<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tax Trials</title>
	<atom:link href="http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://taxtrials.com</link>
	<description>Decisions and Developments in Federal and State Taxation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:20:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>IRS Scandal Update</title>
		<link>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382</link>
		<comments>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amy Poehler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parks and Recreation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SNL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have stood by while the IRS has taken shots from both the right and the left in recent days. The 501(c)(4) targeting situation will certainly yield changes for the IRS &#8211; how broad and how meaningful are yet to &#8230; <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382"></fb:like></p><p>We have stood by while the IRS has taken shots from both the right and the left in recent days.  The 501(c)(4) targeting situation will certainly yield changes for the IRS &#8211; how broad and how meaningful are yet to be seen.  We may have more to say when we see what really comes of it all.  </p>
<p>In the meantime, folks are lining up to take a bit of stuffing out of the IRS.  This one is too good to let pass.  Amy Poehler is a family favorite and we recommended <a href="http://www.nbc.com/parks-and-recreation/">her Thursday night gig</a> if you haven&#8217;t checked it out before.  Here she is with Seth Myers in a return to Weekend Update.</p>
<p><iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=musdc6szbyuhqd9oqisz_a&#038;partner=aol&#038;url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hulu.com%2fwatch%2f491723" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2382"></fb:like></p><div class="shr-publisher-2382"></div><!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2382</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Allows Foreign Tax Credits for U.K. Windfall Tax</title>
		<link>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370</link>
		<comments>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Tax Credit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windfall Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Woods]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a split in the circuits on the U.S. tax treatment of U.K. windfall tax payments made by U.S. utilities. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the windfall tax &#8230; <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370"></fb:like></p><p><a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/us-supreme-court.jpg"><img src="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/us-supreme-court-150x150.jpg" alt="us-supreme-court" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1003" /></a>The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a split in the circuits on the U.S. tax treatment of U.K. windfall tax payments made by U.S. utilities.  In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the windfall tax qualified as a &#8220;creditable tax&#8221; for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes. The result is that the appellant here, PPL, and Entergy, who had the <a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Entergy-Corp.-Affiliated-Subsidiaries-v.-Commissioner-683-F.-3d-233-2012.pdf">companion case</a>, will be able to take a credit against their U.S. income taxes for the amounts paid to the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>The central issue was whether the U.K. tax was a tax on income, the general standard for creditable foreign taxes.  The ultimate decision was a bit more nuanced and scholars surely <a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/05/avi-yonah-and-.html">will continue to debate the issue</a> including the algebra (don&#8217;t see that often in the tax world) and the potential distinction between the regulatory phrase &#8220;in the U.S. sense&#8221; and Justice Thomas&#8217; phrase &#8220;if enacted in the U.S.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Practitioners, being the practical folks that they are, will look to expand the decision for the benefit of other clients that may have paid taxes similar to the windfall tax but not received the benefit of foreign tax credits against their U.S. income.  </p>
<p>This is what happens when the Supreme Court issues a tax opinion.  There will be more to come, as the <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2128">estate tax case that may decide the fate of DOMA</a> has been heard and likely will be decided this year and <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2109">another tax case</a> (on overpayment penalties) is being briefed for the Supremes right now.  Expect a decision in the latter case, <em><a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2109">U.S. v. Woods</a></em>, sometime in 2014.</p>
<p>Read the PPL opinion here:<br />
<a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PPL-Corp.-v.-Commissioner-Docket-No.-12-43-U.S.S.C.-May-20-2013.pdf">PPL Corp. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 12-43 (U.S.S.C. May 20, 2013)</a></p>
<p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2370"></fb:like></p><div class="shr-publisher-2370"></div><!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2370</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Court: Challenge to Underlying Liability Does Not Extend Period for CDP Appeal</title>
		<link>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360</link>
		<comments>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collection Due Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a rare division opinion supplementing a previous division opinion, the Tax Court offers a primer on the definition of &#8220;deficiency&#8221; and its meaning for jurisdictional purposes. This opinion is not for the meek of heart nor for those not &#8230; <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360"></fb:like></p><p>In a rare division opinion supplementing a <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=932">previous division opinion</a>, the Tax Court offers a primer on the definition of &#8220;deficiency&#8221; and its meaning for jurisdictional purposes. This opinion is not for the meek of heart nor for those not ready to tackle the nuance of Tax Court jurisdiction.</p>
<p>In response to a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, Judge Joseph Gale lays out the statutory requirements for the court&#8217;s jurisdiction over deficiencies as well as collection actions. He also discusses the statutory grounds for variances in the 30-day response required for collection due process review (e.g., innocent spouse relief, <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=932">interest abatement</a>) and other non-deficiency actions (e.g., employment taxes, frivolous return penalties) in U.S. Tax Court. </p>
<p>The court did not certify the interlocutory appeal and affirmed the proposition that a challenge to the &#8220;underlying tax liability&#8221; in a collection due process hearing does not extend the period in which to file a petition for review with the Tax Court.</p>
<p>Read the entire opinion here:<br />
<a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GRAYDiv.Gale_.TC_.WPD.pdf">Gray v. Commissioner (Gray II), 140 T.C. No. 9 (2013)</a></p>
<p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2360"></fb:like></p><div class="shr-publisher-2360"></div><!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2360</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Court: Second FPAA Invalid, Cannot Confer Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323</link>
		<comments>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:34:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FPAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Wise Guys Holdings v. Commissioner, the Tax Court has ruled that a second Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) issued to the same Tax Matters Partner for the same tax period is invalid where the issuance was not a result &#8230; <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323"></fb:like></p><p><a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/us_tax_court.png"><img src="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/us_tax_court-150x150.png" alt="us_tax_court" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1245" /></a>In <em>Wise Guys Holdings v. Commissioner</em>, the Tax Court has ruled that a second Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) issued to the same Tax Matters Partner for the same tax period is invalid where the issuance was not a result of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of material fact.  The invalid FPAA cannot confer jurisdiction on the court in a TEFRA action where neither the Tax Matters Partner nor a notice partner filed a timely petition in response to the first FPAA.  The petition was dismissed.</p>
<p>Find out why the Wise Guys lost their bet on the second FPAA here:<br />
<a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/WiseguysDivision.TC_.WPD.pdf">Wise Guys Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 8 (2013)</a></p>
<p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2323"></fb:like></p><div class="shr-publisher-2323"></div><!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2323</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mark Your Calendars: IRS Closes for 5 Days Under Sequestration</title>
		<link>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315</link>
		<comments>http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internal Revenue Service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sequestration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four Fridays and a Monday. Those are the days that the IRS will be closed under the budget cuts imposed by sequestration. Rather than rolling employee furloughs, the IRS has decided to take a few three-day weekends and close shop &#8230; <a href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetTop Automatic --><p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315"></fb:like></p><p><a href="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/irs-logo.jpeg.png"><img src="http://taxtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/irs-logo.jpeg-150x150.png" alt="irs-logo.jpeg" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-1080" /></a>Four Fridays and a Monday.  Those are the days that the IRS will be closed under the budget cuts imposed by sequestration.  Rather than rolling employee furloughs, the IRS has decided to take a few three-day weekends and close shop entirely for five days in 2013.  Acting Commissioner Steven Miller make the announcement on Friday.  </p>
<p>In addition to regular federal holidays, the IRS will be closed on the following days in 2013: May 24, June 14, July 5, July 22 and Aug. 30.  IRS employees will not be paid for these days and IRS offices will not open.  </p>
<p><fb:like href="http://taxtrials.com/?p=2315"></fb:like></p><div class="shr-publisher-2315"></div><!-- Start Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic --><!-- End Shareaholic LikeButtonSetBottom Automatic -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://taxtrials.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2315</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
