM contains the procedures that govern the internal affairs of the IRS, but these procedures do not have the force of law.  In other words, IRM is suggestive, not mandatory. There is a large array of cases to support this conclusion.  For example, Ward v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) and  Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980) both stated that the IRS’ failure to follow the IRM procedural rules does not invalidate IRS regulations.

In other words, IRM is not binding on the IRS. Its primary use is to be a source of information for the IRS staff and US taxpayers to understand the IRS procedures and and guidelines.  Of course, while nonbinding, the taxpayers can still use IRM to support their arguments and convince an IRS agent to change his position.  This is true not only for US domestic law, but also for US international tax law.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional International Tax Help

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in US international tax compliance, including dealing with the IRS as part of IRS audits.  We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their tax affairs in full compliance with US tax law, and we can help you!  

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Singapore Solution Fraud Scheme Co-Creator Pleads Guilty |  SDOP lawyer Minneapolis

/in , /by

On December 21, 2023, the IRS and the US Department of Justice announced that Mr. Rolf Schnellmann, a Swiss national, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States for his role in the creation and implementation of a fraud scheme related to foreign accounts and foreign income called “Singapore Solution”.  In this small essay, I will discuss the Singapore Solution, the facts of the Schnellmann case and the lessons one can draw from this case.

Singapore Solution: Basic Description of the Tax Evasion Scheme

The idea behind the Singapore Solution is fairly simple. Funds owned secretly (i.e. without a proper disclosure to the IRS on FBAR, Form 8938, et cetera) by US persons in a Swiss bank are first transferred to a series of nominee accounts in other jurisdictions (for example, Hong Kong). In the meantime, the Swiss bankers established (usually indirectly through a law firm) a Singapore-based asset management firm which opens new bank accounts in its name in the Swiss bank. After passing through nominee accounts, the US-owned funds are returned to the Swiss bank and placed in the new bank accounts opened by the asset management firm.

In other words, the Singapore Solution basically represents a circular scheme where the ownership of funds is artificially obscured by involvement of third parties. Obviously, the US owners of the undisclosed funds handsomely compensated the Swiss bankers, the managers of the asset management firm and the nominees for their work. Also obviously, this scheme crosses the line between asset/tax planning and criminal tax evasion.

Singapore Solution: Basic Facts of Schnellmann Case

According to court documents and statements made in court, Rolf Schnellmann was the head of Allied Finance Trust AG, a Zurich-based financial services company and a subsidiary of the Allied Finance Group in Liechtenstein.  Between 2008 to 2014, Schnellmann and his co-conspirators helped high-net-worth US taxpayers set-up and implement the Singapore Solution concerning their undeclared bank accounts at Privatbank IHAG Zurich AG (IHAG), a Swiss private bank. 

According to the Department of Justice, Schnellmann and his colleagues transferred more than $60 million from the US-owned undeclared IHAG bank accounts through a series of nominee accounts in Hong Kong and other locations before returning the funds to newly opened accounts at IHAG in the name of a Singapore-based asset-management firm that Schnellmann helped establish. IHAG participated in the 2013 IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program for Swiss Banks. Surely, as a result of this process, IHAG disclosed a lot of information concerning the Singapore Solution.  This allowed the IRS to track down not only the noncompliant US clients of that bank, but also the Singapore Solution creators and facilitators, like Mr. Schnellamann.  He was arrested in August of 2023 in Italy and extradited to the United States.

The IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) conducted the investigation with the help of the US Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, Interpol, Italian law enforcement authorities, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Trieste and the Italian Ministry of Justice.

Singapore Solution: Consequences of the Guilty Plea for Schnellmann

As a result of the guilty plea, Mr. Schnellmann is scheduled to be sentenced on July 19, 2024. He now faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties.

Singapore Solution: Lessons

The Schnellmann case and the Singapore Solution that he co-authored allow us to deduce certain lessons.  The first and most obvious, one must respect the difference between legitimate even if aggressive tax planning and criminal tax evasion.  Mr. Schnellmann crossed that line and will pay a high price for it.

Second, US taxpayers must declare their foreign accounts to the IRS on FBAR, Form 8938 and Schedule B of Form 1040.  Failure to do so may bring very painful consequences in the form of high IRS civil and even criminal penalties.

Finally, there is really no safe place for noncompliant taxpayers to hide. Even if they have been lucky to avoid IRS detection of their noncompliance so far, a disclosure from third parties may lead to an IRS investigation that may ultimately result in the discovery of the noncompliance.  In this case, the IRS will most likely impose very heavy penalties for noncompliance (made even heavier by the fact that the IRS had to invest a lot of resources and man-hours into the case).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With the Voluntary Disclosure of Your Undisclosed Foreign Assets and Foreign Income

For all of these reasons, noncompliant taxpayers should explore their offshore voluntary disclosure options before the IRS finds out about their noncompliance. Otherwise, an IRS audit will make it impossible for them to lower their IRS noncompliance penalties through a voluntary disclosure.

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in the IRS offshore voluntary disclosures, including disclosures that involve foreign income noncompliance and foreign asset reporting noncompliance (on FBAR, Form 8938, 3520, 3520-A, 5471, 8865, 8858, et cetera).  Led by Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, a highly-experienced international tax attorney, our international tax team has helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe to bring their tax affairs into full compliance with the IRS while lowering and sometimes even eliminating IRS penalties.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Post-OVDP Audits | Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Lawyer & Attorney

/in , , /by

A significant number of US taxpayers who went through the OVDP mistakenly believed that they were immune from the IRS post-OVDP audits concerning their post-voluntary disclosure compliance. Sherayzen Law Office has repeatedly warned in the past that these taxpayers were mistaken with respect to their exposure to potential post-OVDP audits. The recent announcement of a new IRS compliance campaign concerning post-OVDP tax compliance confirmed the correctness of Sherayzen Law Office’s analysis.

Post-OVDP Audits: OVDP Background Information

The IRS created the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) as an incentive for US taxpayers to come forward and disclose their prior willful and non-willful noncompliance with US tax reporting requirements concerning foreign assets and foreign income. In exchange for the voluntary disclosure, the taxpayers paid a significantly lower penalty than what they otherwise could have had to pay outside of the OVDP. Moreover, taxpayers also received protection from IRS criminal prosecution of their prior tax noncompliance.

OVDP is not just one program, but a series of programs. The initial one was created in the early 2000s, but it was a relatively small and unknown program. The first program that became influential was the 2009 OVDP. The 2009 OVDP was created on the heels of the IRS victory in the UBS case and it closed on October 15, 2009.

Then, after the passage of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) in 2010, the IRS created the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“2011 OVDI”). The 2011 OVDI was a hugely popular program. Its success led to the creation of 2012 OVDP and, finally, 2014 OVDP.

The implementation of FATCA had materially altered the IRS interest in the OVDP while the number of the OVDP participants precipitously dropped due to the success of the Streamlined Compliance Initiatives (i.e. Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures). The 2014 OVDP program was closed on September 28, 2018.

Post-OVDP Audits: False Sense of Security After OVDP

Some of the OVDP participants have mistakenly treated their OVDP disclosure as a remedy capable of curing not only their past tax noncompliance, but also future compliance issues. In other words, after going through the OVDP, these taxpayers relaxed their commitment to their ongoing annual compliance. Some of them started filing their FBARs irregularly or stopped filing them altogether while others under-reported their foreign income. Still others engaged in a different conduct overseas without realizing that their new way of doing business gave rise to a different set of US reporting requirements.

Many of these taxpayers also erroneously believed that, by going through the OVDP, they were taken off the “IRS radar”. This means that they felt that the IRS was highly unlikely to audit them after their voluntary disclosure.

Post-OVDP Audits: IRS Noticed Noncompliance Among OVDP Participants

In reality, as Sherayzen Law Office had suspected, the IRS engaged in extensive analysis of the OVDP participants’ behavior after their voluntary disclosure. Of course, it was not difficult for the IRS to monitor them, because the IRS already had a full list of the OVDP participants at its disposal. Some of the data came from field audits while other information was derived from FATCA and data analysis.

As a result of its analysis, the IRS discovered the aforementioned disturbing noncompliance trends among former OVDP participants.

Post-OVDP Audits: July of 2019 IRS Compliance Campaign

After it uncovered these noncompliance trends among the former OVDP participants, the IRS announced in July of 2019 a campaign to specifically target taxpayers who went through the OVDP. As part of this campaign, the IRS will send out soft letters and conduct post-OVDP audits.

Post-OVDP Audits: Potentially Disastrous Consequences for Noncompliant Taxpayers

The targets of this IRS compliance campaign will be in a particularly difficult legal situation for two main reasons. First, during a post-OVDP audit, the taxpayers are unlikely to be able to claim non-willfulness with respect to their post-OVDP tax noncompliance because of the knowledge of US tax requirements that they acquired during their voluntary disclosures. In fact, it is difficult to see how non-willfulness can be established in any way other than claims based on new and/or extraordinary circumstances.

Second, since it is not likely that they will be able to establish non-willfulness, taxpayers will most likely face willful penalties during an IRS audit, perhaps even civil and criminal fraud penalties. The IRS is unlikely to be lenient with taxpayers who already benefitted from a voluntary disclosure and persisted in their noncompliance afterwards. In other words, a post-OVDP audit may result in disastrous consequences for noncompliant taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Post-OVDP Audits

Given the particularly dangerous nature of a post-OVDP audit, a taxpayer subject to this type of an IRS audit must retain an experienced international tax attorney as soon as he is notified about the commencement of the audit. Failure to do so may severely damage the taxpayer’s ability to defend against subsequent IRS penalties.

This is why you need to contact Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. We are a highly-experienced international tax law firm that has helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their past noncompliance with US tax laws, including in the context of an IRS audit. We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Amending Tax Returns during An IRS Audit | IRS Audit Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

One of the most interesting questions that arise during an IRS audit is whether a taxpayer (or his tax attorney) should amend his tax returns during an IRS audit. Amending tax returns during an IRS audit may offer great benefits as long as it is done properly, but this is not a strategy available in every case. In this article, I would like to discuss the benefits and dangers of amending tax returns during an IRS audit.

Potential Benefits of Amending Tax Returns During an IRS Audit

The main job of a tax attorney during an IRS audit is to protect his client as well as make it easy and convenient for the IRS agent to make a decision that will favor his client. One of the ways to accomplish this is to do the necessary audit groundwork for the IRS agent by amending all tax returns subject to audit before your initial meeting with the IRS agent.

In such cases, amending tax returns is likely to bring the taxpayer various benefits. I will concentrate here on the three main benefits. First, amending tax returns shows that the taxpayer is willing to cooperate with the IRS far and beyond his prescribed obligations.

Second, by amending tax returns and providing supporting documentation, the tax attorney is likely to “buy” a lot of goodwill from the agent, who will appreciate that the attorney is trying to reduce his workload and make all information easily accessible. In some situations, such extensive cooperation may convince the agent not to expand the audit beyond the already audited years.

Finally, depending on the situation, it may show a rift between past noncompliance and present compliance for reasonable cause purposes. This is especially relevant in situations where the original tax preparer can be held accountable for the taxpayer’s past noncompliance.

Potential Drawbacks of Amending Tax Returns During an IRS Audit

There are, however, various risks associated with this strategy. Again, I will concentrate on the three main drawbacks of the strategy. First, the amended tax returns have to be prepared correctly. If the amended returns are incorrect, then the taxpayer would be getting himself into even bigger troubles.

Second, in some situations, a taxpayer may not benefit from prolonging the case, especially where there are Statute of Limitations issues concerning unaudited years. By prematurely exposing the taxpayer’s mistakes on the original return, the taxpayer may give the IRS additional time to open up another year for audit. It is questionable whether this concern outweighs the benefits of amending tax returns; one really should look at the totality of circumstances of the specific case in question and make the decision based on this analysis.

Third, by shifting the workload from the IRS agent to the taxpayer’s tax attorney, the taxpayer is likely to incur substantially higher legal fees. Therefore, a cost-benefit analysis must be done by the attorney to make sure that the proposed strategy of amending tax returns is cost-effective and does not result in unduly high legal fees.

Procedural Concerns: Do NOT File Amended Tax Returns; Send Them to the IRS Agent

One of the biggest procedural mistakes with respect to the strategy of amending tax returns that I see in my practice is incorrect filing of amended tax returns. By “incorrect filing”, I mean here the filing of amended tax returns directly with the IRS bypassing the IRS agent in charge of the audit.

This is a big mistake, because it goes against the proper procedure of having all adjustments to the audited original returns done by the IRS agent in charge of the case. Moreover, the IRS agent will feel ignored and to some degree betrayed by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer will likely lose all goodwill that he has accumulated with the agent up to that point.

The proper procedure for amending tax returns during an IRS audit is to prepare the amended tax returns and send them to the IRS agent in charge of the audit with supporting documentation.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Amending Tax Returns During an IRS Audit

Amending tax returns may not a be a strategy that is available in all cases. If done properly, in many cases, it will offer great benefits to a taxpayer, while it may result in augmenting the already existing problems in other cases. This type of a decision should not be made by the taxpayer, but by an experienced IRS audit lawyer.

Contact the professional IRS audit team of Sherayzen Law Office. Headed by our highly-experienced tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, Sherayzen Law Office has helped US taxpayers around the world to deal with various types of IRS audits, including audits of offshore voluntary disclosures and high net-worth audits.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!