Posted by: pereztaxlitigatorcom | September 13, 2022

DENNIS PEREZ, SANDRA BROWN and CORY STIGILE to Speak at Upcoming Spidell Webinar

We are pleased to announce that Dennis Perez, Sandra Brown and Cory Stigile will be speaking at the upcoming Spidell webinar “Research and Development Tax Credits: IRS Scrutiny of Qualified Research Activity and Related Expenses,” Thursday, September 29, 2022, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (PST).

Research and development (R&D) is the lifeblood of a growing and prosperous economy, and many businesses perform some type of research and development. IRC §41 creates incentives for increased R&D activities in the form of tax credits for companies involved in qualified research activities. Businesses that consider R&D tax credits soon learn, however, that the potential benefits may come at a price. This program’s learning objectives include understanding how to navigate IRC § 41’s abundant and changing requirements and challenges, as well as the changes under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Internal Revenue Service’s increased focus on potential abuses of the R&D tax credit. Taxpayers and their tax advisors need to be prepared even when they are merely taking advantage of a tax benefit to which they are entitled. More easily identify key strategies to minimize exposure from IRS examinations of R&D credits

Click Here for more information.

The following are additional Spidell topics we will be speaking on throughout the rest of this year.

New Corporate Transparency Act:

The World is Changing

Form 8300 Reporting/Cash Intensive Business Audits

Handling Estate and Gift Tax Audits, including Hot Topics in Enforcement and Valuation

Cryptocurrency Tax Compliance in the

Post $50,000 Bitcoin World

Posted by: Steven Toscher | September 6, 2022

STEVEN TOSCHER to Speak at Upcoming CSTC Webinar

We are pleased to announce that Steven Toscher will be speaking at the upcoming CSTC 2022 Tax Forum Orange County South Chapter seminar at The Hills Hotel, Laguna Hills on “Cryptocurrency Tax Compliance: Tax Filing Requirements; Managing IRS Examinations,” Friday, September 16, 2022, 1:00 p.m. – 2:50 p.m. (PST).

This course will provide tax counsel, accountants, and other advisers with a critical first look at recent IRS enforcement actions on taxpayer compliance and reporting obligations for cryptocurrency transactions. The panel will discuss the IRS position on the tax treatment of cryptocurrency, analyze IRS monitoring to increase compliance, consider criminal investigations and prosecutions for failing to report crypto transactions accurately. The panel will define proper reporting and tax treatment for “mining” and exchanging cryptocurrency along with tactics in managing IRS examinations and audits.

Click Here for More Information.


Introduction

It was a long-held belief that the Anti-Injunction Act barred Taxpayers from maintaining any lawsuit that had the effect of interfering with the assessment or collection of any tax. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in CIC Services created a crack in the Government’s use of the Anti-Injunction Act to dismiss cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit, relying on the holding in CIC Services, has now, in its ruling in Harper v. Rettig, further widened that crack.

Anti-Injunction Act – Background

The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (hereinafter “the AIA”) states that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.”

The AIA’s history is quite informative. When the United States’ first income tax was adopted to finance the Civil War, some taxpayers, alleging the taxes illegal, sought to enjoin collection efforts – and some courts granted the requested relief. Congress, therefore, enacted the AIA in 1867 which protects the federal government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.

While the AIA predates the Administrative Procedure Act’s (hereinafter “APA”), by some 70 years, courts have long interpreted the AIA as an exception to the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity[i], and therefore, suits barred by the AIA can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.[ii]

Since its enactment in 1867, courts have consistently viewed the expanse of the AIA very broadly and thus, rejected almost any attempt to challenge IRS actions, no matter how remote from tax collection or assessment such actions may seem to be.  That changed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in CIC Services.

CIC Services and Harper

CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service

The IRS has broad powers to require the submission of tax-related information that may be helpful in assessing and collecting taxes.[iii] These reporting rules may also apply to “material advisors” – individuals or entities that earn income from providing taxpayers with certain kinds of “aid, assistance, or advice.”[iv]

CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service[v] began with the requirement that taxpayers and material advisors provide information about reportable transactions. The Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter “IRC”) describes these transactions as ones that “have a potential for tax avoidance or evasion.”[vi]

Micro-captive transactions are one category of reportable transactions that the IRS deems as having a potential for tax avoidance. Therefore, the IRS issued Notice 2016-66, which compels taxpayers and material advisors associated with micro-captive transactions to “describe the transaction in sufficient detail for the IRS to be able to understand [its] tax structure” of the transaction. Noncompliance with this notice subjects a taxpayer or material advisor to penalties of up to $50,000.[vii] Additionally, an advisor may incur a daily $10,000 penalty for failing to furnish, on request, a list of people it advised on a reportable transaction.[viii] These penalties are deemed to be taxes for purposes of the IRC and the AIA.

CIC Services is a material advisor to taxpayers participating in micro captive transactions. CIC Services asserted that the IRS violated the APA because it did not follow the notice-and-comment procedures.

The Government moved to dismiss the action based on the AIA, arguing that the requested relief would prevent the IRS from assessing a tax penalty against material advisors that disregarded the Notice’s reporting requirements, as the Notice’s reporting obligations are backed up by a statutory tax penalty. The District Court agreed, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether the AIA barred CIC’s suit which claimed that the Notice’s reporting requirements violated the APA. If CIC’s suit was for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of tax, the AIA would bar CIC’s suit; if it wasn’t for that purpose, the suit could go forward.

CIC and the Government disagreed as to the characterization of CIC’s lawsuit. According to CIC, the suit was aimed at invalidating the Notice and eliminating the reporting requirements. The Government argued the suit’s purpose was to stop the collection of the tax itself.

The Court agreed that the complaint contested the legality of the Notice, not the penalty that served as an enforcement tool for the reporting requirements. CIC asked for injunctive relief from the Notice’s requirements, not from any impending or eventual tax obligation. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that an injunction against the Notice was the same as one against the tax penalty.

The Court stated that three aspects of the regulatory scheme refuted the idea that the lawsuit was a tax action in disguise. First, the Notice imposed affirmative reporting obligations, inflicting costs separate and apart from the statutory tax penalty. Second, the reporting requirements and the statutory tax penalty were several steps removed from each other – CIC has to withhold required information, the IRS must determine that a violation occurred, and then must make the entirely discretionary decision to impose a tax penalty. Third, violations of the Notice are punishable by a tax and a separate criminal penalty.

Ultimately, the Court found that CIC’s suit was not to restrain the assessment or collection of tax and therefore was not barred by the AIA.

Upon remand to the District Court initially granted CIC’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the IRS from enforcing Notice 2016-66 against CIC.[ix]  The District Court thereafter ruled the IRS had to return all documents and information produced pursuant to the Notice to taxpayers and material advisors.[x] Subsequently, upon the Government’s motion for reconsideration, enter an amended judgment removing its order requiring the IRS to return to non-parties the documents produced pursuant to the Notice.[xi]

Harper v. Rettig[xii]

In 2013, James Harper opened an account with Coinbase and deposited Bitcoin into that account. In 2015, he liquidated a portion of his Bitcoin and transferred the remaining Bitcoin to a hardware wallet.[xiii] Harper reported all income from his Coinbase transactions between 2013-2016. In 2016, Harper sold Bitcoin through other digital exchanges and paid tax on his holdings between 2016-2019.

In 2016, the IRS filed an ex parte “John Doe” administrative summons to Coinbase and thereafter, upon approval by the District Court, received information about Coinbase accounts “with at least the equivalent of $20,000 in any one transaction type… in any one year during the 2013-2015 period.”[xiv]

In August of 2019, the IRS notified Harper that it possessed information about his virtual currency accounts and transactions and warned him that he could face civil or criminal enforcement action for inaccurately reporting such transactions.

In July of 2020, Harper filed a complaint against the IRS which alleged that the IRS violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as IRC § 7609(f) by acquiring his personal financial information from Coinbase through the third-party summons process. Harper’s action sought, among other remedies, relief requiring the IRS expunge his financial records from the IRS database. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss Harper’s claim arguing that the AIA represented an exception to the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore, the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the case. The District Court granted the Government’s motion and Harper appealed.

Harper challenged the IRS’s summons authority under IRC § 7602. Pursuant to IRC § 7602(a), the IRS, after notice to the taxpayer, may issue a summons: (1) to examine books and records; (2) to summon an individual with possession, custody, or care of books and records to produce such records to the IRS; and (3) to take testimony of the identified taxpayer concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry. As such, the activities authorized by IRC § 7602 fall within the category of information gathering, rather than acts of assessment or collection.  However, a John Doe summons, unlike an individualized IRS summons, permits the IRS to obtain information from a large group of unidentified taxpayers.[xv]  Additionally, unlike an individualized summons, no individualized notice is required, nor arguably would such notice be practical as the taxpayers’ identities are unknown, for the issuance of a John Doe summons.

The Government must meet the following factors to obtain authority to issue a John Doe summons:

  1. The John Doe summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons;
  2. There is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law;
  3. The information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and identity of the person(s) with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources; and
  4. The summons must be narrowly tailored to information that pertains to the failure or potential failure of the group or class of persons to comply with one or more provisions of the internal revenue laws which have been identified.[xvi] 

In response to Harper’s assertions that the IRS’s continuing retention of his financial information was illegal, the Government argued that the purpose of Harper’s suit was to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes, thereby bringing it within the scope of the AIA. The Government claimed that Harper’s suit was “a preemptive suit to foreclose tax liability” and thus, sought to enjoin a tax assessment or collection that could result from the information obtained about Harper under the John Doe summons to Coinbase.

The First Circuit found that Harper’s case was one seeking to set aside illegal information gathering and retention of such information by the IRS.  As such, following the holding in CIC Services, the Court held that Harper’s action fell outside the AIA because the injunction requested did not run against a tax at all. Rather, the suit contested, and sought relief from a separate legal wrong – the allegedly unlawful acquisition and retention of Harper’s financial records.

Ultimately, the Court held that because Harper’s claim was not a dispute about a tax rule, the AIA did not bar his suit, vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case for further consideration, including whether Harper has stated a claim, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was not previously addressed by the court.   

Conclusion

Harper is the latest iteration of the legal fissure that has opened in what, prior to the ruling in CIC Services LLC, has long been view by the Government as an almost impenetrable wall created by the Anti-Injunction Act. Time will only tell what other areas of IRS acts of gathering information, as opposed to acts of assessment and collection, might be the next to fall outside of the bar of the Anti-Injunction Act.

Sandra R. Brown is a Principal at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., and former Acting United States Attorney, First Assistant United States Attorney, and the Chief of the Tax Division of the Office of the U.S. Attorney (C.D. Cal). Ms. Brown specializes in representing individuals and organizations who are involved in criminal tax investigations, including related grand jury matters, court litigation and appeals, as well as representing and advising taxpayers involved in complex and sophisticated civil tax controversies, including representing and advising taxpayers in sensitive-issue audits and administrative appeals, as well as civil litigation in federal, state and tax court.

Gary Markarian is an Associate Attorney at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., and a graduate of the joint JD/LL.M. Taxation program at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. While in law school, Mr. Markarian served as an intern at the Tax Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (C.D. Cal) and Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel’s Large Business and International Division.


[i] The principal of sovereign immunity, which states that the government cannot be sued without its consent, provides that the government is generally immune from suit. (Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999)).

[ii] Where sovereign immunity applies, a court is deprived of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby shielding the government from suit. (Robbins v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 438 F.3d 1074, 1080 (10th Cir. 2006)).

[iii] IRC § 6011(a).

[iv] IRC § 6111(b)(1)(A); See IRC § 6111(a).

[v] CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, 141 S. Ct. 1582 (2021).

[vi] IRC § 6707A(c)(1).

[vii] IRC § 6707(b); IRC § 6707A(b).

[viii] See IRC § 6708(a); See § IRC 6112(a).

[ix] CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., Dep’t of Treasury, No. 3:17-CV-110, 2021 WL 4481008, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2021), reconsideration denied sub nom. CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:17-CV-110, 2022 WL 985619 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2022), on reconsideration, No. 3:17-CV-110, 2022 WL 2078036 (E.D. Tenn. June 2, 2022).

[x] CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:17-CV-110, 2022 WL 985619, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2022), on reconsideration, No. 3:17-CV-110, 2022 WL 2078036 (E.D. Tenn. June 2, 2022).

[xi] CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:17-CV-110, 2022 WL 2078036, at *3–4 (E.D. Tenn. June 2, 2022).

[xii] Harper v. Rettig et al., No. 21-1316, 2022 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 2022).

[xiii] A hardware wallet is a “secure offline” version of a virtual currency wallet that “can be used securely and interactively.”

[xiv] See United States v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 17-cv-1432 JSC, 2017 WL 5890052, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017).

[xv] See IRC § 7609(f).

[xvi] IRC § 7609(f) and Pub. L. No. 116-25, §1204(a), 133 Stat. 988 (2019) (Taxpayer First Act of 2019).

We are pleased to announce that Dennis Perez, Robert Horwitz and Lacey Strachan will be speaking at the upcoming CalCPA webinar on “Office of Tax Administration: Handling a Case Before California OTA,” Wednesday, August 31, 2022, 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (PST).

The OTA (Office of Tax Appeals) has been in operation since January, 2018, but its rules are not well known to many tax practitioners. Learn how to guide a case through the procedural maze of the OTA regulations and avoid foot faults that can jeopardize your client’s case.

Learning Objectives

• Types of cases the OTA hears.

• How to file an appeal with the OTA

• Discovery in OTA cases

• Opportunities for settlement before the case is heard

• What to expect in an OTA hearing

Major Subjects

• OTA jurisdiction

• OTA procedures

• Settlement with the FTB or CDTFA while a case is pending before the OTA

Click Here for More Information.

Posted by: Steven Toscher | August 22, 2022

PHILIPP BEHRENDT to Speak at Upcoming Beverly Hills Webinar

We are pleased to announce that Philipp Behrendt, along with LaVonne Lawson, Richard Gano and Michele F.L. Weiss will be speaking at the upcoming webinar at the Beverly Hills Bar Association on “Tax Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Tuesday, August 30, 2022, 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. (PST).

President Biden recently signed The Inflation Reduction Act into law. The Act contains numerous tax provisions. Come listen to our expert panel discuss the provisions and how they may impact you and/or your clients.

Click Here for More Information.

The Tax Court’s jurisdiction has been expanding over the years, both by legislation and rulings designed to make sure that taxpayers have adequate remedies.. This is the message in Treece Financial Services Group v. Commissioner, 158 T.C. No. 6, as well as the related opinion Treece Investment Advisory Corp. v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2022-38 (both April 19, 2022).

The background of the Treece cases is quickly explained. For the years in question, the petitioner(s)’ sole corporate officer classified himself as an independent contractor. Mr. Treece does not dispute that this classification was incorrect, but he claims that he is eligible for federal employment tax relief under the Voluntary  Classification Settlement Program (“VCSP”). Because the misclassification was  purportedly discovered during an employment tax examination, the government denied the petitioner’s participation in the program.

The following is a summary of the requirements for VSCP eligibility as discussed by the court: “(1) have consistently treated the workers as nonemployees; (2) have filed all required Forms 1099, consistent with the nonemployee treatment, for the previous three years; and (3) not currently be under employment tax audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).”

Not surprisingly, the court denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment because whether he was audited is a material fact in dispute. But that’s not all.

. Importantly, the opinion also addressed the government’s motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. The IRS has repeatedly argued that the tax court’s jurisdiction does not extend to the agency’s determination of whether  a taxpayer is eligible for the VCSP.

The Tax Court rejected the IRS position and denied its motion to dismiss.. While the Tax Court has jurisdiction only when Congress expressly grants it. See § 7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 T.C. (1976), the Tax Court, however, determines whether jurisdiction can be exercised. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984).

According to IRC § 7436(a), the Tax Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the  determination is correct and to determine the proper amount of employment taxes. Trimmer v. Commissioner,148 T.C. 334, 345-48 (2017) and similar cases established that the court’s jurisdiction extends to determinations going to the merits of a deficiency determination. The amount of employment tax owed is directly affected by the agency’s determination of whether an employer is eligible under the VCSP. An eligible employer is not subject to interest or penalties and pays a lower tax amount. According to the Tax Court, reviewing the eligibility denial was logically part of reviewing the tax deficiency.

As a result, the IRS’s determination is subject to Tax Court review. A few weeks later, on May 19, 2022, the IRS filed a 23-page motion for reconsideration (compared to the agency’s 10-page motion for summary judgment), a motion described in the Chief Counsel’s Directive Manual at 35.9.1.2.4 as necessary “[i]n rare instances.”

This is apparently one of these “rare” instances–; not only because the agency expects taxpayers to litigate their VCSP eligibility denials if the decision stands, but also because of the  ongoing expansion of Tax Court’s jurisdiction  over agency administrative acts that are improper and result in a notice of deficiency. What is the IRS afraid of—isn’t judicial review a good thing for improper agency action?

Steven Toscher is a Principal and Managing Partner at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., and specializes in civil and criminal tax litigation. Mr. Toscher is a Certified Tax Specialist in Taxation, the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization and represents clients throughout the United States and elsewhere involving federal and state, civil and criminal tax controversies and tax litigation.

Michel Stein is a Principal at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez, specializing in controversies, as well as tax planning for individuals, businesses and corporations.  For more than 20 years, he has represented individuals with sensitive issue civil tax examinations where substantial penalty issues may arise, and extensively advised individuals on foreign

Philipp Behrendt is an Associate at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., licensed in California as well as in Germany and assists in advising clients in civil and criminal tax controversies as well as international money laundering investigations stemming from tax avoidance structures.  He also focuses on the technical aspects involved in advising voluntary disclosures in connection with DeFis, NFTs, and other crypto assets.

We are pleased to announce that Sandra R. Brown will be speaking on upcoming seminars at the 39th Symposium on Economic Crime – Jesus College, University of Cambridge, being held at Jesus College, a College within the University of Cambridge, Sept. 4–11, 2022. Sandra will be participating on a panel entitled “Getting Your House in Order – Conducting Internal Investigation Into Alleged Tax Offenses” on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, 4:15 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. and will also deliver a keynote on “Insider Crime the Enemy Within” on September 7, 2022, 2:00 p.m.

The Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime over the last thirty-nine years has established itself as a leading forum for the discussion and analysis of issues related to economically motivated crime and misconduct and its prevention and control, which this year is focused on “Selling Status – insider crime and abuse of trust.” In recent years it has attracted annually nearly 2,000 participants from over 100 countries.  This year’s speakers, panelists and participants include those involved in policy, legislation, enforcement, compliance, international relations and members of the judiciary, legal and financial advisors. 

Click Here for More Information.

Posted by: mstein10 | August 15, 2022

MICHEL STEIN to Speak at Upcoming CPA Academy Webinar

We are pleased to announce that Michel Stein along with Phillip Colasanto, Caroline Ciraolo and Daniel Price, will be speaking at the upcoming CPA Academy on “Coming in From the Cold: the Future of Voluntary Disclosures” on Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (PST).

For more than 70 years, the IRS maintained a voluntary disclosure policy designed to encourage taxpayers to come in from the cold and self-report non-compliance. In 2018, the voluntary disclosure program was updated to provide new procedures. In its most recent annual report, the Taxpayer Advocate Service noted that the new procedures are substantially more onerous and uncertain than the old procedures and may discourage taxpayers from stepping forward to self-disclose.

Click Here to Register

Posted by: Steven Toscher | August 12, 2022

STEVEN TOSCHER to Speak at Upcoming ABA Webinar

We are pleased to announce that Steven Toscher along with Sara Neill, Peter Poulos and Charles Wien will be speaking at the upcoming ABA “Reportable Transactions for Estate Planners” on Tuesday, August 30, 2022, 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (PST).

Click Here to Register

This esteemed panel of tax professionals will address reportable transactions for estate planners. Panelists will identify current reportable transactions, categories of reportable transactions, and the implications for estate planners and their clients when participating in a reportable transaction. Among the issues to be addressed are the following:

  • Why do estate planners need to know about reportable transactions?
  • How should an estate planner approach a variation of a reportable transaction?
  • How can an estate planner unwittingly become a “material advisor” and why does this status matter?
  • What if an estate planner’s client wishes to proceed with a transaction for which the planner is uncertain as to the tax position?
  • What is the role of the new Office of Promoter Investigations?
  • Recent case law pertaining to reportable transactions.
Posted by: Steven Toscher | August 10, 2022

Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C.

HOCHMAN SALKIN TOSCHER PEREZ P.C. is proud to be recognized by Chambers and Partners as one of only three top tier law firms in its U.S. 2022 High Net Worth Guide in the category of Tax: Private Client. High Net Worth Guide Rankings

Chambers states that HOCHMAN SALKIN TOSCHER PEREZ P.C., is “a superb firm for tax controversy matters” Additional sources add: “They have an excellent team of highly qualified practitioners that are well versed on the law. I would happily refer a matter to them.” “They are a very talented group of practitioners that are leaders in the tax controversy space. That firm is absolutely amazing.”

In addition to the recognition of the firm, Steven Toscher and Sandra R. Brown were named top tier lawyers, along with their partner, Dennis Perez, who was also highly ranked in the 2022 High Net Worth Guide Tax: Private Client USA Rankings.

Steven Toscher is “one of the most knowledgeable lawyers around when it comes to tax controversy matters. I would refer a client to him in a heartbeat,” states an interviewee, and another concurs: “He is a very good lawyer; he has a fantastic reputation in the market. He is very skilled, intelligent and someone I would gladly refer a matter to if I were conflicted.” Toscher has a fantastic reputation for controversial tax matters. A source remarks: “Steve Toscher is an extraordinary lawyer. He is extremely intelligent, a great advocate for his clients and he has so much expertise.”

Our managing partner, Mr. Toscher, has been representing clients for almost 40 years before the Internal Revenue Service, the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Offices of the United States Attorney, numerous state taxing authorities and in federal and state court litigation and appeals. He is Certified Specialist in Taxation, the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, and is often ranked in California as well as nationwide as a top tax lawyer including being honored by the Taxation Section of the California State Bar with the 2017 Joanne M. Garvey Award.  

Dennis Perez represents high net worth clients in domestic tax examinations and administrative appeals. “He is one of the strongest practitioners in the country on the foreign reporting space,” says an interviewee, while another adds: “He’s a great practitioner. He is definitely somebody I can recommend in this area.

A former senior trial attorney with the IRS District Counsel in Los Angeles, California, Mr. Perez has, for more than 35 years, represented and advised clients in foreign and domestic civil tax examinations and administrative appeals where substantial civil income tax and penalty issues may arise, and he has extensive experience in representing clients in criminal tax fraud investigations and prosecutions. He is also a Certified Specialist in Taxation, the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. Mr. Perez is the first ever recipient of the Los Angeles Lawyer Sam Lipsman Service Award.

Sandra R. Brown represents high net worth individuals in a broad range of tax investigations. A market source says: “She is a very good attorney. She is knowledgeable, technical and knows her stuff.” Another remarks: “Sandra Brown is exceptional. She has a wealth of experience, she is really clever and a very good strategist. I would happily refer a case to her.”

In her more than 30 years as a tax litigator, Ms. Brown has a vast expanse and depth of experience in complex civil and criminal tax matters, having personally handled over 2,000 cases before the United States District Courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Bankruptcy Court, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the California Superior Court. Those cases included nationally significant civil tax cases such as two Supreme Court decisions and a multitude of published 9th Circuit decisions. Ms. Brown has her LL.M. in Taxation from the University of Denver, served as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Chief of the Tax Division, and, in 2021, was named a Top Women Lawyer in California.

HOCHMAN SALKIN TOSCHER PEREZ P.C., enjoys an unparalleled reputation for excellence and integrity in the tax community. For more than 60 years, the firm has been serving clients throughout the United States with federal and state civil tax litigation, defense of criminal tax prosecutions, all forms of tax disputes with the federal, state and local taxing authorities, white collar criminal defense, estate and business planning, and business transactions. More information about the firm and our attorneys is available at https://www.taxlitigator.com/

Older Posts »

Categories