managing tax controversies - crowell & moring · 13-02-2019 · tei detroit chapter february...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Crowell & Moring | 1
Managing Tax ControversiesTEI DETROIT CHAPTER
February 13, 2019David Blair, Brad Anwyll, and Teresa Abney
Crowell & Moring | 2
• Government shutdown and state of LB&I
• Exam update
• Appeals update
• Partnership update
Managing Tax ControversiesAgenda
2
Crowell & Moring | 3
Government Shutdown and the State of LB&I
Crowell & Moring | 4
Current State of IRS
3
Crowell & Moring | 5
Current State of IRS
Crowell & Moring | 6
Current State of LB&I
4
Crowell & Moring | 7
Current State of LB&I
Crowell & Moring | 8
Current State of LB&I
5
Crowell & Moring | 9
• It may take up to 18 months for the IRS to recover
• IRS lost 25 information technology specialists a week during the shutdown
• Backlog of unanswered written inquiries increased to 5 million
• Difficulty hiring seasonal workers (hired 10,000 last year)
• Ability to hire and retain quality employees hampered
Government shutdownImpact on IRS
Crowell & Moring | 10
• Ask revenue agent or Appeals officer what to do if submissions are due during the shutdown
o E.g., responses to IDRs
o Mail? Email? Hold until government reopens?
• Agree to “drop dead” date for scheduled meetings
o E.g., if government is closed 7 days before a meeting, the meeting is canceled
o Saves travel expenses and wasted preparation time
• Keep records!
• IRS resources: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs‐activities‐following‐the‐shutdown
Government shutdownTips for future shutdowns
6
Crowell & Moring | 11
Exam UpdateIssue‐Focused Exams and IRS Campaigns
Crowell & Moring | 12
Issue‐Focused Exams
Source: The New Yorker
7
Crowell & Moring | 13
• To be provided to taxpayers at opening conference
• Goal: To complete exam in an efficient and effective manner through collaborative efforts
• Provides expectations for both IRS and taxpayers
• Outlines 3‐Phase Exam process
o Planning Phase
o Execution Phase
o Resolution Phase
• Details set forth in IRM 4.46.1, .3, .4, and .5
Publication 5125: LB&I Examination Process
Crowell & Moring | 14
• Issue Team to take responsibility
• Collaboration with taxpayer emphasized
• Resolve issues at earliest appropriate point
o Exam to seek taxpayer agreement on facts before NOPA
o Exam Team required to consider Fast Track Settlement
• Rules of engagement
o Prior system relied on domestic chain, which failed to resolve problems on international issues
o New “principles of collaboration” allow moving up substantive, geographic chains
o May not be one decision maker for all audit issues. Accountability is diffused
Issue‐Focused Exam Process
8
Crowell & Moring | 15
• Case Manager – holds overall responsibility for the examination; but is not granted “51% control” over the case
• Issue Manager – oversees planning, execution, and resolution of the issue; one issue manager per issue under examination
• Other member – Team Coordinator; Issue Team member
o Principles of Collaboration (IRM 4.46.1.4) replace Rules of Engagement (formerly IRM 4.51.1)
• Emphasis on collaboration among all parties and timely elevation of concerns
• Provides guidelines for determining when internal elevation may be appropriate
Roles and Responsibilities (IRM 4.46.1)
Crowell & Moring | 16
Issue‐Focused Exams: Campaigns
• Where to Find Campaigns:o https://www.irs.gov/businesses/full‐list‐of‐lb‐large‐
business‐and‐international‐campaigns
• Campaign Example: RepatriationPractice Area = Cross Border Activities; Lead Executive = John Hinding
“LB&I is aware of different repatriation structures being used for purposes of tax free repatriation of funds into the U.S. in the mid‐market population. It has also been determined that many of the taxpayers do not properly report repatriations as taxable events on their filed returns. The goal of this campaign is to simultaneously improve issue selection filters while conducting examinations on identified, high risk repatriation issues and thereby increase taxpayer compliance.”
9
Crowell & Moring | 17
• Campaign Development Portal
o LB&I employees submit a recommendation for a campaign
o LB&I evaluates proposals and designs campaigns using tailored treatment streams and integrated feedback loops
• Data analytics to support identification and evaluation of potential campaign issues
• Consider potential treatment streams
• Decide what resources to deploy
• Identify training, mentoring, networking, and tools needed
How IRS Develops Campaigns
Crowell & Moring | 18
Source: GAO “TAX GAP: IRS Needs Specific Goals and Strategies for Improving Compliance” (Oct. 2017)
Tax Gap Study: Corporate Compliance Issues
10
Crowell & Moring | 19
Pending IRS Compliance Studies
Source: GAO “TAX GAP: IRS Needs Specific Goals and Strategies for Improving Compliance” (Oct. 2017)
Crowell & Moring | 20
• Issue Practice Groups (IPGs), International Practice Networks (IPNs)
o Facilitated knowledge management, collaboration
o Developed practice units on various issues
• Practice units (PUs) are available
o https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/international‐practice‐units
o 18 new PUs in 2018 – not all international
• LB&I Directives also published
o https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/large‐business‐and‐international‐lbi‐industry‐director‐guidance
o 7 new LB&I Directives for 2018
Role of Subject Matter Experts
11
Crowell & Moring | 21
Exam UpdateProminence of International Issues at Exam
Crowell & Moring | 22
U.S. International Tax
Deputy Assistant Secretary (International Tax Affairs)
LG Chip Harter
Deputy Assistant Secretary(Tax Policy)(Vacant)
International Tax CounselTom West
Deputy International Tax Counsel
Brian Jenn
Chief Counsel, IRSWilliam M. Paul (Acting)
Associate Chief Counsel (International)
(Vacant)
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (International)
Daniel M. McCall
LB&I Deputy Division Counsel (International)
Kathryn Patterson (Acting)
LB&I CommissionerDouglas O’Donnell
LB&I Deputy CommissionerNikole Flax
Director, Treaty & Transfer Pricing Operations
Jennifer Best
Director of Field OperationsTransfer Pricing Practice
John Hinman
U.S. Treasury Department IRS Office of Chief CounselIRS Large Business &
International
12
Crowell & Moring | 23
LB&I Campaigns on International Tax IssuesCampaign Practice Area Lead Executive
Repatriation Cross‐Border Activities John Hinding (director, Cross‐Border Activities)
Repatriation via Foreign Triangular Reorganization
Cross‐Border Activities John Hinding; Barbara Harris (director, Northeastern Compliance)
Section 956 Transition Tax Cross‐Border Activities John Hinding
Section 956 Avoidance Cross‐Border Activities John Hinding
Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Withholding & International Individual Compliance
John Cardone
Corporate Direct (Section 901) Foreign Tax Credit
Cross‐Border Activities John Hinding
Inbound distributor campaign Treaty and Transfer Pricing Operations Sharon Porter
Individual Foreign Tax Credit (Form 1116) Western Compliance Practice Area Paul Curtis
Crowell & Moring | 24
• Publication 5300, June 29, 2018, updated August 2018
o Designed as a guide more than as a template
o Phases are planning, execution and resolution
o Contains relevant Practice Units, LB&I case team management, and best practices
o The Initial Transfer Pricing Documentation IDR is no longer required for all cases
• LB&I‐04‐0618‐012, June 29, 2018
o Communicates to LB&I employees that TPEP will be used in conjunction with the LB&I Examination Process, Publication 5125
o Transfer Pricing Roadmap is retired
Transfer Pricing Examination Process (TPEP)
13
Crowell & Moring | 25
• Joint review of transfer pricing risks by several jurisdictions cooperatively
• Pilot program launched in January 2018: US / Canada lead
o Participation by 8 OECD countries: Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, the US
• Handbook: “risk assessment process”
o Transfer pricing documentation, country‐by‐country reports
o Kickoff meeting, share information with all countries
o Participating countries each assess risks
o Each country prepares “CAP outcome letter”
• Assessment of “high risk” will result in examination in country
ICAPInternational Compliance Assurance Program
Crowell & Moring | 26
Exam UpdateStrategies for Responding to NOPAs and AOF IDRs
14
Crowell & Moring | 27
• IRS is required to prepare a statement of facts on Form 886‐A as part of its consideration of each issue
• IRS is also expected to issue a pro‐forma IDR to seek a written AOF from the taxpayer and to incorporate any additional facts in the write‐up
• IRM provides instructions to Exam if the taxpayer
o Agrees with the facts,
o Provides additional facts,
o Identifies disputed facts, or
o Does not respond to the AOF IDR
Acknowledgment of Facts (AOF) (IRM 4.46.4.9)
Crowell & Moring | 28
Acknowledgment of Facts IDR
15
Crowell & Moring | 29
Exam UpdateChanges to CAP
Crowell & Moring | 30
Changes to CAP
• Compliance Assurance Processo Like pre‐filing agreement, provides certaintyo Very popular – expanded from 17 (2005) to 169 taxpayers (today)o Resource intensive for IRS; few metrics to measure successo CAP Maintenanceo IRS froze program in 2016
• Recently announced changes IR‐2018‐174 (Aug. 27, 2018)o Program continues for current CAP taxpayerso Applications due October 1, 2018o Preliminary list of issues, including transfer pricing, research credits
16
Crowell & Moring | 31
Changes to CAP
• Recently announced changes IR‐2018‐174 (Aug. 27, 2018) (cont’d)
o CAP Team and taxpayer develop issues list for review o IRS seeking to better allocate resources:
• Issues lists to direct IRS resources; not all issues reviewed• 90‐Day goal for issue resolution• Some transfer pricing issues sent to APA program• Tighter timelines for taxpayer representation letter and post‐file review• Unagreed issues sent to Appeals sooner (Fast Track?)
• In future, taxpayers may need to provide certification of tax controls framework• CAP Maintenance to be modified; may skip review some years for low‐risk taxpayers• In future, IRS may use “issue‐based resolutions” in CAP cases
Crowell & Moring | 32
Questions?
David Blair
202.624.2765
17
Crowell & Moring | 33
Appeals UpdatePositioning Your Case for Appeals on the Facts and Issues
Crowell & Moring | 34
• Two guiding principles:
o Appeals will not engage in fact finding
o Appeals will not raise new issues not considered by Exam and it will not reopen an issue on which the taxpayer and Exam are in agreement
• What is a “new” issue?
• What if taxpayer raises a new issue?
• What if taxpayer raises new facts?
Appeals PoliciesNo new facts, no new issues
18
Crowell & Moring | 35
• Problematic if it is issued before the IRS’s proposed adjustment
• Do not have to respond (not subject to summons enforcement) but need to be strategic
Appeals PoliciesAcknowledgment of Facts IDR
Crowell & Moring | 36
Appeals UpdateExam’s Presence at Appeals
19
Crowell & Moring | 37
• Historically, Exam would be present only for the Pre‐Submission Conference
• May 2017 IRS announced a pilot program for Exam attending Appeals conferences
o Goal = facilitate communication between Taxpayer and Exam to more quickly identify central issues and assess the strengths and weaknesses
o Exam not present for settlement discussions
o Appeals remains the decision‐maker
Exam’s presenceExam may attend some Appeals conferences
Crowell & Moring | 38
Exam’s presenceIRS says it is worthwhile
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs‐utl/atclfaqs.pdf
20
Crowell & Moring | 39
Exam’s presenceTaxpayers’ and Taxpayer Advocate’s Concerns
https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2017‐ARC/ARC17_Volume1_MSP_18_AppealsCounsel.pdf
Crowell & Moring | 40
• Concerns on when Exam gets excluded (thin line between case presentation and settlement discussion)
• Exam has begun to issue post‐Protest IDRs to prepare to advocate its position at Appeals
• More people at Appeals conferences
• Appeals claims it is helping
Exam’s presenceHow it is working
21
Crowell & Moring | 41
Appeals UpdateAppeals Settlement Authority
Crowell & Moring | 42
• ATCL manager concurrence
• Appeals Coordinated Issues
• Appeals Settlement Guidelines
Appeals settlement authorityIs ATCL settlement authority eroding?
22
Crowell & Moring | 43
Appeals settlement authorityIs ATCL settlement authority eroding?
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs‐utl/tg_issues_index.pdf
Crowell & Moring | 44
Appeals settlement authorityAppeals Settlement Guidelines
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs‐utl/irc‐section‐118‐salt‐asg‐redacted.pdf
23
Crowell & Moring | 45
Appeals UpdateTaxpayer Right to Appeals
Crowell & Moring | 46
• New procedures in Rev. Proc. 2016‐22 limit ability to go to Appeals in docketed cases
• General rule = if taxpayer hasn’t previously gone to Appeals, they can go to Appeals when case docketed in Tax Court
• Exceptions
o Designated for litigation
o Not in interest of sound tax administration
Right to AppealsDocketed cases
24
Crowell & Moring | 47
• Facebook filed a petition in U.S. Tax Court
• IRS refused to refer the case to Appeals (“not in the interest of sound tax administration”)
• Facebook sued in district court claiming under APA that:
o Rev. Proc. 2016‐22 was invalid
o Under Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Facebook had a right to Appeals
• Court ruled no enforceable right to Appeals
Right to AppealsFacebook, Inc. v. IRS (N.D. Cal. May 2018)
Crowell & Moring | 48
Questions?
J. Bradford Anwyll
202.624.2780
25
Crowell & Moring | 49
Centralized Partnership AuditsOverview
Crowell & Moring | 50
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
Regulations
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (technical
corrections)
Regulations
Centralized partnership audit regimeBBA Developments
26
Crowell & Moring | 51
Centralized partnership audit regimeTreasury regulations
Crowell & Moring | 52
Centralized Partnership AuditsMechanics
27
Crowell & Moring | 53
• Assessment and collection of tax is done at partnership level
• Partnership is liable for resulting tax
Centralized partnership audit regimeBasic rule
Crowell & Moring | 54
Partnerships subject to new regimeEffective date / Electing‐in
• Effective for tax years starting after December 31, 2017
• Partnerships can elect in for tax years starting after November 2, 2015
28
Crowell & Moring | 55
Partnerships subject to new regimeElecting out
• Which partnerships can elect out?
o Must have 100 or fewer partners (special rules for S corporations and QSubs)
o Partners must be individuals, C corporations, any foreign entity that would be treated as a C corporation were it domestic, and S corporations
• Election must be made each taxable year
• Election made on partnership’s tax return
o Must include the name and TIN for each partner in the partnership
o Must notify each partner of the partnership’s election out of the regime
Crowell & Moring | 56
• Centralized partnership audit regime applies to partnership‐related items
o Partnership‐related items = any item or amount with respect to the partnership that is relevant in determining the income tax liability of any person, without regard to whether the item or amount appears on the partnership’s return and including an imputed underpayment and an item or amount relating to any transaction with, basis in, or liability of, the partnership
Scope of the new regimeWhat does it apply to?
29
Crowell & Moring | 57
Scope of the new regimeIRS Notice 2019‐06
• Forthcoming regulations: IRS allowed to directly audit a partner without applying the new regime
• IRS can decide the regime does not apply to a partnership‐related item if:
o The item does not arise in the audit of a partnership
o Partnership‐related adjustment is made as part of an adjustment to non‐partnership‐related item
o The treatment of the partnership‐related item is based on information from the person under examination
Crowell & Moring | 58
• Reviewed year
• Adjustment year
• Partnership representative
• Imputed underpayment
Centralized partnership audit regimeKey terms
30
Crowell & Moring | 59
ExampleIn 2020, XYZ’s 2018 partnership tax return is audited and the IRS increases the partnership’s income by $1 million. In 2018, XYZ had three equal partners: A, B, and C.
• Imputed underpayment = $1,000,000 x 37% [highest applicable tax rate] = $370,000
• A, B, and C should have paid $370,000 more in taxes for 2018
Crowell & Moring | 60
Notice of Administrative Proceeding
Notice of Proposed Partnership Adjustment (NOPPA)
Submit modification information (270 days)
Final Partnership Adjustment
(FPA)
“Push out” election
(45 days)
Petition in court (90 days)
Centralized partnership audit regimeStages of BBA audit
31
Crowell & Moring | 61
• Partnership pays the imputed underpayment
• Review year partners file amended returns for the reviewed year
• Partnership elects to push out to reviewed year partners
• Pull‐in procedure (review year partners pay the tax but don’t file an amended return)
Centralized partnership audit regimeFour ways to pay resulting tax
Crowell & Moring | 62
ExampleIn 2020, XYZ’s 2018 partnership tax return is audited and the IRS increases the partnership’s income by $1 million. In 2018, XYZ had three equal partners: A, B, and C. In 2020, XYZ has three equal partners: A, B, and D.
Imputed underpayment
Amended return
Push out election
Pull‐inprocedure
Who pays?
A, B, and D A, B, and C A, B, and C A, B, and C
On which return?
2020 2018 2020 None (payment remitted with IRS form)
Interest rate
General underpaymentrate
General underpaymentrate
General underpayment rate PLUS 2%
General underpaymentrate
32
Crowell & Moring | 63
• BBA as enacted: push‐out adjustment includes only increases to partner’s income
• Technical corrections: push‐out adjustment includes increases and decreases to partner’s income
Push‐out electionTechnical Corrections: increases and decreases
Crowell & Moring | 64
XYZ’s 2018 tax return is audited; IRS makes an adjustment in 2020; A was a partner in 2018 but sold his interest in 2019 for $500,000. His outside basis was $300,000 so A reported $200,000 of gain on the sale.
XYZ pushes the adjustment out to reviewed year partners; A’s share is $100,000. XYZ issues a Schedule K‐1 to A reporting $100,000 of income.
Because A has an additional $100,000 of income from the partnership, his outside basis increases to $400,000 and he should have had only $100,000 gain on the sale of his XYZ partnership interest. Under the technical corrections, A can decrease the gain he reported on the sale.
Push‐out electionDecrease adjustment example
33
Crowell & Moring | 65
Push‐out electionMulti‐tiered partnerships
Partnership makes push‐out election
Partnership sends K‐1s to partners
UTP files “partnership adjustmenttracking report”
UTP pays imputed tax
UTP pushes out to its partners
UTP’s partners pay or push out
Crowell & Moring | 66
In 2020, XYZ’s 2018 partnership tax return is audited and the IRS increases the partnership’s income by $900,00. In 2018, XYZ had three equal partners: A, B, and C. C is partnership with three partners during 2018: M (individual), N (individual), and O (partnership). O is partnership with three partners during 2018: R (individual), S (individual), and T (individual). XYZ is a calendar year taxpayer.
Push‐out electionMulti‐tiered partnerships example
XYZ
A B C
M N O
R S T
All push outs must be made by September
15, 2021
All push outs must be made by September
15, 2021
Red partners report the adjustment and pay the resulting tax
34
Crowell & Moring | 67
Centralized Partnership AuditsPartnership Representative
Crowell & Moring | 68
• Eligibility to serve as Partnership Representative
o Substantial presence
o Designated Individual
• Designating or changing a Partnership Representative or Designated Individual
• IRS designation of Partnership Representative
• Authority of Partnership Representative
Partnership representativeFinal regulations
35
Crowell & Moring | 69
On its 2018 return, XYZ designates PR1 as its partnership representative. On its 2021 return, XYZ designates PR2 as its partnership representative. In 2022, IRS mails XYZ a Notice of Administrative Proceeding with respect to XYZ’s 2018 tax return.
Partnership representativePartnership Representative example
Who is the partnership representative for the 2018 return?
Crowell & Moring | 70
On its 2018 return, XYZ designates PR1 as its partnership representative. In 2020, XYZ and PR1 have a falling out. XYZ does not want PR1 as its partnership representative.
Partnership representativePartnership Representative example
What can XYZ do?
36
Crowell & Moring | 71
On its 2018 return, XYZ designates PR1 as its partnership representative. XYZ’s 2018 return is selected for audit in 2020. In 2021, XYZ has three partners: A, B, and C. A is the majority partner. B is a general partner. A and C are limited partners.
On January 1, 2021, A signs and mails a form revoking PR1 as the partnership representative and designating PR2.
On January 15, 2021, B signs and mails files a form revoking PR2 as the partnership representative and designating PR3.
On February 27, 2021, C signs and mails a form revoking PR3 as the partnership representative and designating PR1.
Partnership representativePartnership Representative example
Who is the partnership representative?
Crowell & Moring | 72
On its 2018 return, XYZ designates PR1 as its partnership representative. XYZ’s partnership agreement says PR1 cannot extend the period of limitations without the consent of partners A and B.
The period of limitations for making adjustments is March 15, 2022. The IRS asks to extend the period of limitations to March 15, 2023. A and B tell PR1 not to agree to the extension, but he does. PR1 signs the extension.
Partnership representativePartnership Representative example
Is the extension valid?
37
Crowell & Moring | 73
On its 2018 return, XYZ designates PR1 as its partnership representative. XYZ’s partnership agreement says PR1 cannot extend the period of limitations without the consent of partners A and B.
The period of limitations for making adjustments is March 15, 2022. The IRS asks to extend the period of limitations to March 15, 2023. A and B tell PR1 not to agree to the extension, but he does. PR1 signs the extension and then resigns as a partnership representative.
Partnership representativePartnership Representative example
Is the extension valid?
Crowell & Moring | 74
Questions?
Teresa Abney
202.624.2667
38
Crowell & Moring | 75
Crowell & Moring LLP is an international law firm with more than 500 lawyers representing clients in litigation and arbitration, regulatory, and transactional matters. The firm is internationally recognized for its representation of Fortune 500 companies in high‐stakes litigation, as well as its ongoing commitment to pro bono service and diversity. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange County, London, and Brussels.
© Crowell & Moring LLP 2018
crowell.com
Attorney advertising. The contents of this briefing are not intended to serve as legal advice related to any individual situation. This material is made available by Crowell & Moring LLP for information purposes only.