Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent a notice of transferee liability for unpaid taxes to a limited liability company (the appellant) at the address listed on its most recent tax return. The appellant did not receive the notice because it was returned by the postal service as undeliverable. The company only learned of the notice months later and subsequently filed a petition in the United States Tax Court to contest the liability, but did so 143 days after the IRS had mailed the notice. The statutory deadline for such petitions is 90 days.After the petition was filed, the IRS moved to dismiss it on the grounds that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because the filing was untimely. The appellant argued that the notice was not properly delivered and that the statute of limitations should bar the IRS’s assertion of liability. The Tax Court found that the IRS had exercised reasonable diligence in determining the company's address, as it used the address provided on the most recent tax return. Because the petition was not filed within the 90-day period specified by 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), the Tax Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the decision. The Court held that the IRS had complied with statutory requirements in mailing the notice to the correct address and exercised reasonable diligence. The Court further determined that the 90-day filing deadline in § 6213(a) is nonjurisdictional, meaning it does not limit the Tax Court’s power to hear late petitions. However, the Court also held that the deadline, though nonjurisdictional, is mandatory and not subject to equitable tolling. The dismissal of the petition was thus affirmed, though on different grounds than those relied upon by the Tax Court. View "Kyick Holdings, LLC v. Bessent" on Justia Law

The defendant, who immigrated to the United States from Vietnam, operated a staffing agency that provided temporary laborers to various clients in Massachusetts. She managed most of the agency’s operations, including payroll, and worked closely with her daughter, who had accounting training. Between 2015 and 2019, the defendant withdrew over $3.7 million in cash from business accounts, frequently in increments just below the $10,000 federal reporting threshold, and used this cash to pay workers. Evidence at trial showed that the agency paid employees additional cash wages not reported to tax authorities, resulting in unpaid employment taxes and underreported payroll to the company’s workers’ compensation insurer, which led to lower insurance premiums.A federal grand jury in the District of Massachusetts indicted the defendant on four counts of failing to collect or pay employment taxes and one count of mail fraud. After a jury trial, she was convicted on all counts and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. She appealed, challenging the admission of evidence regarding the structuring of cash withdrawals, the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on implicit bias, the instructions related to tax obligations and good faith, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the mail fraud conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that evidence about the structuring of cash withdrawals was properly admitted as intrinsic to the charged offenses and relevant to intent. The refusal to instruct on implicit bias was not an error because the district court’s voir dire and instructions substantially covered the issue. The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions regarding tax law and good faith, and concluded that any error was harmless. Finally, the evidence of mail fraud was found sufficient, as it was reasonably foreseeable that the mail would be used in the insurance audit process. View "US v. Giang" on Justia Law

Two brothers operated an energy-conservation contracting business and, beginning in 2013, engaged in a bribery scheme involving the Mass Save program, a state-mandated initiative to promote energy efficiency. One brother owned CAP Electric, Inc., and recruited the other to establish Air Tight Solutions, LLC as a Mass Save contractor with the assistance of a CLEAResult employee, who was responsible for selecting and overseeing contractors. The brothers paid this employee, and later another, regular bribes in cash and gifts to secure contracts, favorable treatment, and advance warning of audits. Air Tight performed little or no work directly, subcontracted projects, and disguised employees and payments to conceal the scheme. Over several years, their companies received multi-million dollar payments from the program.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts accepted their guilty pleas to conspiracy, honest-services wire fraud, making false statements, and (for one brother) aiding and assisting false tax returns. The district judge sentenced both to 27 months in prison (above-guidelines for one), and ordered forfeiture of $13.2 million and $3.6 million respectively. The brothers challenged the sentences and forfeitures on several grounds, including alleged errors in calculating tax loss, application of sentencing enhancements, and the process and proportionality of the forfeiture orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in calculating tax loss or applying sentencing enhancements for sophisticated means, obstruction of justice, and aggravating role. The appellate court also held that the district court correctly found a sufficient connection between the criminal conduct and the forfeited proceeds, and that any procedural errors in the forfeiture process were harmless. Finally, the court determined that the forfeiture orders were not unconstitutionally excessive. The First Circuit affirmed the sentences and forfeiture orders. View "United States v. Ponzo" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a radio talk show host and church founder, began selling bitcoin in 2014. The government investigated his bitcoin sales and charged him with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and tax evasion. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court acquitted him of the substantive money laundering count due to insufficient evidence but upheld the other convictions.The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court should not have allowed the money-transmitting-business charges to proceed to trial, citing the "major questions doctrine" which he claimed should exempt virtual currencies like bitcoin from regulatory statutes. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his tax evasion conviction and that he should be granted a new trial on the money laundering conspiracy count due to prejudicial evidentiary spillover. Additionally, he argued that his 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the defendant's major questions doctrine argument, holding that the statutory definition of "money transmitting business" under 31 U.S.C. § 5330 includes businesses dealing in virtual currencies like bitcoin. The court found that the plain meaning of "funds" encompasses virtual currencies and that the legislative history and subsequent congressional actions supported this interpretation.The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tax evasion conviction, noting that the defendant had substantial unreported income and engaged in conduct suggesting willful evasion of taxes. The court rejected the claim of prejudicial spillover, concluding that the evidence related to the money laundering conspiracy was admissible and relevant.Finally, the court upheld the 96-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given the defendant's conduct and the factors considered by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and the defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant divorced his wife in order to transfer assets fraudulently and avoid some tax liability. The district court set aside the separation agreement as a fraudulent transfer and proceeded to redivide and reallocate certain assets applying Massachusetts law. The government’s tax liens attached directly to any assets allocated to Defendant, but the government argued that its tax liens also attached indirectly to certain assets allocated to Defendant’s wife. This appeal concerned the district court’s allocation of two assets that the district court divided more or less evenly. The First Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) with regard to funds that were directly traceable to the tax shelter that Defendant used to reduce his taxable income for several years, it was not clear whether the district court considered fourteen factors required by Massachusetts law in order to arrive at an equitable division of the parties’ assets; and (2) the government was not entitled to Defendant’s wife’s half of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by Defendant and his wife in Massachusetts on a lien-tracing theory. Remanded. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

A court-appointed receiver (the Receiver), acting on behalf of a class of defrauded persons (the underlying plaintiffs), attempted to collect judgments previously rendered against several corporations and their proprietors. When the Receiver was able to recoup only a portion of the amount, it filed a tax-refund claim. The IRS denied the tax-refund claim. Thereafter, the Receiver responded by bringing this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1346(a). At issue in this case was the statute’s requirement that a taxpayer who seeks to reduce her tax liability under certain circumstances have an “unrestricted right” to income when she first reported it. The district court fashioned a judicially-created exception to the statute’s “unrestricted right” requirement, proceeded to deny the government’s motion to dismiss, and granted a modicum of relief. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in refusing to follow section 1341(a)’s unambiguous textual mandate by carving out a special exemption from the “unrestricted right” requirement for parties in either the Receiver’s or the underlying plaintiffs’ position. Remanded for entry of judgment dismissing the tax-refund suit. View "Robb Evans & Associates, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers receive credits against owed U.S. income tax for money paid to a foreign country for “taxable international business transactions of economic substance.” Some banks have engaged in transactions that generate a foreign tax credit in order to take advantage of the U.S. deductions. In this case, the IRS began disallowing the claim for foreign tax credits sought by Sovereign Bancorp, Inc., later acquired by Santander Holdings USA, Inc. (together, Sovereign), a U.S. taxpayer, and, in 2008, began imposing accuracy-related penalties. Sovereign brought suit to obtain a refund from the IRS, the amount of which was approximately $234 million in taxes, penalties, and interest. The transaction at issue complied on its face with then-existing U.S. statutory and regulatory requirements. The government opposed the refund, arguing that the transaction failed the common law economic substance test. The district court awarded summary judgment to Sovereign, concluding that the transactions had economic substance. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the government was entitled to summary judgment in its favor as to the economic substance of the transaction at issue. View "Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

After Appellants went bankrupt, Appellees foreclosed on their home. Appellants each received an IRS Form 1099-A in the mail at the end of the tax year stating that the foreclosure might have tax consequences. The mortgage debt, however, was discharged during Appellants’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Appellants sued Appellees, claiming that the Forms were a coercive attempt to collect on the mortgage debt, which Appellees had no right to collect. The bankruptcy court found the Forms gave Appellants “no objective basis” to believe Appellees were trying to collect the discharged mortgage debt. The district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence in the record showed that the Forms were not objectively coercive. View "Bates v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

After a merger in 1995, William and Patricia Cavallaro received 38 shares of stock in Camelot, the merged company. Their three sons received 54 shares each. When Camelot was subsequently acquired, the Cavallaros received a total of $10,830,000, and each son received $15,390,000. The IRS issued notices of deficiency to the Cavallaros for tax year 1995, determining that Camelot had a pre-merger value of $0 and that when the merger occurred, William and Patricia each made a taxable gift of $23,085,000 to their sons. Therefore, each of the Cavallaros incurred an increase in tax liability in the amount of $12,696,750. The Tax Court ultimately concluded that William owed $7,652,980 and that Patricia owed $8,009,202. The Cavallaros appealed, arguing that the Tax Court erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner. The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the Tax Court correctly determined that the burden of proof was on the Cavallaros; but (2) the Tax Court misstated the nature of the Cavallaros’ burden of proof. Remanded. View "Cavallaro v. Koskinen" on Justia Law

Daniel George, a self-taught chemist who created his own health supplements, was convicted of tax evasion based on his failure to pay taxes for the tax years 1996 through 1999. Six weeks after his tax evasion indictment, George incorporated Biogenesis Foundation, Inc. George then applied for tax-exempt status for Biogenesis as a charitable organization. The IRS granted Biogensis’s application in 2003. In 2011, Biogenesis retroactively filed tax forms claiming it was a section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) organization for the tax years 1996 through 2002. Thereafter, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency to George, stating that he owed $3.790 million in income taxes and penalties on $5.65 million in bank deposits he made and interest earned for the tax years 1995 through 2002. George petitioned for review, asserting that the income earned for those tax years was not his but Biogenesis’s. The tax court rejected George’s arguments and found George liable for the full amount of the alleged deficiency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax court did not err in determining that an organization distinct from George did not exist during the applicable tax years. View "George v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law