TAXLITIGATOR – Tax Controversy (Civil & Criminal) Report

As part of the 2004 Jobs Act, Congress added several provisions as part of the interminable effort to clear the tax system of abusive tax shelters:

• Sec. 6111, which requires “material advisors” to file returns disclosing information about reportable (including listed transactions);
• Sec. 6700, which imposes a penalty for failure to file a return, or filing an incomplete or false return, required under sec. 6111 of $50,000 or, in the case of a listed transaction, the greater of (a) $200,000 or (b) 50% of the gross income (75% for an intentional failure) derived prior to the filing of the return with respect to the transaction; and
• Sec. 6707A, which imposes a penalty on any person who fails to provide information on a reportable transaction required under sec. 6011.

Sec. 6707A(c) defined “reportable transaction” and “listed transaction” as

• Reportable transaction – The term “reportable transaction” means any transaction with respect to which information is required to be included with a return or statement because, as determined under regulations prescribed under section 6011, such transaction is of a type which the Secretary determines as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion.
• Listed transaction – The term “listed transaction” means a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of section 6011.

Besides civil penalties under secs. 6707 and 6707A, a person who willfully failed to file a return or filed a false return regarding a reportable or listed transaction could be subject to criminal penalties.

When it enacted these provisions, Congress did not address whether the IRS would have to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act when

     identifying and defining reportable and listed transactions.

          Since the 1990s, the IRS has been identifying what it determined were abusive tax avoidance transactions through various means.  Sometimes the IRS would issue a regulation that identified a particular type of transaction as abusive, such as Treas. Reg. sec. 1.643(a)-8 (identifying abusive use of charitable remainder unitrusts).  Other times the IRS would issue a revenue ruling identifying a transaction as abusive, such as Rev. Rul. 2000-12 (identifying certain debt straddles as abusive).  Mostly, the IRS issued notices.  See, IRS’s webpage Recognized Abusive and Listed Transactions, available online at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/listed-transactions#4.

          Unlike regulations, notices are usually issued without offering interested persons notice and an opportunity to comment.  One of the Notices was Notice 2007-83, which identified as listed transactions certain transactions involving the purchase of cash value life insurance policies connected to employer benefit plans. 

In Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, Dkt. No. 21-1500 (6^th Cir. March 3, 2022), https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0041p-06.pdf, the plaintiff corporation had an employee benefit plan in effect from 2013-2017 that paid premiums of cash value life insurance policies benefiting its principals.  In 2019, the IRS determined that the transaction was that identified in Notice 2007-83.  It assessed penalties against both the corporation and its principals, all of whom paid the penalties and filed refund claims.  After the administrative route got them nowhere, they filed suit in district court, challenging the validity of the Notice because it (a) was issued without providing for notice and comment in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); (b) constituted unauthorized agency action; (c) was arbitrary and capricious; and (d) did not apply to the transaction engaged in by the taxpayers.  The district court ruled for the Government on all issues and the taxpayers appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court, holding that Notice 2007-83 was invalid because it was issued in violation of the notice and comment requirements of the APA.

The Government argued that Notice 2007-83 was an “interpretive rule,” not a “legislative rule,” and, thus, was exempt from the APA’s notice and comment provisions.  Addressing this argument, the Sixth Circuit focused on the difference between legislative and interpretive rules and found that the notice fell on the legislative side of the border:

Legislative rules have the “force and effect of law”; interpretive rules do not. Perez, 575 U.S. at 96–97 (quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem’l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995)). Legislative rules impose new rights or duties and change the legal status of regulated parties; interpretive rules articulate what an agency thinks a statute means or remind parties of pre-existing duties. Tenn. Hosp. Ass’n, 908 F.3d at 1042. When rulemaking carries out an express delegation of authority from Congress to an agency, it usually leads to legislative rules; interpretive rules merely clarify the requirements that Congress has already put in place. Id. at 1043.

Measured by these metes and bounds, Notice 2007-83 amounts to a legislative rule. The Notice has the force and effect of law. It defines a set of transactions that taxpayers must report, and that duty did not arise from a statute or a notice-and-comment rule. It springs from the IRS’s own Notice. Taxpayers like Mann Construction had no obligation to provide information regarding listed transactions like this one to the IRS before the Notice. They have such a duty after the Notice. Obeying these new duties can “involve significant time and expense,” and failure to comply comes with the risk of penalties and criminal sanctions, all characteristics of legislative rules. CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 141 S. Ct. 1582, 1591 (2021); see also id. at 1592; Kristin E. Hickman, Unpacking the Force of Law, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 465, 524 (2013) (characterizing penalties as a leading indicator that a regulation is legislative rather than interpretive).

Slip op. at p. 5.

          The Court dismissed the Government’s argument that the notice merely “interpreted” what was a “tax avoidance transaction” and, therefore, was an interpretive rule.  Not so, responded the Court since under the notice a transaction that fell within its penumbra must be reported or the taxpayer faced a penalty.  This made it a legislative rule.

          The Sixth Circuit also rejected the Government’s argument that reportable/listed transaction notices were exempted by Congress from the APA’s notice and comment provisions.  There is a baseline assumption that every agency action that will have the force and effect of law must comply with the notice and comment provisions before it becomes final.  While Congress may carve out exceptions from the notice and comment requirement, the Government is required to show that Congress expressly did so.  That was not the case with respect to sec. 6707A.  Neither expressly nor by implication did the statute make the notice and comment provisions inapplicable nor did it create new procedures for determining what are listed or reportable transactions.  “The statutes merely establish a disclosure and penalty regime for the IRS to administer. As to the statutory text, Congress did not change the background procedural requirements of the APA or otherwise indicate an exemption from those requirements in a ‘clear’ or ‘plain’ way that would make the APA’s procedures inapplicable to the IRS.”  Slip op. at p. 9.

          The Government also argued that, since a regulation in effect when sec. 6707A was enacted,  which stated the IRS could identify listed and reportable transactions by “notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance,” Congress meant to exempt the identification of listed and reportable transactions from the APA’s notice and comment provisions.  To the Court, this did not show what the Government claimed.  All the regulation did was list the types of written documents in which it would identify listed and reportable transactions, not the procedure it would follow in issuing the guidance.  Since Notice 2007-83 did not comply with the APA’s notice and comment provisions it was invalid.  Thus, the district court was reversed.

This is not the first time that the IRS has run afoul of the APA  over its failure to give notice and provide an opportunity for comment prior to issuing a listed transaction notice.  In CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, 141 S.Ct. 1582 (2021), a unanimous Supreme Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar a material advisor on micro-captive insurance transactions from challenging Notice 2016-66, which identified certain micro-captive transactions as reportable transactions.  On remand, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the IRS enforcing the notice because it was a “legislative rule” that was invalid since it was issued without a notice and comment period, in violation of the APA.  CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 WL 4481008 (E.D. TN, Sept. 21, 2021).  CIC Services is appealable to the Sixth Circuit, so it is highly likely that the the micro-captive notice in that case will be held to be invalid.  If courts in other circuits follow the Sixth Circuit, all listed/reportable transaction notices could be invalidated for failing to abide by the APA’s notice and comment requirement.

          It has been more than ten years since the Supreme Court in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011) stated  that “[W]e are not inclined to carve out an approach to administrative review good for tax law only.”  While no one could doubt the importance of the listing rules to curb abusive tax avoidance transactions, the notice and comment requirements of the APA are equally important and if Congress believes the IRS should be relieved of the requirement, it must clearly say so.

Robert S. Horwitz is a Principal at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., former Chair of the Taxation Section, California Lawyers’ Association, a Fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel, a former Assistant United States Attorney and a former Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice Tax Division.  He represents clients throughout the United States and elsewhere involving federal and state administrative civil tax disputes and tax litigation as well as defending criminal tax investigations and prosecutions. Additional information is available at http://www.taxlitigator.com.

We are pleased to announce that Lacey Strachan and Michael Greenwade have published an article, “Close It Out — Past, Present & Future,” in the February issue of Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine. In 2021, the Tax Court ruled against the IRS in Crandall v. Commissioner, holding the IRS to the finality of a closing agreement.  This article discusses the Crandall case and the importance of closing agreements as a potentially strategic tool for taxpayers to use to resolve issues with the IRS.  The article includes a discussion of the possible uses of closing agreements, procedural requirements, and pitfalls to be aware of.

Click Here for full article.

We are pleased to announce that Sandra Brown will be speaking at the upcoming ABA seminar, “In the Eye of the Beholder: What Moves a Tax Case from Civil to Criminal” on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, 10:00 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. (PST).

The IRS puts the current gross tax gap at more than $1 trillion dollars. The gap consists of underreporting, underpayment, and non-filing, and each of these areas includes potential criminal targets. So what moves tax noncompliance from the civil to the criminal realm? This panel will address the IRS focus on civil fraud enforcement and criminal referrals, including the creation, organization, and initiatives of the IRS Office of Fraud Enforcement, current IRS enforcement priorities, recent criminal tax prosecutions, what happens when a criminal tax investigation is discontinued or declined, and more.

Click Here for more information.

This week, the IRS updated the Voluntary Disclosure Practice Preclearance Request and Application, Form 14457. Most notably, it includes a new section on disclosing virtual currency information. 

When it comes to the new information that has to be disclosed, two points stand out. The first is that you must disclose all aliases and citizenship.  Although the prior version of the form required you to list all passport information, which would imply citizenship, the new version goes a step further.  

The IRS is likely requiring this information for a few reasons.  One, the IRS might be able to cooperate and gain information from the country of which the taxpayer is a citizen.  It could also supply information to that country.  Those coming forward should make sure they are tax compliant in other countries.  This information could also increase collection of future liabilities.  The IRS has made an emphasis recently that it will pursue collection even if an individual’s assets are overseas. 

For years now the IRS has focused on virtual currency enforcement and this is the latest step. The previous form required you to list if the disclosure was related to virtual currency, but only required you to list financial accounts as part of the preclearance.  This arguably did not include virtual currency wallets and the like. 

Virtual currencies now must be disclosed in Part 1, Line 13. This includes not only transactions of virtual currencies during the disclosure period but also assets owned or controlled directly or indirectly. The disclosure also requires the inclusion of the location where the virtual currency has been held.

This section still raises several questions including whether NFTs need to be disclosed. The use of the word virtual currency may suggest a limited disclosure requirement for assets with some form of fungibility. And while the case can be made that IRS experts are aware of the distinction between fungible and non-fungible assets, the instructions make it clear that the IRS is looking for a full and complete disclosure. The instructions acknowledge that virtual currency is a dynamic area and that, for the purposes of this form, the term “encompasses assets beyond what many define as virtual currencies.” The reference to the IRS FAQ on virtual currency transactions shows that the IRS has a rather broad understanding and describes virtual currency as “a digital representation of value, other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency (‘real currency’), that functions as a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange.”  When in doubt, disclose. 

Note also that the form requires you to disclose “noncompliant” assets.  For virtual currency, that is any asset that should have been reported on a federal income tax return or other required federal information return that was not previously disclosed.  Simply holding virtual currency does not require you to disclose the asset on a return.  The noncompliance comes from not reporting a taxable transaction.

The Preclearance request is not the time not to make a full and fair disclosure.  The purpose of a voluntary disclosure is to come into tax compliance and eliminate criminal exposure and reduce civil penalties, not to use technicalities to not disclose assets. The preclearance request is only the first step in a long process. Any further non-compliance bears the risk of rejection (and a possible criminal investigation) right at the start and must be avoided. Questions of whether a transaction is or is not taxable can be resolved down the road, but not at this point.

The new form also requests information on the use of mixers and tumblers, including identification of the one used and an explanation of why it was used.  Mixers and tumblers are services offering to mix crypto currency streams of different users to blur the otherwise traceable origin and thereby enhance the privacy; a service that can easily be abused to obscure the source of tainted funds. This reflects the IRS continued use of all programs to expand data collection and analysis. The IRS can use this information to identify new mixers and tumblers for potential further investigations or a potential John Doe summons by receiving information directly from former customers. The question also shines a light on the taxpayer’s transactions to identify potentially illicit funds or assets. If the taxpayer’s source of income is of an illicit nature, the taxpayer would not qualify for a voluntary disclosure.

To become compliant through the IRS voluntary disclosure program, the taxpayer is therefore well advised to seek professional assistance from someone who is both familiar with the intricacies of the voluntary disclosure practice and who understands virtual assets.

Jonathan Kalinski is a principal at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez, P.C. and specializes in both civil and criminal tax controversies as well as sensitive tax matters including disclosures of previously undeclared interests in foreign financial accounts and assets and provides tax advice to taxpayers and their advisors throughout the world.  He handles both Federal and state tax matters involving individuals, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and trusts and estates.

Mr. Kalinski has considerable experience handling complex civil tax examinations, administrative appeals, and tax collection matters.  Recently, he has focused on the taxation of cannabis and cryptocurrency.  Prior to joining the firm, he served as a trial attorney with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel litigating Tax Court cases and advising Revenue Agents and Revenue Officers on a variety of complex tax matters.  Jonathan Kalinski also previously served as an Attorney-Adviser to the Honorable Juan F. Vasquez of the United States Tax Court.

Philipp Behrendt is an Associate at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., and a graduate of University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law (LL.M.) and a former associate of the leading German tax firm.  Philipp’s prior experience includes representing wealthy individuals and companies in global tax settings, cross-border investigations and audit matters, as well as handling complex voluntary disclosure issues for U.S. and other international companies, stemming from tax avoidance structures as well as crypto assets.. 

Please join us March 3-4, 2022 for the Federal Bar Association 46th Annual Tax Conference.

Examine important tax developments and emerging policy issues in nearly 20 educational sessions featuring notable speakers from the Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Department, Department of Justice, White House, and Congress.

Steven Toscher – Enforcement & Criminal | Hot Topics: IRS Enterprise Compliance Initiatives What are the IRS’s Most Significant Compliance and Enforcement Priorities and Initiatives?

This program will provide an overview of recent civil and criminal IRS Enterprise Compliance Programs. Panelists will describe their respective offices, goals, programs and initiatives, and recent highlights. The panel will introduce the newly formed IRS Office of Promoter Investigations, which is tasked with identifying new and emerging potentially abusive transactions and promoters before harming the tax system. Panelists will also discuss the more-recently formed IRS Office of Fraud Enforcement and the IRS: Criminal Investigation Global Operations Policy & Support.

Sandra Brown – Enforcement & Criminal | State of IRS Criminal Investigation What does IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS CI) Do and Who are They Investigating?

This panel, which will feature Senior IRS Criminal Investigation and Tax leaders, will provide an overview and update on IRS CI priorities and its efforts in criminal tax enforcement.  The panel will discuss the current state of the IRS CI enforcement programs, highlight new and ongoing criminal tax enforcement actions and initiatives, as well as provide insight into the role that IRS Criminal Tax Counsel and the Department of Justice’s Tax Division play in the IRS CI’s criminal tax enforcement, including prosecution recommendations and declinations.

Click Here for more information.

The Internal Revenue Service hasn’t offered specific guidance regarding whether cryptocurrency staking constitutes taxable income upon receipt, leaving those engaged in the activity, which implicates substantial sums of potential government revenue, unsure about their tax obligations.

“There are a lot of people that use Tezos,” Evan Davis of Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez PC told Law360. The IRS is “buying a big problem if they think that they can just sweep it under the rug — people who own Tezos are no doubt exchanging information about this case.”

Click Here to Read the Full Article (Subscription Required).

We are pleased to announce that Jonathan Kalinski will be speaking at the upcoming Strafford webinar, “Taxation of Digital Asset Transactions: Impact of New Infrastructure Bill, Cash Transactions, Reporting, Tax Planning” on Thursday, March 3, 2022, 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (PST).

On Nov. 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which includes significant provisions impacting digital asset transactions and reporting requirements. Tax professionals must understand the impact of the new Act on digital assets and critical issues regarding the tax treatment of digital asset transactions to properly advise and implement planning techniques to minimize tax liability to taxpayers.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act broadens the definition of “digital asset” as such relates to blockchain and redefines “broker” to include persons providing services to transfer digital assets, in addition to other vital provisions. Tax professionals must evaluate the transactions and practices of taxpayers engaged in digital assets and cryptocurrency.

In addition, current tax regulations and the existing IRS guidance have significant implications on cross-border transactions, providing that the source of income from digital transactions is the place where the transaction occurred, potentially subjecting taxpayers to multijurisdictional tax obligations.

Furthermore, taxpayers must also consider the impact of other federal tax provisions, such as the base erosion anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regime, the U.S. tax treatment under the controlled foreign corporation (CFC) regime, and the foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) regime.

Listen as our panel discusses key provisions and challenges of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on digital asset transactions, IRS tax treatment reporting requirements, potential issues stemming from BEAT, GILTI, FDII rules, and other essential items impacting taxpayers engaging in digital asset transactions.

We are also pleased to announce that we will be able to offer a limited number of complimentary and reduced cost tickets for this program on a first come first serve basis. If you are interested in attending, please contact Sharon Tanaka at sht@taxlitigator.com. 

Click Here for More Information.

“The appointment underscores how pervasive cryptocurrency and other forms of digital monetary exchange have become in our financial system and the importance of coordinated and robust enforcement needed to insure the integrity of these important tools of modern commerce,” says Steve Toscher, a tax litigator with Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C.”

Click Here for Full Article.

A famous baseball player once said: “It ain’t over until it‘s over.“[i]  Apparently, as the 9^th Circuit recently reminded us, in addressing the question of when the statute of limitation starts anew in a tax evasion case, this quote rings equally true outside of baseball.

In the case United States v. Orrock, No. 19-10388 (9^th Cir. 1/26/2022),[ii] the 9^th Circuit, acknowledging the need for clarification, held not only that the statute of limitation for evasion of assessment cases under § 7201 runs from the last act necessary to complete the offense but that later affirmative acts serve to refresh the applicable limitation period.  

Orrock involved allegations stemming from the evasion of defendant’s personal taxes for the tax year 2007 arising from income received from the sale of a vacated lot.  The defendant, a former IRS attorney, persuaded a friend to purchase a vacant lot, which defendant then directed to be transferred to a partnership set up by, and solely owned by, the defendant.  The lot was sold in 2007 for $1.5 million and sometime thereafter defendant found himself under audit by the IRS.  In 2011, during the audit of defendant’s 2007 personal tax return, which did not report any income from the sale of the lot, defendant took “corrective” action by filing a partnership return reporting the sale.  In filing the partnership return, defendant reported a sales price of $1.4 million instead of $1.5 million and also claimed a tax base of $1.2 million instead of the basis of $90,000.

The government claimed that the defendant was the true owner of the property, and thus, the income from the sale should have been reported on his 2007 personal tax return.  Ultimately, the defendant was charged, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7201, with evading the assessment of his 2007 personal income tax, along with other tax offenses.

On appeal, defendant argued the six year statute of limitation applicable to criminal tax offenses (26 U.S.C. §6513(2)) barred his conviction for evasion of the assessment of taxes as his 2007 personal return was filed on February 19, 2009, more than six years before the indictment was returned on April 12, 2016.  As such, if the 6-year period had run from the date of filing the personal 2007 tax return, the date arguably when defendant had completed all steps necessary for a charge to be filed under Section 7201, the conviction would have been barred by the six year statute of limitation.

The 9^th Circuit began its opinion in Orrock by acknowledging the arguable lack of clarity to the running of a statute of limitations for affirmative acts, an element necessary for the charge of an evasion of the assessment of a tax, under Section 7201:

“Although some language in our prior cases may seemingly support Orrock’s argument, we take this opportunity to clarify that the statute of limitations for evasion of assessment cases under § 7201 runs from the last act necessary to complete the offense, either a tax deficiency or the last affirmative act of evasion, whichever is later. See United States v. Carlson, 235 F.3d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 2000).” (Footnote omitted)

Stated another way, as the government argued, the statutes of limitation for Section 7201 can start not only once all the elements of the offense are satisfied, but, alternatively, the statute of limitations can run anew from the last affirmative act furthering the tax evasion.  Thus, while defendant may have satisfied all the elements of tax evasion when he filed his 2007 personal tax return in 2009, in committing a further affirmative act in 2011 by filing the partnership tax return in furtherance of the evasion of his true 2007 personal tax liability, the defendant started the six year clock all over again from that later act.  

Ultimately, agreeing with the government and with the trial court’s position that the filing of the later company’s false tax return was an affirmative act furthering the evasion of a correct assessment of the defendant’s 2007 personal tax liability which was within the six year statute of limitation, the 9^th Circuit affirmed defendant’s conviction, holding that “26 U.S.C. § 6531(2) and § 7201 do not determine that the statute of limitation only starts once all element have been first met but rather can start also when a further act to evade the assessment occurs.”  See also, United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9^th Cir. 1987) (Even if the taxes evaded were due and payable more than six years before the return of the indictment, the indictment is timely so long as it is returned in within six years of an affirmative act of evasion.)

While corrective action may be advisable in many tax situations, when it comes to tax evasion consideration of what might qualify as an “affirmative act” of evasion and thus, may ultimately refresh a limitations period merits caution.  E.g., see United States v. Kassouf, 959 F. Supp. 450 (N.D. Ohio 1997), aff’d 144 F.3d 952 (6^th Cir. 1998) (falsely claimed net operating loss carried forward and used in later years). 

While Yogi Berra was speaking to the game of baseball when he said, “It ain’t over till it’s over”, it wasn’t his only clever baseball quote that applies when it comes to the statute of limitations for criminal tax evasion.  Yogi also hit the mark when he said: “It’s like deja-vu all over again.”[iii]

Steven Toscher is a Principal 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.

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. 

Philipp Behrendt is an Associate at Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., and a graduate of University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law (LL.M.) and a former associate of the leading German tax firm.  Philipp’s prior experience includes representing wealthy individuals and companies in global tax settings, cross-border investigations and audit matters, as well as handling complex voluntary disclosure issues for U.S. and other international companies, stemming from tax avoidance structures as well as crypto assets.. 

[i] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34324865#:~:text=%22It%20ain’t%20over%20till,to%20win%20the%20division%20title

[ii] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/26/19-10388.pdf

[iii] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34324865#:~:text=%22It%20ain’t%20over%20till,to%20win%20the%20division%20title.

We are very pleased to announce that our friend and colleague Robert Horwitz has been recognized for his outstanding contributions in the field of taxation by the Orange County Bar Association Tax Section.  

Robert has over 40 years of experience as a tax attorney specializing in the representation of clients in civil and criminal tax cases, including civil audits and appeals, tax collection matters, criminal investigations, administrative hearings and in civil and criminal trials and appeals in federal and state courts.  He has served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Taxation Section of the State Bar of California and was Chair of the Taxation Section for 2015-2016 year. He was previously Chair of the Tax Procedure and Litigation Committee of the State Bar Taxation Section.

Prior to joining Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez P.C., Robert served as a Trial Attorney with the Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California and was with a boutique tax controversy firm in Orange County, where he represented clients in civil and criminal tax cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, U.S. district courts, California superior courts, and before the Internal Revenue Service, the California Franchise Tax Board, the Board of Equalization, the Employment Development Department and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

Robert has also represented clients in complex civil and white-collar criminal cases, including civil and criminal bank fraud, wind and thermal energy tax shelters, tax fraud and tax collection matters, trademark, trade secrets, securities, and insurance coverage cases. He was also appointed by the United States District Court in Los Angeles to represent a death row inmate in habeas corpus proceedings.