Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the first part of this article, I discussed the availability of relief for a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return that results from his or her spouse's errors or omissions, focusing on the equitable catch-all provided in IRC ' 6015(f). In December 2006, Congress amended the statute explicitly to provide for Tax Court review of IRS determinations not to grant relief under ' 6015(f). Now, I consider how the Tax Court evaluates these claims in relation to the position of the IRS.
Under subsection (f), the Commissioner is authorized to relieve a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return if he or she does not meet the requirements for relief under subsections (b) or (c) and 'taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold [the taxpayer] liable ' ' The initial determination is committed to the discretion of the Commissioner. In Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, superseding Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 200-1 C.B. 447, the IRS has set out the 'factors' it applies in deciding whether to authorize relief under ' 6015(f). This Revenue Procedure provides the framework for analyzing requests for relief. Section 4.01 identifies seven factors that must be established before the taxpayer is eligible for relief. The important one for this discussion is the requirement that the 'relief is attributable to an item of the [taxpayer's spouse].' This includes a requirement that, in cases involving the failure to pay an assessed tax, the failure to pay must be from assets of the taxpayer's spouse (called the 'nonrequesting spouse'), unless there is misappropriation by the spouse or other, similar misconduct.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.