tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post2631524281995316153..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Invoking the Fifth - the House Oversight Inquisition (5/25/13)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-57627425451494978992014-06-12T09:02:05.392-05:002014-06-12T09:02:05.392-05:00gottaloveUStax1,
The general rule is that return...gottaloveUStax1,<br /><br /><br />The general rule is that return information (including the type of information disclosed to the FBI) may not be disclosed to other agencies (including the FBI). There are a number of exceptions, but I am led to believe by the information to date (including FBI Director Comey's testimony) that there was no applicable exception here. So there does appear to be a violation of Section 6103. The question then is whether there is a crime under 7213 for willfully disclosing the information? Willfully is a word of many hues depending upon context in a statute. I would doubt that a criminal prosecution could come out of this. However, if there was an intentional and knowing disclosure to a nongovernmental person (e.g., to a competitor or even to a newspaper), then the result might be different. And, even beyond potential criminal penalties, the IRS could be subject to civil damages under Section 7431 to the taxpayer(s) whose return information is disclosed. The taxpayer could get actual damages, but showing any actual damages in the case of disclosure to the FBI will be problematic, since the FBI did not even look at the information. (There is also the threshold issue of whether, if the FBI does not look at the information, it was even disclosed.) The taxpayer could perhaps get punitive damage if the disclosure is willful (I think in this context, intentional) or the result of gross negligence.<br /><br /><br />Jack Townsend<br /><br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-49805043254800677972014-06-12T08:38:29.266-05:002014-06-12T08:38:29.266-05:00Away from FBAR and FATCA and perhaps back to other...Away from FBAR and FATCA and perhaps back to other substantial tax crimes, any thoughts on the alleged 6103 violation in relation to taxpayer data sent to the FBI (see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/06/the-irs-scandal-8.html). 6103 is a particularly complex area of tax law, and seems to have as many exceptions as rules (eg., as I understand it, whereas 501(c) charities applications are covered, once the status is granted, their returns are not; the precise rules around the interaction between IRS and other federal investigative agencies).gottaloveUStax1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-3703502281013294012013-05-25T19:31:22.186-05:002013-05-25T19:31:22.186-05:00Quality analysis. I hope that my comments on the ...Quality analysis. I hope that my comments on the VC blog were among those you considered "pretty good." I noticed that you picked up on some of the points I made on the VC blog. And added some nice substantive citations to bolster those arguments. <br /><br /><br />If you are not already aware, the Supreme Court will be issuing a major 5ASI clause opinion in the next few weeks. The case is Salinas v. Texas. The precise issue is whether or not a prosecutor can use a suspect's silence (in response to an accusatory question by the police during a voluntary, out-of-custody, investigatory interview) as substantive evidence of guilt. But that seemingly narrow issue raises some broader and far-reaching questions regarding the scope of the 5ASI privilege, and whether a constitutional right to remain silent exists absence compulsion. Keep an eye on Salinas. It may offer some guidance to the Lerner situation.pvineman1noreply@blogger.com