CDP Proceeding Moot Because Restitution Based Assessment and NFTL Withdrawn (7/30/19)

In Catlett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-86, here, Catlett, a return preparer, was convicted of a defraud/Klein conspiracy (27 USC § 371), multiple counts of aiding and assisting (§ 7206(2)) and one count of tax obstruction (§ 7212(a)).  He was sentenced to 210 months and order to pay restitution of $3,810,244, with restitution to "be paid [in] monthly installments of $500.00 over a period of 3 year(s) to commence when the defendant is placed on supervised release."  Catlett remains in prison and likely won't be release for some number of years.  The IRS made a restitution based assessment ("RBA") based on the sentencing court's order of restitution (and separately assessed underpayment penalty and interest).  Catlett filed a CDP proceeding when the IRS attempted to collect.

The IRS conceded that the RBA was premature because the district court order payment to commence after Catlett was placed on supervised release which had not yet occurred.  See United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 924 (7th Cir. 2011) (Where "a district court can only impose restitution as a condition of supervised release, a defendant cannot be required to pay restitution until his period of supervised release begins."); United States v. Howard, 220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir. 2000) ("Were restitution simply a term of supervised release or probation, it could not be due prior to the commencement of such a term." (quoting United States v. Webb, 30 F.3d 687, 690 (6th Cir. 1994))).

The IRS moved to dismiss the CDP case as moot. The Tax Court agreed and rejected Catlett's claim that, because the IRS indicated that, once he is released, the IRS will refile the RBA.

JAT comments:

1.  Because the restitution apparently related to other taxpayer's taxes, the IRS could not proceed with a regular assessment (requiring deficiency procedures) against Catlett.  If the IRS had been able to pursue a normal assessment (with deficiency procedures), it could assess the tax, penalties and interest and could even collect prior to the period specified in the court's restitution order.

2.  This aspect of the RBA seems to me to be a glitch.  Even where a defendant is permitted to defer payment of the restitution, there should be some lien to protect the creditor (here the IRS) in the interim just in case assets from which restitution can ultimately be collected appear.  Presumably, the general criminal lien will offer some protection, but even if the IRS could perfect an RBA assessment and resulting lien before supervisory release, it certainly should not be able to attempt collection on the RBA where the sentencing court deferred collection.

New IRS LB&I Compliance Campaigns of Interest (7/30/19)

IRS LB&I has announced six new compliance campaigns, here.

1.  The new campaign particularly relevant for readers of this blog is:

• Post OVDP Compliance
Practice Area: Withholding & International Individual Compliance
Lead Executive: John Cardone, director of Withholding & International Individual Compliance

U.S. persons are subject to tax on worldwide income. This campaign addresses tax noncompliance related to former Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) taxpayers’ failure to remain compliant with their foreign income and asset reporting requirements. The IRS will address tax noncompliance through soft letters and examinations.

JAT Comment:  Readers will recall that the OVDP had several iterations and, with the expansion of the Streamlined alternatives for nonwillful actors, OVDP itself was targeted to willful actors or persons at risk of the IRS treating them as willful actors.  So, those persons who took advantage of OVDP and took care of past issues presumably were back in the system with respect to their foreign income and asset reporting.  But, presumably, the IRS has some reason to believe that those OVDP participants may not  have stayed in compliance after closing out their OVDP participations.

2.  Another campaign of possible interest to readers is:

• ExpatriationPractice Area: Withholding & International Individual Compliance
Lead Executive: John Cardone, director of Withholding & International Individual Compliance 

U.S. citizens and long-term residents (lawful permanent residents in eight out of the last 15 taxable years) who expatriated on or after June 17, 2008, may not have met their filing requirements or tax obligations. The Internal Revenue Service will address noncompliance through a variety of treatment streams, including outreach, soft letters, and examination.

IRS Sending Letters to Taxpayers with Potential Taxable Virtual Currency Transactions (7/26/19)

In IR-2019-132, here, the IRS announced that it is "sending letters to taxpayers with virtual currency transactions that potentially failed to report income and pay the resulting tax from virtual currency transactions or did not report their transactions properly."  By the end of August, the notice says, more than 10,000 taxpayers will receive the letters.

The Notice further says:

"Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously by reviewing their tax filings and when appropriate, amend past returns and pay back taxes, interest and penalties," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. "The IRS is expanding our efforts involving virtual currency, including increased use of data analytics. We are focused on enforcing the law and helping taxpayers fully understand and meet their obligations."

The Notice concludes with this:

Taxpayers who do not properly report the income tax consequences of virtual currency transactions are, when appropriate, liable for tax, penalties and interest. In some cases, taxpayers could be subject to criminal prosecution.

Court Affirms Conviction, Rejecting Lesser Included Offense Instruction Request (7/17/19; 7/18/19)

In United States v. Rankin, 929 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2019), CA6 here, and GS here, Rankin was charged with (i) seven counts of failure to collect, account for and pay over payroll withholding tax in violation of  7202, (ii) six counts of tax perjury , § 7206(1), for individual tax returns, (iii) three counts of tax perjury, § 7206(1), for corporate returns, and (iv) one count of tax obstruction, § 7212(a). After trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 60 months (5 years).

On appeal, Rankin raised a number of issues and prevailed on only one relating to the timing of restitution.  I think only one issue is particularly interesting -- the lesser included offense issue.

Defendants facing felony count charges will often want a lesser included offense instruction to give the jury an alternative to conviction on the more serious offense charged.  Rankin was charged with seven counts of § 7202, a felony 5-year charged.  Rankin asked to a lesser included offense instruction for § 7203, failure to pay, which is a 1-year misdemeanor.  The district court denied the instruction.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the instruction.

The Court starts off with the guiding law (slip op., at 8, cleaned up; 929 F.3d at 406):

If a defendant asks for a lesser included offense instruction to which he is entitled, it is generally reversible error not to give it. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense if: (1) a proper request is made; (2) the elements of the lesser offense are identical to part of the elements of the greater offense; (3) the evidence would support a conviction on the lesser offense; and (4) the proof on the element or elements differentiating the two crimes is sufficiently disputed so that a jury could consistently acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser.

Section 7202 (cleaned up) makes it a felony for "any person required . . . to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed" to "willfully fail to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax."

Section 7203 (cleaned up) makes it a misdemeanor for "any person required . . . to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required . . . to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information," to "willfully fail to [do so] at the time or times required by law or regulations."

Here, the Court rejected Rankin's claim that he was entitled to a § 7203 lesser included offense instruction (slip op., at pp 8-9; 929 F.3d at 406-407). The gist of the reasoning is:  While it is true that a failure to pay over withheld payroll taxes would be a crime described in both § 7202 and § 7203, § 7202, the felony did not have an extra element that would permit a jury to convict for § 7203, the misdemeanor, but acquit for § 7202, the felony.

The Court does paint in (too) broad strokes in getting there.  The Court said (929 F.3d at 407):  "all violations of § 7203 for failing to pay a tax necessarily constitute violations of § 7202."  (929 F.3d at 407) That statement is only true in the context of taxes that a person is required to collect, account for and pay over (like payroll withholding tax). My experience is that § 7203 failure to pay cases can be applied in contexts well outside withholding taxes.

JAT Comments:

Seggerman Siblings (4 of them) Sentenced for Offshore Evasion (7/16/19)

I have previously written on the offshore account saga of the Seggerman family, principally as it relates to the prosecution of their lawyer-enabler, Michael Little.  (My blogs are listed at the bottom of this blog entry.)  The Seggermans were a prominent family.  The Seggerman siblings (4 of them), whose deceased father started the evasion, were sentenced last week.  Three were sentenced to 4-months, and one was sentenced to 6-months.  I post some links to news reports on the internet and in some cases bold-face items that I found particularly interesting:

Aaron Elstein, In surprise, New York's first family of tax evasion sentenced to prison (Crains New York  (6/26/19), here):

A federal judge Wednesday imposed prison sentences of four to six months on the four adult children of deceased Wall Street money manager Harry Seggerman, who bequeathed them a $12 million inheritance hidden in a secret Swiss bank account. 

The siblings funneled the money into the U.S. tax-free through shell companies or a fraudulent foundation. One would return from annual trips to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with just under $10,000 in her pocket, and had her husband and daughter do the same, so they wouldn't have to declare the cash to U.S. customs officials. 

"There is a strong need to deter others from the conduct that went on here," U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel declared as he sentenced the family members. Estate taxes could have eroded roughly half of the father's fortune. 

Henry Seggerman, 66, got six months in prison. Henry inherited his father's money management business and is a former movie producer who helped bring Crocodile Dundee to American audiences. 

Judge Castel imposed four-month sentences on Yvonne Seggerman, 63, who used to run a nonprofit playhouse in Rhode Island; Suzanne Seggerman, 56, former president of the nonprofit Games for Change; and John Seggerman, 55, a former aide to Sens. John and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. 

The eldest sibling got a longer sentence because he was involved in tax evasion for a longer time, the judge said. The Seggermans had all pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government after they were caught. 

The expressions and body language of prosecutors suggested they were surprised the Seggerman offspring got prison time at all, given that the government had not recommended any. Prosecutors had praised the Seggermans for testifying last year at the trial of their adviser, British lawyer Michael Little, who is serving a 20-month sentence. 

Judge Castel took note of the cooperation and commended the heirs for their philanthropic and volunteer activities with immigrant and school groups. He agreed they are unlikely to be repeat offenders. But he also observed that a poor person who committed tax fraud would probably go to prison, as would a poor person who committed immigration fraud. 

"There are not two federal systems of justice," he said.

Andrew Denney and Bruce Golding, Siblings sentenced for elaborate Swiss bank inheritance scam (NY Post 6/26/19), here.

More on Litigation and IRS Raising Civil Fraud New Matter (7/12/19)

I posted this blog entry on my Federal Tax Procedure Blog, here.  I posted the predicate blog entry on both Blogs, so I thought this follow-through should be on both blogs because it deals with the consequences of tax fraud, albeit civil tax fraud which gives rise to a potential civil fraud penalty and an actual unlimited statute of limitations (albeit the IRS may never know about it).  So, here it is:

My last post involved the IRS raising the civil fraud penalty as new matter by amended answer and prevailing. IRS Raises Fraud In Tax Court Amended Answer and Prevails (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 7/9/19), here.  The key point of the blog entry was the danger of unspotted issues after an audit and the risks of petitioning the Tax Court for redetermination.

First, on that issue, I offer the relevant portion of the working draft of my Federal Tax Procedure Book will be published on SSRN in early August 2019 (footnotes omitted):

New Matters [In the Tax Court]. 

The IRS can raise new issues in its answer that seek to increase the amount of the deficiency on a basis not asserted in the notice of deficiency or to justify the deficiency asserted (or part thereof) on some basis not asserted in the notice of deficiency.  Jurisdictionally, the Tax Court case is a case to redetermine the correct amount of tax liability for the year(s) involved, thus permitting it to determine a higher deficiency amount or an overpayment.  § 6214(a) & 6512(b). So the IRS can seek additional taxes and penalties not previously asserted.  The statute of limitations will be open because, to reprise what we learned earlier, the statute is suspended during the period the Tax Court case is pending.  §§ 6213(a) and 6503(a).   This is one of the dangers in proceeding in the Tax Court where the IRS has not previously spotted an issue.  Since the statute of limitations is suspended upon issuance of the notice of deficiency (§ 6503(a)), all new matters may be raised, assuming that the statute of limitations did not bar the notice of deficiency in the first place. 

The IRS's ability to raise new issues after its original answer is, however, limited by rules of fairness.  If the IRS does assert new matters after filing its original answer, it will formally do so by moving to amend the original answer.  The Tax Court rules, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in district courts and the Court of Federal Claims' Rules, permit amended pleadings, usually requiring the approval of the Court which is liberally granted to promote justice on the underlying merits. New issues cannot be inserted too late in the process so as to deny the taxpayer the effective opportunity to respond.  And, as to “new matters,” the IRS bears the burden of persuasion.  (Of course, if the new matter is the civil fraud penalty not asserted in the notice of deficienty, the IRS would have the burden of persuasion anyway to prove civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence, so asserting civil fraud as a new matter has no affect on the burden of persuasion.) 

The IRS is allowed to raise a new theory or ground in support of an issue raised in the notice of deficiency without the theory or ground being a new matter.  Depending upon how much variance the new theory or ground has with the notice of deficiency, the variance might be considered a new matter subject to the foregoing new issues discussion.  Certainly, if it is raised so late that the taxpayer cannot fairly respond with evidence addressing the new issue, the Court should deny the IRS’s attempt to assert the new issue. 

If the IRS asserts an affirmative defense (such as estoppel), it will be deemed denied and the taxpayer need not file a responsive pleading, which is usually called a “reply.”  If, however, the IRS raises “new matter” either in an answer or an amended answer, the taxpayer should file a reply providing the IRS notice as to the taxpayer's position on the new matter.  This is frequently done via a simple denial of the various matters pled with respect to the new matter. 

I think it would be helpful to illustrate the new matter issue.  Recall that § 6662 provides a 20% substantial understatement penalty that is then increased to 40% if the understatement is attributable to a gross valuation misstatement.  If the notice of deficiency asserted the 20% penalty but, in its answer, the IRS asserts the 40% penalty, the IRS will have the burden of proof on the increase in the penalty.  That seems to be the straight-forward reading of the rule shifting the burden of proof to the IRS.  But, let’s focus on one issue raised in this setting.  The taxpayer can avoid the accuracy related penalties if there was reasonable cause for the position on the return.  This is like an affirmative defense to the penalty.  Thus, as to the 20% penalty asserted in the notice and contested in the petition, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving reasonable cause even after the IRS meets its production burden under §7491(c); as to the increased 40% penalty, however, the IRS bears the burden of proof, including establishing absence of reasonable cause. 

Finally, an even worse case for the taxpayer who improvidently petitions for redetermination is that the IRS can raise as new matter a civil fraud penalty.  Say in the above example, the notice of deficiency asserted either the 20% or 40% accuracy related penalty in § 6662 and then in the answer (or amended answer), the IRS asserts the 75% civil fraud penalty in § 6663.  Note in this regard that, if the IRS raises the civil fraud penalty as a new matter, its burden of proof is not affected because, as to civil fraud, the IRS bears the burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence anyway, just as it the civil fraud penalty had been asserted in the notice of deficiency.  So,  if the IRS prevails, the taxpayer will be even worse off for having filed a petition for redetermination.  Thus, taxpayers and practitioners should think carefully about unspotted potential issues before filing a petition for redetermination in the Tax Court.

Now let's work this a little more.  This IRS favorable result works because the statute of limitations is still open in Tax Court proceedings.

IRS Raises Fraud In Tax Court Amended Answer and Prevails (7/9/19)

In Wegbreit v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-82, here, the taxpayer husband went through some deceptive shenanigans to hide the income from the sale of his interest in a business.  There were some other issues.  The numbers are large.  I won't get into the detailed facts, but what caught my eye was this (slip op., at 2-3, 44-45):

After the petitions were filed, respondent filed an amended answer asserting that Samuel Wegbreit (S. Wegbreit) and Elizabeth J. Wegbreit (E. Wegbreit) were each liable for penalties for fraud pursuant to section 6663 for 2005 through 2009. 

See also slip op. 44-45 for some more detailed on the amended answer allegations of fraud.

The Opinion section starts with general discussion and swings to the fraud issue as follows (slip op. 47-49):

The Commissioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) an underpayment exists for the year in issue and (2) some portion of the underpayment is due to fraud. See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b). The Commissioner also has the burden of producing evidence in relation to other penalties. Sec. 7491(c). Thus in analyzing the evidence in this case we have considered whether it is clear and convincing as to the elements of underpayment of tax for each year and of fraudulent intent. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient under that standard. 

Many of the critical documents in the record reflect “effective as of” dating and do not reveal when they were executed. Most of the documents were also prepared or notarized by Palardy. Palardy admitted that at Agresti’s request she would backdate documents and notarize documents stating incorrect dates. That any backdating occurred suggests a willingness to manipulate the relevant chronology in a way that undermines the credibility of petitioners Wegbreit’s evidence. 

The “effective as of” dating and the backdating of relevant documents also impede our review of the substance of the transactions involving SWTF, Threshold, and Acadia and lead us to conclude that the chronology reflected in those documents is not credible. The number of documents in the record that are on their face unreliable has made this case considerably more difficult. Our chore is compounded because the parties included numerous duplicate copies of key documents without explanation or analysis. Notwithstanding the Court’s comments and directions at the conclusion of the trial, the briefs of the parties failed to focus on the material facts. Respondent’s proposed findings of fact merely summarize testimony and documents and generally fail to analyze the transactions and entities involved. See Rule 151(e). Respondent continues to use the shotgun approach to theories of the case rather than selecting the strongest arguments and focusing on them. Petitioners Wegbreit’s briefs misstate the record and are unreliable. After dealing directly with the record with little aid from the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the reliable evidence is clear and convincing as to unreported income and fraudulent intent.

Well, the IRS prevailed despite the shortcomings of the cohort of IRS lawyers.

General Lesson

The obvious general lesson from a case like this is to remember that filing a case in the Tax Court can open upon issues not previously set up by the IRS in the notice of deficiency.  This can be substantive issues involving additional tax or can be penalties, both of which, if asserted as new matter, can draw interest from the due date of the return.

Beyond the General Lesson

There is more in the details as lessons to trial counsel.  As noted above, the Court found that the "Petitioners Wegbreit’s briefs misstate the record and are unreliable."  Presumably those briefs were submitted by their trial counsel.

Moreover, beyond misstating the record, the case should remind trial counsel to vet the evidence the taxpayer introduces through the lawyer (or if by testimony, upon cross-examination).  Let's go back to the opinion.