Prose by Tax Pros - Another Article by Hale E. Sheppard

The IRS has a limited period to enforce the rules, and taxpayers hope to go unnoticed until that opportunity has passed. Timing issues do not disappear, though, simply because taxpayers get selected for audit or approach the IRS pro-actively. Indeed, they might become more important than ever, because many interactions with the IRS involve extensions of assessment-periods, some voluntary, others compulsory. This article analyzes the divergent and surprising rules applicable to taxes, on one hand, and FBAR penalties, on the other.

The IRS recently launched its second major effort to dispense with cases involving what it calls syndicated conservation easement transactions. In order for partnerships and their partners to make intelligent decisions, they first need to understand the context. This includes the types of challenges the IRS raises in easement disputes, the terms of the initial settlement introduced back in 2020, the terms of the current settlement launched in 2024, and the types of partnerships to which the current settlement might appeal. This article covers those topics and more.

International tax disputes often create important guidance, some obvious, some not. Aroeste v. United States is a great example. That case involves the mundane issue of FBAR penalties, but it presents exciting and novel issues, too. It makes noteworthy rulings about whether dual residents can seek FBAR protection from tax treaties, whether late filing of certain information returns prevents taxpayers from claiming beneficial tax positions, and whether taxpayers must follow rules issued by way of a Notice instead of a regulation. This article, the second in a series, explores these important issues and others generated by the case.

Everyone knows that IRS is struggling to timely process and audit Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) claims. What many people do not realize, though, is that the Tax Court issued a decision in January 2024 that might affect timing issues. This article, another in a series, discusses ERC guidance, the three-year and five-year assessment periods under current law, key Tax Court cases addressing the impact of fraud by return preparers on assessment periods of taxpayers, the broad definition of preparers, and potential effects on well-intentioned taxpayers filing improper ERC claims

The IRS is trying various methods to halt what it considers improper Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) claims, including penalty threats. Browbeating taxpayers with potential penalties is standard stuff, but it becomes particularly interesting in the ERC context, where the IRS’s ability to carry out its warnings is questionable. This article, the latest in a series, describes the evolving ERC guidance, highlights the recurrent themes of “complexity” and taxpayer “victimization,” reviews relevant penalty-mitigation standards, and suggests that taxpayers considering their next move need to determine how much weight IRS penalty threats really deserve.

This article, the latest in a long series, describes the ERC legislation, relevant administrative guidance, evolution of the regulations addressing “transactions with contractual protection,” effects of reportable transaction status on employers and advisors, and more.

Lots of taxpayers are thinking about Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) matters these days. Most are focused on employment tax issues, but they should be considering related tax issues, too. Specifically, they might analyze how the potential reduction or elimination of ERC amounts will affect income tax returns, when such events will occur, and what should be done in the meantime. This article, another in a series by the author, explains the relevant laws, relationship between ERCs and income taxes, timing issues, and filing “protective” amended returns as a solution.

The Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) is a polarizing tax benefit, but there are a few things on which most everyone can seem to agree. First, guidance regarding the ERC is dense and complicated. Second, ERCs often involve big money, for employers who obtain them, professionals who assist in procuring them, and others. Third, parties working toward the mutual goal of submitting proper ERC claims sign agreements, the terms of which are sometimes subject to different interpretations. These three realities have converged to trigger disputes, with the IRS, and among various parties. This article, the latest in a long list, examines these early clashes.

Things are dynamic when it comes to the Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”). Among the most recent events is the introduction of the Voluntary Disclosure Program, which is designed for taxpayers that previously filed ERCs claims, got paid, later questioned their eligibility, and now want to give the money back with minimal financial downsides. This article, the latest in an ongoing series, compares methods used by the IRS in addressing conservation easement donations and ERCs, and then presents some questions to consider.

Congress took action to help taxpayers economically suffering because of COVID, including creating the Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”). The number of claims filed, amounts sought, and grounds for relief far surpassed what was expected. These and other factors led to problems, among them the IRS’s struggle to administer the ERC program. The IRS has experienced challenges separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Therefore, following its standard playbook, the IRS has introduced both carrots and sticks, the effectiveness of which is yet to be seen. This article, the latest in a long series, summarizes the ERC laws and explores the IRS’s enforcement methods so far.