TAXLITIGATOR – Tax Controversy (Civil & Criminal) Report

California’s Franchise Tax Board (the “FTB”) published its newest Top 500 Delinquent Taxpayer’s list today. This year, individuals made the list if their amount due exceeded approximately $230,000.  The FTB is required to post this information twice annually and taxpayers can be removed from the list as they resolve their tax disputes.

The FTB will reach out to taxpayers in advance of publishing the list, and they can avoid being on the list by either paying down part or all of their liabilities, or potentially entering into an installment agreement. Consequences in California for the failure to pay such taxes include the suspension or denial of licenses, including a California driver’s license.

The complete list of both individual and corporate taxpayers can be viewed at:

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Delinquent_Taxpayers.shtml

Cory Stigile specializes in tax controversies as well as tax, business, international tax. His representation includes Federal and state civil and criminal tax controversy matters and tax litigation, including sensitive tax-related examinations and investigations for individuals, business enterprises, partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations. His practice also includes complex civil tax examinations and sales tax examinations and appeals. Mr. Stigile is also a Certified Specialist, Taxation Law, The State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization.

Telephone Conferences are the Default Method for Appeals Conferences. IRS recently revised Internal Revenue Manual 8.6.1.4.1 (effective 10-01-2016) re Conference Practice to provide: “Except as set forth below, hold conferences by telephone.” Historically, taxpayer representatives have been assured of their ability to have in-person, informal conferences with IRS Appeals representatives as requested. Like the IRS in general, IRS Appeals has limited resources and is attempting to encourage the use of teleconferencing technology in lieu of in-person meetings and to make telephone conferences the default method for all conferences with Appeals.

Revised IRM 8.6.1.4.1 provides that if the taxpayer or representative requests to confer with Appeals office personnel in person, they should be offered a virtual service delivery (VSD) conference, if the technology is available (generally defined as within 100 miles of the taxpayer’s address). Taxpayers and representatives will get an in-person conference only if they decline an available VSD conference and if the Appeals team manager (ATM) agrees. According to the IRM, the ATM: “will consider the following facts and circumstances in making the decision to hold an in-person conference:

• There are substantial books and records to review that cannot be easily referenced with page numbers or indices;
• The [Appeals Technical Employee] cannot judge the credibility of the taxpayer’s oral testimony without an in-person conference;
• The taxpayer has special needs (e.g., disability, hearing impairment) that can only be accommodated with an in-person conference;
• There are numerous conference participants (e.g., witnesses) that create a risk of an unauthorized       disclosure or breach of confidentiality;
• An alternative conference procedure (e.g., Post Appeals Mediation (PAM) or Rapid Appeals Process (RAP)) involving separate caucuses will be used;
• Another IRM section specific to the work-stream calls for an in-person conference.”

IRS ISSUES NEW NEW FACT SHEET: Appeals Changes to Case Transfer and Conference Procedures (October 3, 2016)

“Effective October 3, 2016, Appeals implemented changes to its case transfer and conference procedures. These changes are driven by a desire to clarify our procedures for taxpayers, to better allocate IRS resources, and to get the right work to the right Appeals employee.

We found that some of the language in Appeals’ letters erroneously suggested that taxpayers need to request an in-person (or face-to-face) conference to take full advantage of the appeals process. This misperception often resulted in taxpayers requesting an in-person conference when the case could be resolved by less burdensome methods, such as via telephone.

Because our centralized Campus locations cannot accommodate in-person conferences, prior policy required Appeals to automatically transfer cases from the Campus to the Field whenever taxpayers requested to meet face to face. This generally resulted in a mismatch between the skill level of the employee and the complexity of the case. Automatic transfers also delayed case resolution and caused us to incur additional shipping costs, while our data shows that the majority of these cases were ultimately resolved by telephone with no in-person conference. These changes will allow Appeals to more efficiently use taxpayer dollars.

Key Provisions:

• Appeals will continue to offer personal contact for all cases.
• Appeals is not eliminating in-person conferences, but is clarifying policy so as not to express or imply a preference for in-person conferences for dispute resolution.
• Under the revised procedures, taxpayers continue to have the existing range of conference options – telephone, correspondence, virtual service delivery, and in-person, which includes circuit-riding; however, Appeals will not transfer cases solely upon taxpayer request.
• The decision to hold an in-person conference can be made upon the request of the taxpayer or at the suggestion of the hearing officer with the final decision resting with the Appeals Team Manager. The revised policy recognizes that, in some instances, an in-person conference continues to be valuable in reaching a resolution.
• When granting an in-person conference, Appeals will consider whether:
  • There are substantial books and records to review that cannot be easily referenced with page numbers or indices;
  • The employee is unable to judge the credibility of the taxpayer’s oral testimony without an in-person conference;
  • The taxpayer has special needs (e.g., disability, hearing impairment)that can only be accommodated with an in-person conference;
  • There are numerous conference participants (e.g., witnesses) that create an unacceptable risk of either unauthorized disclosure or breach of confidentiality;
  • An alternative conference procedure (e.g., Post-Appeals Mediation or the Rapid Appeals Process) involving separate caucuses will be used; or
  • Another Internal Revenue Manual section specific to the work-stream calls for an in-person conference.

Appeals will use case assistance procedures to facilitate in-person conferences in some cases.Case assistance means the Appeals Officer assigned to the case participates via telephone while an assisting Appeals Officer meets in person with the taxpayer or representative. Case assistance will be provided if the assigned Appeals Officer’s post of duty (POD) cannot accommodate an in-person conference, the POD is not reasonably convenient for the taxpayer, or the Appeals Officer does not circuit ride. For additional details about these policy changes, see IRM part IRM 8.6.1.

See also https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/f2f-fact-sheet.pdf

Practical advice for real life client issues, focusing on current IRS and FTB tax enforcement priorities & procedures, practitioner representation strategies & techniques, and recent tax practice developments!

REGISTRATION INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT: http://www.calcpa.org/events-and-programs/event-details?id=f83a007e-9349-4a03-9355-7e0ab515ab6b

Cory Stigile specializes in tax controversies as well as tax, business, international tax. His representation includes Federal and state civil and criminal tax controversy matters and tax litigation, including sensitive tax-related examinations and investigations for individuals, business enterprises, partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations. His practice also includes complex civil tax examinations and sales tax examinations and appeals. Mr. Stigile is also a Certified Specialist, Taxation Law, The State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization.

The United States Sentencing Commission recently released its “Quick Facts” on Tax Fraud Offenses. The number of tax fraud offenders has decreased slightly during the last five years.

Significant statistics for 2015 include:

1. There were 648 tax fraud offenders.
2. The median tax loss was $214,093.
3. Nearly two-thirds of tax fraud offenders were sentenced to imprisonment.
4. The average sentence length for tax fraud offenders was 17 months.
5. The average age of tax fraud offenders was 50 years old.

Details of the Quick Facts are set forth below.

OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS. In fiscal year 2015, there were 648 tax fraud offenders, who accounted for 1.0% of all offenders sentenced under the Federal guidelines.   There were 71,003 cases reported to the United States Sentencing commission.

The majority of tax fraud offenders had little or no prior criminal history. The median tax loss for these offenses was $214,093.  84.6% of tax offenses involved tax losses of $1 million or less. 48.9% of tax offenses involved tax losses of $200,000 or less.

PUNISHMENT.  Nearly two-thirds of tax fraud offenders were sentenced to imprisonment (63.3%), and the average sentence length for tax fraud offenders was 17 months.

In each of the past five years, approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of tax fraud offender received a sentence below the guideline range, because the government sponsored the below range sentence. The rate of non-government sponsored below range sentences increased during the past five years (from 41.8% of tax fraud cases in fiscal year 2011 to 49.2% in fiscal year 2015).  Both the average guideline minimum and the average sentence for tax fraud offenders changed slightly during the past five years.  The average guideline minimum increased from 24 months to 26 months during that time period.  The average sentence imposed decreased from 18 months to 17 months during that time period.

The Quick Facts on Tax Fraud Offenses can be found at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Tax_Fraud_FY15.pdf 

MICHEL STEIN is a principal at Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, P.C. He is a former Attorney-Adviser of the U.S. Tax Court and is a Certified Specialist in Taxation Law by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization. Mr. Stein represents clients throughout the United States and elsewhere involving federal and state, civil and criminal tax controversies and tax litigation. He has extensive experience with voluntary disclosures and foreign account and asset reporting, and he frequently lectures throughout the country on these and other tax related topics.  Additional information is available at http://www.taxlitigator.com

Most tax professionals (and many taxpayers) are by now familiar with the FBAR penalty: It is a penalty imposed on a person who is required, but fails, to report offshore financial accounts to the IRS.  If the failure to report is not willful, the maximum penalty is $10,000.  If it is willful, the maximum penalty is the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the balance in the account “at the time of the violation.”

One type of account that a person can have offshore is with an internet gaming site. In United States v. Hom (July 26, 2016), the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether accounts the taxpayer set up with two UK-based internet poker sites were “financial accounts” for purposes of the FBAR penalty.  Although this was a case of first impression, it is an unpublished decision.

Hom had accounts at two online poker sites that were located in the U.K. and with “Fire Pay,” a company that was in the business of transmitting funds between various entities. The IRS assessed FBAR non-willful penalties totaling $40,000, based on his use of these three accounts in 2006 and one account in 2007.  In proceedings before the district court, the Government took the position that each of the accounts was a “bank, securities and other financial account” located in a foreign country.  The district court ruled for the Government and the taxpayer appealed.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Fire Pay account was a “financial account” because Fire Pay was a “licensed sender of money,” which was by definition a financial institution under the FBAR regulations.

It held, however, that the accounts at the poker sites were not foreign “financial accounts.” There was no evidence in the record that the funds maintained with either poker site served any purpose other than to play poker.  Lacking evidence in the record that the accounts were used for any purpose other than to play poker, neither offshore poker site fit the definition of the bank.  The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the district court as to these two accounts.

The Government went for broke and lost because of its litigating position in district court. Before the district court, the Government relied solely on the argument that the poker sites were banks.  In a footnote, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Government attempted to argue on appeal that the poker sites were casinos, but that it would not consider this issue on appeal.  This was because the Government explicitly disclaimed any reliance on the FBAR regulations that include casinos within the definition of “financial institution” in district court.  It would not be allowed to argue for affirmance on a theory that was not raised before the district court.  Because in future cases the Government might not eschew the claim that offshore gambling sites are not casinos, the case may of no precedential value, which could explain why it was a “Not for Publication” decision.

ROBERT S. HORWITZ – For more information please contact Robert S. Horwitz – horwitz@taxlitigator.com or 310.281.3200   Mr. Horwitz is a principal at Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, P.C., a former Assistant United States Attorney of the Tax Division of the Office of the U.S. Attorney (C.D. Cal) and 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

In a decision that highlights the importance of both knowing and being able to prove mailing dates, the Tax Court recently issued new precedent on the issue of how to determine the date of an IRS Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, where there is a mismatch between the date the notice was mailed and the date printed on the letter. This notice triggers a taxpayer’s right to a collection due process (“CDP”) hearing, which must be requested within 30 days of the date of the IRS notice.  This general question more commonly arises where a taxpayer is trying to prove that his submission was timely.  However, in Weiss v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 6 (August 17, 2016), the taxpayer was trying to prove that his request for a collection due process hearing was untimely.

Collection Due Process Hearing vs. an Equivalent Hearing. Before the IRS can levy a taxpayer’s property, the IRS is required to issue a notice informing taxpayers of the Service’s intent to levy and notifying taxpayers of their right to a hearing.[i]  Within 30 days of the date of the notice, the taxpayer has a right to request a CDP hearing to have the intended levy activity reviewed by IRS Office of Appeals.[ii]  During a CDP hearing, the taxpayer can raise (1) innocent spouse defense; (2) challenges to the appropriateness of the collection actions at issue; and (3) offers of collection alternatives, which may include the posting of a bond, the substitution of other assets, an installment agreement, or an offer-in-compromise.[iii] A taxpayer may also dispute the merits of the underlying tax liability, if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for the liability or otherwise did not have an opportunity to dispute the liability.[iv]

If the taxpayer does not resolve the collection issue with Appeals, the Taxpayer then has the right to judicial review by the Tax Court of the IRS’s decision.[v]  While this process is pending, collection activity is suspended and the statute of limitations on collection is tolled.[vi]

If a taxpayer does not file a timely request for a CDP hearing, the taxpayer has the option to request an “equivalent hearing” instead, within 1 year of the notice.[vii]  An equivalent hearing allows the taxpayer to have the Office of Appeals review the collection activity within their discretion, but the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of IRS Appeals.  Unlike a CDP hearing, an equivalent hearing does not prevent the IRS from continuing to collect the underlying tax liability while review by IRS Appeals is pending and it does not toll the running of the statute of limitations for collecting a tax liability.[viii]

The key issue in Weiss was whether the taxpayer’s request for a CDP hearing was filed within the statutorily prescribed 30 days for filing the request – if it was timely, the statute of limitations would have been tolled; if it was untimely, the statute of limitations would have run, preventing the IRS from pursuing any further collection activity, including levying the taxpayer’s assets.

Date on Notice vs. Date of Mailing. The dispute in Weiss resulted from a mismatch between the date printed on the notice to the taxpayer and the date the notice was mailed.  Although the Taxpayer had not indicated on the Form 12153 (Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing) that he was requesting an equivalent hearing, the Taxpayer’s position in the Tax Court was that he intentionally filed the CDP hearing request a day late, based on the date printed on the letter.[ix] The IRS argued that the notice was in fact mailed two days after the date on the letter, causing the taxpayer’s request to be timely.  The IRS did not dispute the Petitioner’s position that if the request was filed within the 30-day period, the statute of limitations would not have been tolled.

Even though the taxpayer had not saved the envelope from the IRS and had not been aware that the letter had been mailed two days after the date shown on the notice, the Tax Court held that the 30-day period to request a CDP hearing began on the date the notice was mailed, not the date printed on the notice. Relying on other Tax Court decisions addressing whether a taxpayer’s petition to the Tax Court was timely, the Tax Court explained that a mismatch between a date on an IRS notice and the date the notice was mailed is resolved in favor of the outcome that provides the taxpayer with the greater period for seeking judicial review.  That is, if the date printed on the IRS notice is before the date of mailing, the date of mailing is considered to be the date of the notice; if the date printed on the IRS notice is after the date of mailing, the date appearing on the notice is considered to be the date of the notice.[x]  The court noted that for many years, the Tax Court “[has] reached the same conclusion regarding notices of deficiency” and has done so “ regardless of whether the taxpayer was aware of the actual mailing date.”[xi]

Although it was not the outcome sought by the taxpayer in this case, the Tax Court applied that principle and held that the date of mailing would begin the 30-day period for filing a timely CDP request, because it was after the date printed on the notice. This case is an important reminder to taxpayers of the importance of looking at and saving envelopes received from the IRS where the date of the notice may be relevant.

Proving the Date of Mailing. After holding that the date of mailing would control if the date of mailing was after the date shown on the letter, the Tax Court had to determine the date the IRS’s notice was mailed.  Because the IRS had used a private postage meter for mailing the certified mail, there was no postmark by the USPS on the envelope.  Instead, Respondent introduced testimonial and documentary evidence to establish that the revenue officer left the levy notice in the outgoing mail bin on February 13, that  that an IRS staff person collected the notice from the mail bin and ran it through a private postage meter, which imprinted February 13as the date; then the IRS staff placed a notice in to a postal box outside the IRS office.

Based on the evidence introduced, the Tax Court concluded that the IRS notice was mailed at least two days after the date printed on the letter. The Tax Court noted that “While it seems plausible that USPS personnel collected the notice from the IRS postal box on February 13, the evidence does not conclusively establish that they deposited it into the U.S. mail that same days.”[xii]  The Tax Court held that it was not necessary for the IRS to prove the exact date of mailing in this situation, because ascertaining the notice’s exact mailing date would not affect the outcome.[xiii]

From a taxpayer’s perspective, it is important to note that the Tax Court in this case could not conclude based on the IRS’s evidence that the notice was in fact mailed on the date claimed by the IRS, notwithstanding the fact the notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. This conclusion demonstrates the problem with using private postage meters for certified mailings where a taxpayer intends to rely on the timely mailed rule under Section 7502.  If the Tax Court had instead been trying to determine, for examples, the date a taxpayer’s CDP request was mailed for purposes of deciding whether it was timely, evidence proving the earliest date that the request could have been mailed may not be sufficient to prove that the request was in fact mailed timely.

Moreover, the Tax Court regulations specify that for Section 7502 to apply, there are specific mailing requirements that must be satisfied and a taxpayer may have a challenge proving a document was timely mailed if it was sent using a private postage meter and there was a delay in the delivery. Treasury Regulation Section 301.7502-1 provides that a taxpayer can eliminate the risk that the document or payment will not be postmarked on the day that it is deposited in the mail by the use of registered or certified mail.  However, a taxpayer may only rely on certified mail if the sender’s receipt is postmarked by the postal employee to whom the document or payment is presented.[xiv]  Alternatively, taxpayers have the option under the regulations of sending by approved private delivery services, such as certain delivery services offered by UPS and FedEx.[xv]

LACEY STRACHAN – For more information please contact Lacey Strachan at Strachan@taxlitigator.com. Ms. Strachan is a senior tax attorney at Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, P.C. and represents clients throughout the United States and elsewhere in complex civil tax litigation and criminal tax prosecutions (jury and non-jury). She represents U.S. taxpayers in litigation before both federal and state courts, including the federal district courts, the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Strachan has experience in a wide range of complex tax cases, including cases involving technical valuation issues.  She routinely represents and advises U.S. taxpayers in foreign and domestic voluntary disclosures, sensitive issue civil tax examinations where substantial civil penalty issues or possible assertions of fraudulent conduct may arise, and in defending criminal tax fraud investigations and prosecutions. Additional information is available at http://www.taxlitigator.com.

[i] IRC § 6330(a).

[ii] IRC § 6330(a)(3)(B), (b)(1).

[iii] IRC § 6330(c)(2)(A).

[iv] IRC § 6330(c)(2)(B).

[v] IRC § 6330(d)(1).

[vi] IRC § 6330(e).

[vii] Instructions to IRS Form 12153.

[viii] Although the IRS has the right to continue collection activity, IRS policy is generally to not seize assets while the equivalent hearing is pending.  Publication 594: The IRS Collection Process; Instructions to Form 12153.

[ix] Checking the box to request an “equivalent hearing” is a requirement under the Instructions to the Form 12153.

[x] “When considering the timeliness of notices of deficiency under section 6213, we have encountered situations where the date on the notice did not match the date on which the notice was successfully mailed to the taxpayer. Where the date on the notice was earlier than the date of mailing, we have held that ‘[t]he critical date is the date the deficiency notice was “’mailed.”’ August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1535, 1536 (1970); see, e.g., Lundy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-14, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1693, 1695 (ruling that the date of mailing is generally ‘the date that the Commissioner actually places the notice of deficiency in the mail’); United Tel. Co. v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 450 (1925). By contrast, when the date appearing on the notice of deficiency is later than the date of mailing, we have held that the former date controls. See Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172, 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1450, 1453-1454; Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-171, 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1444.” Weiss v. Comm’r, 147 T.C. No. 6 (Aug. 17, 2016).

[xi] Weiss v. Commr, 147 T.C. No. 5 (Aug. 17, 2016).

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(2).

[xv] Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(3).  The list of approved delivery services is currently available here: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2016-18_IRB/ar07.html

The following Statement was presented by Robert S. Horwitz (of Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, PC), Chair of the California State Bar Taxation Section, at the August 22 IRS National Taxpayer Service public forum in Los Angeles.

The Internal Revenue Service has a simple Mission Statement: “Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.”

In my experience over the past several years it has had increasing difficulty accomplishing its mission. When I first began practicing law with the U.S. Department of Justice, Business Week magazine reported that a poll of business executives rated the IRS was the top agency in the Federal Government in terms of professionalism, competence and honesty. Unfortunately the IRS could not rank so high today. . The view of the IRS by tax professionals and individuals who interact with the agency on a regular basis has fallen greatly.

As an attorney represents taxpayers who have problems with the IRS, there four IRS functions that I routinely deal with:

1. Examination. The IRS has moved towards remote audits that are conducted from the IRS Service Centers. The IRS sends a letter to a taxpayer asking for the taxpayer to provide documents to support a deduction or credit claimed on a tax return or information on why it failed to report income that a third party claimed it paid the taxpayer. If the taxpayer does not respond on time, the IRS issues a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Taxpayers are often not represented in these exams and thus do not understand how to respond or the potential consequences of failing to respond to the IRS request by the due date. Even where a taxpayer is represented by a tax professional, it is difficult to find anyone at the IRS to speak with about the audit and IRS employees who conduct these audits are trained to treat the cases on an assembly-line basis.

Where an examination is conducted by a local IRS revenue agent, the results can be frustrating. In many instances, IRS examiners have not received adequate training. This is not always the case, but from my perspective and that of other tax attorneys, too many agents who conduct taxpayer examinations are not sufficiently trained.

2. Collection. Automated collection systems may work for taxpayers who owe modest sums that they can pay over time through an installment agreement. For anyone else, it can be a nightmare. The centralization of the IRS offer in compromise program, which processes offers on an assembly-line basis, is problematic.

3. Appeals. Appeals was for many years a place where a taxpayer could resolve a dispute with the IRS in a rational manner— in many respect it exemplified what was best about the IRS. That is no longer the case. Like most of the IRS, Appeals has suffered from hiring freezes, a cut back in personnel and a lack of adequate training. Cases are routinely assigned to Appeals Officers in cities far from the taxpayer and his or her representative. This means that the taxpayer cannot have a face to face conference with the Appeals Officer unless he or she is willing to spend the time and money to travel. Even where the case is assigned to an Appeals Officer in the same area, it is difficult to get more than one meeting. These problems are increased due to the adoption of the Appeals Judicial Approach and Culture (AJAC) initiative, under which Appeals sends the case back to exam for comment if the taxpayer submits new information. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “AJAC is their fool.”

4. Criminal Investigation. This is the one IRS function that has managed to retain a reasonable level of competence. It is also the one that a taxpayer least wants to hear from. But there has been a large drop of in the investigation of routine criminal tax cases and that is not good for our voluntary compliance system.

These problems are most apparent with taxpayers who are wage earners, owners of small and medium sized businesses and people on a fixed income. For taxpayers who fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS’s Large Business & International Division, the problems are not as great. Only a very small portion of taxpayers are, however, within the jurisdiction of LB&I.

Many of the IRS problems stem from a lack of funding and an ill-conceived reorganization instituted in the late 1990’s. Without funding, it lacks the resources to adequately train its personnel, it cannot replace personnel and, even when it has funds to hire additional personnel, it cannot attract the highest caliber of people. With a move towards increased automation, the outsourcing of collection functions to for-profit companies, as required by Congress, and an increase in its functions (such as the Affordable Care Act) in my view dealing with the IRS will become ever more difficult. Congress and the IRS have to recognize that the nation’s tax collection and enforcement agency is not a credit card company whose primary purpose is profit maximization. If this does not occur, the IRS will have to change its Mission Statement.

ROBERT S. HORWITZ – For more information please contact Robert S. Horwitz – horwitz@taxlitigator.com or 310.281.3200   Mr. Horwitz is a principal at Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, P.C., a former Assistant United States Attorney of the Tax Division of the Office of the U.S. Attorney (C.D. Cal) and 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