Date
|
Event
|
11/18/2008
|
Awad files WB claim (Form 211) identifying husband and wife (TH and
TW, respectively) and their three adult children as owners of undisclosed
foreign bank account.
|
2/?/2009
|
WBO assigns to LB&I
|
LB&I Agent reviews returns and decides to accept as filed based
on insufficient information
|
|
8/?/2009
|
TH dies.
|
1/?/2010
|
TW and children file "voluntary disclosures pertaining to a
previously undisclosed account at the same foreign bank" Awad had
disclosed.to WBO
|
??/??/2010
|
SB/SE opens exam incident to voluntary disclosure
|
7/?/2010
|
LB&I returns the case to WBO (although a year after LB&I made
decision not to pursue)
|
9/?/2010
|
WBO discovers SB/SE exam and forwards information to SB/SE for
possible use in examination
|
??/??/2010
|
SB/SE Agent interviews Awad by telephone; Awad provides additional
information
|
??/??/2010
|
SB/SE advises WBO that the information did not assist in the audit
|
8/??/2011
|
IRS enters closing agreement on the voluntary disclosure requiring
tax, penalties (including MOP) in excess of $2M for TW and estate
|
9/??/2013
|
WBO learns of estate tax exam for TPH and refers information to SB/SE
Estate and Gift Tax
|
1/28/2014
|
WBO denies award.
|
Jack Townsend offers this blog on Federal Tax Crimes principally for tax professionals and tax students. It is not directed to lay readers -- such as persons who are potentially subject to U.S. civil and criminal tax or related consequences. LAY READERS SHOULD READ THE PAGE IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN TITLE "INTENDED AUDIENCE FOR BLOG; CAUTIONARY NOTE TO LAY READERS." Thank you.
Friday, June 16, 2017
Tax Court Denies Claim in Offshore Account Case with Very Unusual Facts Because the Information Did Not Produce Collected Proceeds (6/16/17)
In Awad v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2017-108, here, a whistleblower case, the following is the key time line:
There are some significant, scantily explained, time lapses in the foregoing, but they are not relevant to the outcome because the examining agents involved in LB&I and SB/SE all attested that the Form 211 information did not contribute to the ultimate outcome -- the acceptance of the TH Estate and TW's voluntary disclosure. After all, for collection, the information does have to contribute to collected proceeds to permit a WB award.
The thing that is curious to me is that there were no procedures to flag the matter when the WBO first assigned it to LB&I so that, after that date, the taxpayers could not qualify for voluntary disclosure. It is true that the procedure assumes disqualification only after the IRS has flagged the taxpayer for audit. (I have had one client thus disqualified even though the IRS had never notified him of the audit.) I understand that LB&I had not yet decided to audit, but it seems to me that there should be some way to disqualify once WBO decides the information has sufficient gravitas to refer to Examination, at least while it is in that status. Just my view.
Labels:
7623(b),
OVDP,
Whistleblower,
Willful Blindness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Jack Townsend will review and approve comments only to make sure the comments are appropriate. Although comments can be made anonymously, please identify yourself (either by real name or pseudonymn) so that, over a few comments, readers will be able to better judge whether to read the comments and respond to the comments.