tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post8760971136782429145..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Court Approves FBAR NonWillful Penalty Merits But Wants Further Development of APA Issues (4/3/15)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-70553572367590264072015-04-08T08:06:11.710-05:002015-04-08T08:06:11.710-05:00After I read this blog post from an FBAR ambulance...After I read this blog post from an FBAR ambulance chaser law firm I was thinking about your comment...yes even 4/2015 these things happen.<br /><br />http://www.irsmedic.com/2015/04/05/fbar-audit-success/#comment-33398UStaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-51173542293480822922015-04-08T06:13:10.657-05:002015-04-08T06:13:10.657-05:00Jack, if the IRS is not able to serve up enough ev...Jack, if the IRS is not able to serve up enough evidence that will <br />satisfy the court’s desire to show why it acted as it did in proposing <br />the penalty - does that mean Moore will not have to pay anything ?!UStaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-81921470992314528432015-04-08T05:58:14.662-05:002015-04-08T05:58:14.662-05:00Michael sorry but you are missing the point . When...Michael sorry but you are missing the point . When you read all the <br />comments here carefully you will see that NOBODY was suggesting that a <br />NW penalty was improper. What got people rightfully upset here was the <br />4X max. $10K NW penalty and amongst a few other IRS whoppers which I am<br /> not going to repeat here again Mr. Moore should not have been <br />forced/bullied to sue in federal court to get an <br />explanation as to the agency’s rationale or the evidence it considered <br />in making its decision (Summary Memo).UStaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-55335431677565128702015-04-07T15:10:54.559-05:002015-04-07T15:10:54.559-05:00On the other hand ... from the court's descrip...On the other hand ... from the court's description of the facts, the IRS potentially could have asserted the taxpayer was willful, and declined to do so, notwithstanding that (among other things) the taxpayer provided clearly false information on the organizer. That may well have been a mistake, but in seeking the NW penalty, Ms. Ciraolo is hardly trying to "nail" the taxpayer in my opinion. Like it or not, the FBAR exists and there are substantial penalties for noncompliance. Based on the information available to me, I don't in any way see the IRS as acting improperly in determining that reasonable cause didn't exist and that NW penalties were therefore appropriate.Michael J. Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-91172802147861371522015-04-07T11:19:37.702-05:002015-04-07T11:19:37.702-05:00The point of this submission, is to demonstrate th...The point of this submission, is to demonstrate the harm the US policy of citizenship-based taxation brings in its various (and bizarre) applications to individual situations.<br />TP who received totally erroneous advice having already relinquished US citizenship decades ago but still being put into OVDI !<br />Every time I hear of someone being advised by an incompetent tax lawyer to become compliant when they are NOT a US Person makes me want to scream for the blood of those who continue to do this.....I hope Caroline C. Ciraolo is reading this and can put her signature under a ``motion`` that puts these incompetent tax lawyers in jail.<br /><br />https://vimeo.com/citizenshiptaxationabolishCBTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-18375609528080202772015-04-07T00:40:18.759-05:002015-04-07T00:40:18.759-05:00http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/04/06/wanted-ginn...http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/04/06/wanted-ginny-and-gwenny-runaway-tax-slaves/#commentsgottahateUStax1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-53240067928995468762015-04-06T14:38:19.109-05:002015-04-06T14:38:19.109-05:00In Moore, the district court directed that the gov...In Moore, the district court directed that the government was to “provide evidence articulating its reasons for assessing a maximum penalty against Moore” and explain why it failed to honor its promise of assessing the 2005 penalty without providing the appeal it promised. <br />Absent evidence on why it imposed the maximum penalty, the opinion warns then it would have no recourse but to conclude that the IRS acted arbitrarily and capriciously.Badgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-91213863344659331362015-04-06T14:31:44.045-05:002015-04-06T14:31:44.045-05:00Jack please acknowledge that under the APA, genera...Jack please acknowledge that under the APA, generally courts look to determine if an agency has acted<br /> arbitrarily or capriciously or in abuse of its discretion. It was here that the court found fault with the IRS. Recall that above <br />the IRS sent Moore only a three-sentence explanation that does “nothing <br />to illuminate what the IRS considered or why it arrived at its <br />decision…it says nothing at all about why it choose[sic] a $40,000 <br />maximum penalty as opposed to a smaller amount.”Just menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-7744398567908497532015-04-06T14:09:59.093-05:002015-04-06T14:09:59.093-05:00The Government likely has no evidence of the tax a...The Government likely has no evidence of the tax avoided or evaded in years prior to 2002. The taxpayer does know that. If that information would have been helpful to the taxpayer, one would think he would have supplied it. Most courts would not hold that against the Government but, if any event, might draw an adverse inference against a taxpayer who failed to produce evidence which might have helped his case. That is the principal reason why, in civil cases involving taxes, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof (persuasion). The taxpayer typically has the facts and the Government does not.<br /><br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-84854709371900907752015-04-06T14:06:59.666-05:002015-04-06T14:06:59.666-05:00The cynical part of this case is that we learn tha...The cynical part of this case is that we learn that the US District Court for the Western District of Washington is only interested in procedural issues. What standard applied to the IRS’s determination on the FBAR penalty? <br />The court accepted the government’s position that it “should determine <br />de novo whether Mr. Moore is subject to an FBAR penalty, but should <br />review the IRS’s determination of the amount of that penalty only for <br />abuse of discretion.”<br /><br /><br />Moore thus opens the door to DOJ in the future to test the waters on <br />perhaps getting a more deferential abuse of discretion standard of <br />review on the question of liability.Just menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-56279829903419062102015-04-06T14:03:37.084-05:002015-04-06T14:03:37.084-05:00The nature of all of our agencies is that career o...The nature of all of our agencies is that career officials are rarely appointed to high level positions. Rather, those appointed come from outside the government and usually from roles in which ;they, directly or indirectly, worked for or on behalf of the constituencies regulated by the agencies they are appointed to lead. That is simply the system we have.Jack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-33093563130117310072015-04-06T14:01:24.643-05:002015-04-06T14:01:24.643-05:00Guest,
I think you may be jumping the gun before...Guest,<br /><br /><br />I think you may be jumping the gun before the facts are in. However, from what I gather in the facts, the 2005 assessment was a statute of limitations issue. The IRS requires certain minimum periods for Appeals in order to insure orderly processing before the statute of limitations expires. If the taxpayer does not give a statute extension, then the IRS proceeds to do what it has to do in the statutory period. It appears that the 2005 assessment may have been required because of a pending statute date that would expire in the normal processing of Appeals. <br /><br /><br />As to Ciraolo and Co., surely you know that she is not with the IRS but rather with DOJ Tax. That is an important distinction. The IRS took the action that apparently bothers you so much. And, given her role at the top of all the DOJ Tax lawyers, I doubt that she even knew anything about this case before the court rendered its decision and, in the course of her role, is not likely to spend substantive attention to the matter for several months, if then.<br /><br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-7398490383469752592015-04-06T13:39:12.744-05:002015-04-06T13:39:12.744-05:00Jack the other question I have for you here is why...Jack the other question I have for you here is why have your ``friends`` Ciraolo and Co. not honored its agreement to delay assessment of the penalty pending the “appeal” deadline ?<br />The statute of limitations for tax year would have not expired between its assessment of a $ <br />10,000 penalty on January 23, 2012 and the January 28, 2012 response <br />deadline it gave to Mr. Moore.Guestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-58722541620150758902015-04-06T13:02:48.523-05:002015-04-06T13:02:48.523-05:00I agree UStax , 3 month ago Ciraolo would have ha...I agree UStax , 3 month ago Ciraolo would have had no problem defending Mr. Moore ...taking his money/retainer and asking for a reduction of the 4x NW max. FBAR penaltyGuestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-89027080885554773072015-04-06T12:07:14.489-05:002015-04-06T12:07:14.489-05:00Great comments. This whole FBAR thing isn't a...Great comments. This whole FBAR thing isn't about tax evasion, it's a mafia style shakedown. The US government has proven itself to be a bunch of feckless thugs who will gladly steal your money simply because they have the power to do so. With millions of honest, hard working tax paying Americans being punished over a 1 page form that was in such brutal and draconian ways, one has to wonder if the US government exists for the people or for its own perpetuation. The IRS is simply a diseased corrupt arm of a corrupt government. <br /><br /><br />Let's be honest here gang. The people the IRS is going after on this stuff are the low hanging fruit. The good honest people who simply made mistakes (or in some cases didn't even do that much such as some of the civil forfeiture IRS seizure cases recently). They're not going after the real big money millions or billions of dollars tax evading criminals because that would require more work and resources than they have. This is all about the quick win guys, which is about all a lazy, corrupt greed sickened government can muster.<br /><br /><br />I also must admit that I've lost some respect for Mr. Jack as he seems to take the position of the government more often than not, rather than the position of what is right and just, and to me, this simply is not credible.Kristin Kaileynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-44583505342343495232015-04-06T11:27:55.151-05:002015-04-06T11:27:55.151-05:00I just cannot get over this revolving door career ...I just cannot get over this revolving door career move from Caroline D. Ciraolo. Up to december of 2014 she played a big part in defending exactly these type of NW cases like the one here envolving Mr. Moore and just 3 month later I see her signature under this motion.UStaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-30498180945350788762015-04-06T04:52:49.824-05:002015-04-06T04:52:49.824-05:00``That does not mean that things do not go off the...``That does not mean that things do not go off the rail sometimes, but not often``..... how comforting !UStaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-9502512618764036002015-04-06T04:42:31.264-05:002015-04-06T04:42:31.264-05:00Yes Loverboy you are correct Jack did himself comp...Yes Loverboy you are correct Jack did himself complain about the opt-out Appeals process as ````opaque,murky and non-transparent``. But since it is never his money on the line but instead he is a $700/h profiteur from this madness it is no wonder that he tries to defend the ``system``.anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-26361017767740633692015-04-06T04:35:27.736-05:002015-04-06T04:35:27.736-05:00Sabine thank you for your contribution here....you...Sabine thank you for your contribution here....you are bringing tears into my eyes.<br />Partially out of anger and frustration and partially because I still have hope that one day this madness of CBT comes to an end.anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-36672717703314110452015-04-05T15:09:32.307-05:002015-04-05T15:09:32.307-05:00Does the government have any sort of cost/benefit ...Does the government have any sort of cost/benefit analysis with respect to litigation? Admittedly, their legal costs are fixed but their must be some sense of use of resource/opportunity cost vs. the amount of recovery. $40k seems quite low. Given that they had to litigate, surprised they didn't go for the wilful penalty, especially since their response indicates they feel that his failure to check no penalty would have been sufficient.gottaloveUStax1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-81206476987948536892015-04-05T13:07:29.834-05:002015-04-05T13:07:29.834-05:00Jack you are not being credible here. I remember r...Jack you are not being credible here. I remember reading a response from you here complaining yourself about the OVDI-P ...opt-out appeals process and how ``<br /><br />opaque,murky and non-transparent`` it was !!!!!Loverboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-29777803121287594342015-04-05T13:02:03.177-05:002015-04-05T13:02:03.177-05:00``The legislative history shows that Congress crea...``The legislative history shows that Congress created the NW penalty , along with the RC defense, to cut down on the use of offshore accounts to evade federal income tax.``<br />``EVADE``.........tell this to the millions of expats for them offshore accounts are local and they pay already their income taxes to the country where they currently live and work.Loverboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-1277682113195141732015-04-05T12:45:44.297-05:002015-04-05T12:45:44.297-05:00Sabine, I think most practitioners -- at least mos...Sabine, I think most practitioners -- at least most that I know -- do not share your views as to objectivity and fairness of the Appeals Office and fairness of the process. That does not mean that things do not go off the rail sometimes, but not often.<br /><br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-70033212926032327002015-04-05T12:28:17.274-05:002015-04-05T12:28:17.274-05:00Sabine you make some valid and good points here an...Sabine you make some valid and good points here and I myself wonder what the purpose of that brief statement was. Clearly, conclusory statements are inadequate and cannot substitute for sound explanation and finding.Esquirenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-16454495762849193952015-04-05T12:23:13.112-05:002015-04-05T12:23:13.112-05:00Further it was undisputed that the IRS continued w...Further it was undisputed that the IRS continued with its arbitrary actions and lack of transparancy throughout the FBAR assessment phase by failing to provide a ``brief statement of the grounds for denial `` a total disregard of the most basic of notice requirements.Sabinenoreply@blogger.com