I write to offer readers the following article: Jasper L. Cummings, Jr.,
DOJ Criminal Tax Overreach, 138 Tax Notes 745 (Feb. 11, 2013),
here, permitted with the permission of Tax Analysts. I also offer below a brief summary and my comments.
Mr. Cummings, a frequent commentator on the tax law and its ripples (including criminal tax law), advises right up front that his principal points are:
This article makes the following principal points:
• The tax bar should have been somewhat more concerned about the way the Department of Justice Tax Division has prosecuted selected major law and accounting firm tax professionals who participated in the planning of, opinions on, or audit defense of some structured transactions during the most recent tax shelter boom that ended in the early 21st century.
• The type of arguments that the DOJ pursued against defendants like those in the Coplan case, recently affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Second Circuit, n1 might produce numerous convicted felons if applied to activities in which many readers have participated in.
n1 United States v. Coplan, No. 10-583 (2d Cir. 2012), Doc 2012-24490, 2012 TNT 231-17 . [JAT Note: the citation for Coplan is 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 20122) and the opinion is here.]
• The most troubling aspect of the Coplan and other prosecutions is that they follow a trend to criminalize advising, and even defending, a transaction that the DOJ believes does not produce the desired tax results under the (civil) economic substance doctrine.
Mr. Cummings uses the
Coplan case as a point of departure. (For my prior blogs on
Coplan, see
Major CA2 Decision on E&Y Tax Shelter Convictions (11/29/12),
here, with links to the 8 other blogs on aspects of the Second Circuit's decision in
Coplan.) He laments that the tax bar has just rolled over to prosecutions and convictions in tax shelter cases as a way to do damage control for their franchise in the aggressive tax planning area. (Let a few be prosecuted so that the others can continue to play with relatively minor risk because only a few can be prosecuted). He says (footnote omitted):