sserting additional income tax of $1,829.00 plus interest for the 2017 tax year. The fourth petition protested another notice of deficiency asserting additional income tax of $581.00 plus interest for the 2018 tax year.Regarding the disallowed dependent care expense credit, the Judge concluded that Petitioners had not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate the expenses claimed in 2015. In so finding, the Judge noted that the taxpayer carries “the burden of showing ‘a clearcut entitlement’ to the statutory benefit.” (Citations omitted). Here, Petitioners failed to establish or provide evidence that they paid a care provider for dependent care expenses or even the amount of such expenses.Turning next to the issues from the 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax years, the Judge found that Petitioners had also failed to meet their burden of establishing that certain income and expense information, which the Division received from the IRS for the years in question, was incorrect. Pursuant to IRC section 6103(d), the Division received tax information for Petitioners and adjusted their state returns accordingly. Under Tax Law § 658(a) and 20 NYCRR 158.1(a), Petitioners were required to maintain adequate records of their items of income, credits, expenses, and deductions. Petitioners, however, did not provide evidence supporting the amount of their income during the years or substantiate that the information provided by the IRS was incorrect. Accordingly, the Judge denied their petitions and sustained each of the Division’s notices.Matter of Midland Farms (Supervising ALJ Gardiner, February 22, 2024); Div’s Rep. Aliza Chase , Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Articles 12-A and 21/DTA’s jurisdiction (Peter Calleri).Judge Gardiner dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.Petitioner filed a petition for revisions of determinations or for refunds of Motor Fuel Tax under Article 12-A and of Highway Use Tax under Article 21. Petitioner, however, failed to attach a statutory noti

ment serves, at least in theory. Back to the social contract. Too many members of our nation’s political elite need to be reminded of their role. In the end, they are employed by us. When an employee gets too big for their britches, it’s time for them to go. Pub Law No. 93-579, 88 Stat 1896 (Dec. 31, 1974), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2018). Are we repeating history today? From North Carolina. “Just a country lawyer,” he would say. He chaired the Senate Watergate Committee. It was watching his committee hearings on television that inspired me to pursue the law. The broadcast of those hearings also introduced me to anchors Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer. (They don’t make them like that anymore.) S. Comm. on Gov’t. Operations & H.R. Comm. on Gov’t. Operations, 94th Cong., Legislative History of the Privacy Act of 1974 S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579): Source Book on Privacy at 4 (Comm. Print 1976) [hereinafter Source Book], https://www.justice.gov/opcl/paoverview_​sourcebook. Pub. L. 94-455. IRC Sec. 6103. Over time, the disclosures allowed under this provision have been amended; they have also been fleshed out by regulation. IRC Sec. 6103(b)(2). The TRA also permitted disclosure to members of a partnership, shareholders holding one percent of the outstanding stock of a corporation, heirs and estate administrators, trustees, and specified Congressional committees (provided identifying information is removed if such committees are not in executive session), among others. Compare taxes that are collected by withholding at a prescribed rate at the source. The IRS is directed to assess the tax liability that a taxpayer shows as owing on their tax return. IRC Sec. 6201(a)(1). This tax is said to have been “self-assessed.” Reg. Sec. 601.103. I’m referring to the income tax. Reg. Sec. 601.105(b)(4),For example, some folks will post on the internet photos of their expensive vacations, of their boats and second homes, and of the lavish parties or dinners they attend decked out in all their spar

g committees and Members of Congress with development and analysis of legislative proposals;Preparing official revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the Congress;Drafting legislative histories for tax-related bills; andInvestigating various aspects of the Federal tax system.The statutorily prescribed duties of the Joint Committee are:To investigate the operation and effects of internal revenue taxes and the administration of such taxes;To investigate measures and methods for the simplification of such taxes;To make reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance (or to the House and the Senate) on the results of such investigations and studies and to make recommendations;andTo review any proposed refund or credit of income or estate and gift taxes or certain other taxes in excess of $2,000,000.In furtherance of these purposes, the Joint Committee is empowered to obtain and inspect tax returns and return information, as specified in IRC Sec. 6103(f); specifically, upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of theHouse of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of theSenate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the IRS shall furnish such committee with anyreturnorreturn informationspecified in such request, except that anyreturnorreturn informationwhich can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to suchdisclosure. “Trump tax returns raise alarms about fairness of US tax code,” by Tobias Burns and Sylvan Lane, January 2, 2023, The Hill. In those instances, you may argue with a taxpayer until you’re blue in the face. Their bottom-line position: if it’s not illegal, and if it follows from the language of the provision, why worry? I worry; it’s what I do.https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandin

determined that the actions of the Director, Treaty Administration must be analyzed under the presumption of official regularity. See, e.g., Mecom v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 374, 388 (1993). Also, the Court determined that there were comity considerations, such as that the IRS and Mr. Smith were not the only stakeholders in the case, but also the Australian tax authorities, which did not tax Mr. Smith on the basis that such income was supposed to be taxed in the U.S.As to the second argument, the Court determined that there was not malfeasance or misrepresentation of fact on the closing agreement. First, malfeasance must be determined upon the making of the closing agreement. See Ingram v. Commissioner, 32 B.T.A. 1063, 1065 (1935), aff’d per curiam, 87 F.2d 915 (3d Cir. 1937). Second, a common meaning of malfeasance includes “wrongful or dishonest acts or misconduct by a public official. Here, Mr. Smith claimed that the disclosure of confidential return information was prohibited under I.R.C. § 6103(a)(1). The Court stated that assuming that the disclosure of the information of the closing agreement constituted malfeasance, such would not exist here. This is because the transmission of the template of the agreement to the employer of Mr. Smith, did not constitute return information because it was not covered by I.R.C. § 6103(b)(2)(D), was not associated with any taxpayer and was not obtained by the IRS. As to the transmission of the agreement through the employer, this was attributable to Mr. Smith not the IRS, and finally, the transmission of the executed agreement to Mr. Smith via the employer was after the agreement became final, and not before the execution.As to the misrepresentation of material fact, the Court determined that the misrepresentation in this case, if any, could have been of a legal nature, which is not included within the claim of misrepresentation as required by I.R.C. § 7121. Thus, this argument was invalid.Finally, as to the existence of duress, the Court disrega

After the certification criteria is met and a taxpayer is certified as an individual having a seriously delinquent tax debt under IRC § 7345, the Service may ask the Department of State to exercise their discretion to revoke a taxpayer’s passport”.What about FATCA?The Memorandum states that “FATCA data may be used to identify collection cases in most instances, but the authorized uses of particular sets of FATCA data may vary depending on whether they were received pursuant to an international agreement providing for the exchange of information in tax matters (“tax convention”) and the use and disclosure provisions of the applicable tax convention”.Moreover, “the use of FATCA data to identify and select collection cases for assignment is an authorized use of return information under IRC § 6103(h)(1). Tax conventions to which the United States is a party permit the disclosure of exchanged information to persons and authorities involved in or concerned with the collection of tax.

Tax returns and return information generally are protected from disclosure by Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and unauthorized disclosures can result in penalties. Certain disclosures are permitted, but what happens when a person properly receiving return information “rediscloses” that information?IRS recently addressed this question for certain redisclosures in Revenue Ruling 2022-7.

Case BackgroundIn April 2019, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) requested, pursuant to § 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, tax returns and any associated IRS audit information for then-President Trump and several of his businesses from 2013-2018. Section 6103(f) requires the Treasury Department to provide to the Chairs of the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committees tax return or tax information upon request.

These final regulations also prohibit any IRS contractors from asking substantive questions of a summoned witness under oath or asking a summoned person’s representative to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege. The regulations affect persons who are examined by the IRS and any persons who are questioned by the IRS under oath pursuant to section 7602.The prior version of Reg. § 301.7602-1 allowed persons authorized to receive returns or return information under I.R.C. § 6103(n) to receive and review books, papers, records, or other data. I.R.C. § 6103(n) allows returns and return information to “be disclosed to any person, including any person described in section 7513(a), to the extent necessary in connection with the processing, storage, transmission, and reproduction of such returns and return information, the programming, maintenance, repair, testing, and procurement of equipment, and the providing of other services, for purposes of tax administration.”

Even the Code bestows certain rights upon such individuals; for example, shareholders generally have the right to request copies of their corporation’s Federal income tax return. IRC Sec. 6103(e).Where an employee “has to be” admitted as an owner, then the execution of a shareholders’ or operating agreement, as the case may be, will be important; for example, to restrict the transferability of shares, and to provide for the buyout of the employee-owner.[viii] From the perspective of the employee, for example: will they have to guarantee the debts of the business; will they be subject to capital calls; if the business is formed as a pass-through entity (such as a partnership or S corporation) – the income of which is taxable to its owners whether or not distributed to them – how will the employee satisfy the tax on their share of the entity’s taxable income; if the stock or the assets of the business are sold, will the employee be required to make representations as to the business, and will they be liable for any breaches thereof; if their equity is subject to estate tax, how will their heirs pay for it given the equity’s illiquid nature?[ix]Estate of Kechijian v. Commissioner

Industry representatives sought guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as there was confusion regarding whether the consent requirements in the provision apply to loans originated before December 28, 2019, that are sold on or after such date. On December 19, 2019, the IRS posted guidance regarding the Act on its website that includes the following guidance on the application of the consent provision: “This provision limits the redisclosure and use of return information in the case of taxpayers who have consented to the disclosure of their return information by the Internal Revenue Service to a third party under IRC section 6103(c). Section 2202 of the Taxpayer First Act applies only to disclosures made by the Internal Revenue Service after December 28, 2019, and any subsequent redisclosures and uses of such information disclosed by the Internal Revenue Service after December 28, 2019.”The guidance should be helpful in addressing industry concerns regarding the application of the consent provision to existing loans.