Prose by Tax Pros

For lovers of tax controversy, disputes between taxpayers and the IRS over Malta pension plans should be legendary. In short, taxpayers followed the letter of the law ( i.e. , the specific terms of the US-Malta treaty), the IRS detested the result, and now the IRS is implementing aggressive measures, including some that supposedly have retroactive effect. This article explores general U.S. tax treatment of foreign retirement plans, key concepts of the treaty, positions claimed by U.S. taxpayers, initial enforcement actions by the IRS, significance of the Competent Authority Arrangement, effect of the Proposed Regulations on various persons, and potential paths for taxpayers at this juncture. Read the full article here. About Hale E. Sheppard HALE E. SHEPPARD, Esq. (B.S., M.A., J.D., LL.M., LL.M.T.)  is a partner in the Tax Controversy Section of Chamberlain Hrdlicka.  He defends clients in tax audits, tax appeals, and Tax Court litigation, covering both domestic and ...

Huge numbers of taxpayers have claimed Employee Retention Credits (“ERCs”) in the past few years. Some of them might know the substantive rules, but few of them likely understand the procedural nuances. This is a problem because a large percentage of clashes with the IRS ultimately turn on procedural issues. Taxpayers and their advisors are raising many procedural questions: Has the IRS created special procedural rules for ERC cases? How long does the IRS generally have to audit ERC claims? Do extended assessment-periods apply to claims for certain quarters? What examination techniques will the IRS use? What methods can taxpayers utilize if the IRS rejects or ignores their ERC claims? Which courts will have jurisdiction over ERC litigation? Can the interplay between employment taxes and income taxes cause taxpayers to get “whipsawed” by the IRS? This article, the latest in a multi-part series, explores these critical questions and othe...

It is obvious that the IRS has been scrutinizing, and will continue to pursue, those that it considers “promoters” or “enablers” of improper employee retention credit (“ERC”) claims. What is not apparent, though, is the wide range of tools at the IRS’s disposal and how they might affect not only the targets, but also the taxpayers who relied on them. This article, the latest in a series, summarizes the main ERC rules, clarifies how long ERC claims will continue, identifies imminent enforcement actions, and explores a long list of weapons that the IRS likely will use, some common, others obscure. Read the full article here. About Hale E. Sheppard HALE E. SHEPPARD, Esq. (B.S., M.A., J.D., LL.M., LL.M.T.) is a Shareholder in the Tax Controversy Section of Chamberlain Hrdlicka and Chair of the International Tax Group.

The deadlines for seeking Employee Retention Credits (“ERCs”) are fast approaching, large numbers of claims are being filed, and fears of widespread fraud abound. What is the solution? The IRS says pumping the proverbial brakes is the way to go. It recently imposed a “moratorium” of at least three months on processing future ERC claims. The IRS made several other important announcements, too. These include the start of “enhanced compliance reviews” on all ERC claims, a “special withdrawal option” for taxpayers with pending yet unpaid claims, and a future “settlement program” for taxpayers that previously received ERCs but did not really deserve them. This article, the latest in a multi-part series, explores these recent IRS actions, fitting them into the broader context of ERC events over the past three years and into the future. Read the full article here. About Hale E. Sheppard HALE E. SHEPPARD, Esq. (B.S., M.A., J.D., LL.M., LL.M.T.) is a Shareholder in ...