{"id":1136,"date":"2015-01-14T22:50:12","date_gmt":"2015-01-15T03:50:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patellawoffices.com\/blog\/?p=1136"},"modified":"2015-01-14T22:50:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-15T03:50:12","slug":"national-taxpayer-advocate-delivers-annual-report-to-congress-that-criticizes-offshore-voluntary-disclosure-programs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/planning-for-tax-minimization\/national-taxpayer-advocate-delivers-annual-report-to-congress-that-criticizes-offshore-voluntary-disclosure-programs\/","title":{"rendered":"National Taxpayer Advocate Delivers Annual Report to Congress that Criticizes Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson today released her 2014 annual report to Congress, which expresses concern that taxpayers this year are likely to receive the worst levels of taxpayer service since at least 2001 when the IRS implemented its current performance measures.<\/p>\n<p>Federal law requires the Annual Report to Congress to identify at least 20 of the \u201cmost serious problems\u201d encountered by taxpayers and to make administrative and legislative recommendations to mitigate those problems.\u00a0 Overall, this year\u2019s report identifies 23 problems, makes dozens of recommendations for administrative change, makes 19 recommendations for legislative change, and analyzes the 10 tax issues most frequently litigated in the federal courts.<\/p>\n<p>Among the \u201cmost serious problems&#8221; addressed is the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure (OVD) Program Inequities.\u00a0 The report describes the evolution of the OVD program and the disproportionate penalties it says were often imposed, particularly with respect to unrepresented taxpayers.\u00a0 The IRS changed the streamlined program in 2014 in ways that allow many taxpayers to pay lower penalties.\u00a0 However, the new rules do not allow taxpayers who already had entered into closing agreements with the IRS at higher penalty rates to amend those agreements.\u00a0 Therefore, taxpayers who are the most deserving of leniency because they were the first to acknowledge they had failed to comply with foreign account reporting requirements ultimately are paying substantially greater penalties than taxpayers who waited until later to acknowledge their noncompliance.\u00a0 Among other things, the report recommends that the IRS revisit this decision.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov\/userfiles\/file\/2014-Annual-Report-to-Congress-Executive-Summary.pdf\">summary <\/a>of the report is below:<\/p>\n<p>OFFSHORE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE (OVD): The OVD Programs Initially Undermined the Law and Still Violate Taxpayer Rights<\/p>\n<p>Problem<\/p>\n<p>Before it updated the \u201cstreamlined\u201d program in 2014, the IRS generally required those who failed to report offshore income and file a related information return (e.g., a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)) to enter into an offshore voluntary disclosure (OVD) settlement program and pay an<\/p>\n<p>\u201coffshore penalty\u201d designed for bad actors. \u201cBenign actors\u201d with inadvertent violations generally had to \u201copt out\u201d and be audited to obtain a lesser penalty.\u00a0 Uncertainty about what penalty might apply in the audit, the IRS\u2019s one-sided interpretation of the program terms, processing delays, and the cost of representation in an audit prompted some to pay a disproportionate offshore penalty. Inside the 2011 OVD programs, taxpayers with small accounts paid over eight times the unreported tax\u2014over ten times the 75 percent penalty for civil tax fraud\u2014and those who were unrepresented generally paid even more.<\/p>\n<p>Analysis<\/p>\n<p>Because violations by taxpayers who have small accounts or are unrepresented are more likely to have been inadvertent, the OVD programs undermined the statutory scheme, which applies a higher penalty to \u201cwillful\u201d than non-willful violations or those due to \u201creasonable cause.\u201d The IRS\u2019s one-sided interpretations of its OVD FAQs, which were not explained, appealable, or published, eroded confidence that the IRS would be reasonable in a post-opt-out examination. The IRS now allows benign actors to pay a smaller penalty under the 2014 streamlined program. However, unlike the last time it made taxpayer favorable changes to an OVD program, the IRS will not allow those with signed closing agreements to benefit from the most recent changes, thereby punishing taxpayers who came in early. Thus, the IRS\u2019 OVD programs eroded taxpayer rights, such as the rights to pay no more than the correct amount of tax, challenge the IRS\u2019s position and be heard, appeal an IRS decision in an independent forum, to be informed, and to a fair and just tax system.<\/p>\n<p>Recommendations<\/p>\n<p>The IRS should improve the transparency of OVD program guidance (e.g., FAQ interpretations); allow taxpayers to discuss OVD and streamlined program guidance interpretations with the IRS employee interpreting the guidance and to appeal the interpretations; and allow taxpayers to amend closing agreements to benefit from recent program changes.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov\/userfiles\/file\/2014-Annual-Report\/OFFSHORE-VOLUNTARY-DISCLOSURE-OVD-The-OVD-Programs-Initially-Undermined-the-Law-and-Still-Violate-Taxpayer-Rights.pdf\">full report of this problem<\/a> is quite negative.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately the IRS is not mandated to accept the above recommendations. However, in the past, such recommendations were taken \u201cinto consideration\u201d for future changes.\u00a0 So stay tuned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson today released her 2014 annual report to Congress, which expresses concern that taxpayers this year are likely to receive the worst levels of taxpayer service since at least 2001 when the IRS implemented its current performance measures. Federal law requires the Annual Report to Congress to identify at least [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_daextam_enable_autolinks":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[19,54,64,25,26,27],"class_list":["post-1136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-planning-for-tax-minimization","tag-amnesty","tag-offshore-accounts","tag-opt-out","tag-penalties-and-interest","tag-sdop","tag-voluntary-disclosure"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patellawoffices.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}