FIN 48 Considerations: Tax Attorneys Perspective
|
|
- Rafe Fleming
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FIN 48 Considerations: Tax Attorneys Perspective Roger A. Pies and Adam Gropper As appeared in the April 30, 2007, edition of TAX NOTES, Volume 115, Number 5. Reprinted with permission.
2 FIN 48 Considerations: Tax Attorneys Perspective Roger A. Pies and Adam Gropper Baker Hostetler In June 2006 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Interpretation No. 48, dealing with the treatment of uncertain tax benefits. The new standards became effective for fiscal years beginning after December 31, There have been requests to delay the effectiveness of FIN 48, but it remains in effect at this time. In this article we raise a number of questions regarding how FIN 48 should be applied in some situations. We believe that, to a surprising extent, FIN 48 either fails to answer some fundamental questions or relies on flawed premises. We discuss the FIN 48 procedure for dealing with uncertain tax benefits, but only in a brief overview. We do not try to explain FIN 48 requirements in detail. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with FIN 48 s provisions. We also do not provide suggestions as to how FIN 48 should be interpreted, because the proper interpretation of FIN 48 is outside our area of expertise. Thus, the following discussion is from the perspective of a tax lawyer asked to provide guidance on uncertain tax benefits when that guidance will be used to meet FIN 48 requirements. We try to focus attention on issues that do not appear to have clear answers in FIN I. The FIN 48 Process in Brief The FIN 48 process begins with an identification of a company s uncertain tax position. The company must make a judgment regarding the appropriate unit of account. In an example involving research credits, FIN 48 describes the determination of the proper 1 Other commentators have also raised questions about the effect of FIN 48 in various situations. See, e.g., Neil D. Kimmelfield, FIN 48: Measuring Tax Benefits in the Real World, Tax Notes, Oct. 30, 2006, p. 501, Doc , 2006 TNT ; W. Scott Rogers and Raymond G. Andrews, FIN 48 and Interest Accruals A Discussion With FASB, Tax Notes, Mar. 12, 2007, p. 1031, Doc , 2007 TNT 49-44; Brian R. Lynn, Blame It on Transparency, Tax Notes, Mar. 5, 2007, p. 945 Doc , 2007 TNT Michael Urban and Tim Throndson, FIN 48: Potential Impact of Interest Computations and Penalties, Tax Notes, Feb. 19, 2007, p. 767, Doc , 2007 TNT 35-65; Brett Cohen and Reto Micheluzzi, Lifting the Fog: Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, Tax Notes, Oct. 16, 2006, p. 233, Doc , 2006 TNT
3 unit of account. The example involves four research projects. The company determines that each project should be viewed as a separate unit of account. That determination is based on the size of each research project, the determination that a taxing authority would probably approach the audit on a project basis, and the company s information reporting, which is on a project basis. Presumably, under other circumstances the research projects could be combined into one unit of account or the research expenditures could be viewed on a functional basis and not on a project basis. Second, for each unit of account, the company is directed to determine if allowance of an uncertain tax benefit is more likely than not a typical tax opinion standard. The tax opinion issuer must assume that all the facts are known, all possible legal and factual arguments are made by the best litigants, and the issue is decided by a court of last resort. It should be noted that this legal, opinion-based analytical process operates cleanly for legal questions, which have an all-or-nothing quality. Factual issues such as valuation or section 482 transfer pricing adjustments do not fit well into the classic opinion mode of analysis, but those types of issues may be more comfortably addressed in a FIN 48 context, as discussed below. In resolving the initial question of whether allowance of the tax position is more likely than not, the company is to assume that the tax position will be examined by the relevant taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. Moreover, each tax position must be evaluated on its merits without considering the effects of possible offsets or aggregation with other positions. The final step creates the greatest uncertainty in the application of FIN 48. Once a tax position satisfies the more likely than not standard, the tax position must be measured. The measure prescribed by FIN 48 is the largest amount that is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized on ultimate settlement. Thus, measurement under FIN 48 considers the amounts and probabilities of outcomes that could be realized on ultimate settlement
4 Examples of probability-based approach are in paragraphs A19-A30 of FIN 48. Interest and potential penalties are included as part of the FIN 48 measurement process. 2 FIN 48 does not apply to immaterial items. FIN 48 also contains detailed rules regarding the disclosure of recognized and unrecognized tax benefits. Disclosure is required on a gross basis, not on an issue-by-issue basis. The FIN 48 workpapers, however, would show each uncertain tax position separately. II. Some Issues Involving Application of FIN 48 A. Is Settlement the Only FIN 48 Possibility? FIN 48 suggests, somewhat unhelpfully, that most cases are settled, not litigated to final conclusion. It then states that as a result, the measurement of the tax position is based on management s best judgment of the amount the taxpayer would ultimately accept in a settlement with taxing authorities. FIN 48 also states that the measurement of an uncertain tax benefit comes about when it is likely that the issue will be settled for less than the full amount of the benefit. FIN 48, para. A23. The discussion in FIN 48 of the settlement possibility leaves several questions unanswered. First, and most importantly, does FIN 48 require a settlement assumption in every case? By its terms, FIN 48 does not seem to preclude the possibility that, for a particular issue and taxpayer, litigation may be the only possible result. The reference to a likely settlement leaves open the possibility that FIN 48 does not require the settlement assumption in every case. Suppose a company is committed to litigation of an uncertain tax position. (Some possible reasons for such a commitment are discussed below.) That would mean, at least arguably, no reduction in a claimed uncertain tax benefit under FIN 48. The reason is that, by definition, if a favorable result in litigation is more likely than not to occur and a taxpayer is committed to litigation, there should be no reduction in a claimed but uncertain tax benefit. While it is possible to read FIN 48 as requiring that the company 2 For a specific discussion of some interest-related issues under FIN 48, see Rogers and Andrews and Urban and Throndson, supra note
5 assume that all uncertain tax matters are settled, there is also support for a committed to litigation alternative. 3 The result under either approach (that is, either committed to litigation or mandatory settlement) can probably be considered anomalous at least in part. For example, assume that FIN 48 requires a mandatory settlement approach and that there is a legal issue that is 70 percent in favor of the taxpayer. If the uncertain tax issue will in fact be litigated, it will either be won or lost, but there is still a 70 percent accrual of the uncertain tax benefit under FIN 48, a result that could not possibly be achieved ultimately in litigation. Note also that the mandatory settlement assumption works well for a valuation issue, but it creates problems when there are pure legal issues for which litigation is likely (or certain). However, FIN 48 might reasonably be interpreted to permit a committed to litigation approach. In that event, if the company happens to have 10 uncertain issues, each of which is 70 percent in favor of the company and each of which is committed to litigation, the taxpayer would expect to win seven and lose three. Still, each issue on its own is more likely than not to be won. Consequently, there would be no FIN 48 reserve on all 10 issues because each issue must be viewed separately and each is more likely than not to be won. We also know well, of course, that uncertain tax issues committed to litigation are frequently settled on the eve of trial. Thus, the committed-to-litigation concept appears to have a chimerical quality that undermines its attractiveness. The reasons for a commitment to litigation are many and varied. In some cases, a taxpayer would be willing to settle at 70 percent but the IRS has designated an issue for trial. For that scenario, the committed-to-litigation concept results in no FIN 48 reduction for an uncertain tax benefit. Similarly, a taxpayer may be willing to settle at 70 percent but the IRS may not be willing to go that far. There might be an IRS global settlement offer, for example. In both of those situations, the taxpayer is committed to litigation even though he would willingly settle at a fair level. That seems odd. In the latter type of case, 3 See, e.g., Kimmelfield, supra note 1, at
6 in which the IRS is prepared to settle but the taxpayer hopes to get more, a settlement percentage approach seems to be sensible. Indeed, it might be preferable to require that an acceptable settlement level be used under FIN 48 in every case, regardless of whether or not the company is committed to litigation. B. A TAM Possible Magic Potion? The above discussion assumes that there are only two outcomes: a settlement that takes into account litigating hazards, and a court decision (which turns on a commitment to litigate) that is either win or lose. Suppose, however, that we consider a technical advice memorandum as a third option. A TAM resolves a matter administratively, so no litigation commitment is necessary and the resolution is based on the merits, not on litigating hazards. FIN 48 doesn t seem to recognize the possibility of the third alternative. A cynic could argue that if the issue is more likely than not to favor the taxpayer, the IRS should always rule favorably on a TAM. Indeed, there are many pro-taxpayer TAMs. Hence, if the TAM possibility is reflected in the FIN 48 process, all more likely than not positions would be exempt from any cutback without regard to the prospects for or commitment to litigation. The TAM possibility, if properly recognized under FIN 48, avoids a hazards settlement and results in a 100 percent taxpayer result, thus eliminating any FIN 48 reserve on the issue. We doubt if that potential effect of seeking a TAM was considered or intended in a FIN 48 world. The TAM alternative applies only to legal issues. Fact issues are not subject to a TAM. Once again, FIN 48 appears to operate more smoothly for fact questions than for legal questions. Could it be that there should be different FIN 48 rules for legal issues than for factual issues? C. Multiple Argument Issues The IRS often makes several arguments. Those arguments frequently proceed from independent bases, such as partnership antiabuse rules, step transaction issues, and business purpose designations. If the taxpayer has a 75 percent argument on each of those three issues, the probability of winning the case is 27/64, or a little more than a 42 percent - 5 -
7 chance of winning. Thus, despite having the best of each distinct position, the uncertain tax benefit at least arguably fails the more likely than not standard it is not more likely than not to survive. That seems dubious. A pragmatist would argue that the issues are not really independent 4 and that, in any event, the IRS does not settle issues in that way. If the IRS has several weak arguments, a settlement giving the IRS 25 percent of what it s seeking is almost certainly acceptable even though, analytically, it could be at a much lower level provided all the IRS arguments are truly independent. To prevail, the company would have to win all three arguments. The right answer in practice may be different from the right answer in theory. It is uncertain exactly what FIN 48 requires in those circumstances. D. Road Map Problem and Policy of Restraint One of the most controversial aspects of FIN 48 is the potential for disclosure of the company s FIN 48 workpapers. That issue is acknowledged and addressed in FIN 48. The IRS currently has a policy of restraint on requesting tax accrual workpapers, with recently created exceptions for certain transactions. The IRS s policy of restraint, however, is under review. 5 It may be that, on large matters, the IRS will change its view and begin to ask for FIN 48 workpapers. The IRS s policy of restraint applies only to workpapers. But what about issue spotting? It seems likely that the IRS will begin to ask taxpayers to reveal the uncertain tax positions included in their FIN 48 workpapers not necessarily the workpapers themselves, just an identification of the issues. Issue disclosure is less of a problem than workpaper disclosure, but there can be circumstances in which disclosing an issue also discloses the taxpayer s view of settlement. Thus, if there are five small issues and one big issue, it may not be difficult to figure out the company s view of settlement prospects for the big issue. 4 In Smith v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 350 (1982), the first big straddle case, the IRS argued on sham, economic substance, common-law wash sale, at-risk, and profit motive grounds. The IRS prevailed on the profit motive argument. Most of those arguments, at least in our view, are independent. 5 See reported comments in Sheryl Stratton, FIN 48 Leading IRS to Reconsider Restraint Policy for Workpapers, Tax Notes, Feb. 12, 2007, p. 614, Doc , 2007 TNT
8 E. Privilege There are myriad privilege issues. A simplistic view suggests that, if a tax attorney gives written FIN 48 advice to the company and the advice is then provided to the independent accountants, privilege disappears for both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. We suspect there are a lot of reasons why that view if debatable. F. Foreign Related Issues FIN 48 may have important effects in a multinational context. Consider the following issues. 1. Section 482: transfer price adjustments. Section 482 transfer price adjustments seem to be a good area in which to consider the FIN 48 requirements. There is no single correct transfer price, so some section 482 adjustment is always possible. The competent authority process is supposed to resolve those multinational problems to prevent double taxation, but interest can be a problem even in the competent authority process, and sometimes the competent authorities don t agree. Of course, there can also be circumstances in which the foreign jurisdiction does not have a FIN 48 concept, so the financial books in the two countries will not match. Presumably, a comparison of the two sets of books would shed light on the company s FIN 48 positions. 2. Road map via foreign request for treaty assistance. In a treaty context, a foreign country can ask for information assistance from the U.S. That can lead to several issues. For example, if the foreign country asks for FIN 48 workpapers, will the IRS obtain them to fulfill the foreign country s treaty request? If the foreign country obtains them, will the IRS continue to have a policy of restraint? 6 6 See Audrey Nutt, IRS Admits to Sharing APA Information With Treaty Partners, Tax Notes, Feb. 5, 2007, p. 503, Doc , 2007 TNT
9 G. No Justice Department Policy of Restraint There is no similar policy of restraint at the Justice Department for tax accrual workpapers. Justice is apparently willing to ask for tax accrual workpapers. The Textron case involves this issue. 7 If Justice obtains FIN 48 workpapers, will they be released to the IRS or will they be kept from the IRS? H. Settlement Percentages May Exceed 100 Percent One of the more interesting of the oversimplifications in FIN 48 is the premise that the taxpayer s various settlement options must always sum to 100 percent. They don t or at least they might not in some circumstances depending on how one interprets FIN 48. Here s an example to test that point. Assume there is a tax deferral situation. A company claims on its tax return accelerated deductions in years 1, 2, and 3 and gives the accelerated deductions back in years 4 through 10. It s all even after 10 years. Let s assume the company has a strong legal argument that the deferral is permitted, but allowance is uncertain. Let s assume the taxpayer has a 70 percent chance of prevailing. One way to settle the issue with IRS Appeals would be to give up 30 percent of the tax deferral for each of the first three years, but make correlative adjustments to the restoration amounts over years 4 through 10. Consider, however, another settlement that might have the same present value but potentially different FIN 48 consequences. The company might agree to keep the years 1 and 2 deferrals but to surrender the year 3 deferral in full. Thus, no tax adjustment is made to years 1 and 2, but the larger adjustment in year 3 is roughly equivalent to a settlement. Assume that it s more likely than not that the year 3 settlement alternative would be acceptable to the IRS. Does that suggest that there is no uncertain tax position in year 1? (It is more likely than not that the settlement with IRS Appeals will result in no year 1 adjustment.) A taxpayer might be equally likely to agree to keep the first three years deferral but to surrender all of the remaining deferral in year 4, not years That settlement might be better for the IRS than in the first three 7 United States v. Textron, Case T, United States District Court for Rhode Island, filed April 28, 2006, Doc , 2006 TNT See also Doc , 2006 TNT (Textron brief seeking denial of summons enforcement), and Sheryl Stratton, Privilege Panel Covers Transparency, Textron, FIN 48, Tax Notes, Nov. 13, 2006, p. 617, Doc , 2006 TNT
10 years. As long as FIN 48 does not mandate a simple settlement for each year, the number of potential settlement options is enormous. It should also be noted, as explained above, that FIN 48 precludes a consideration of offsetting or aggregating positions. Is that what is involved here, when the company takes a single issue and considers a potential settlement over a period of years and there is a reasonable possibility that the IRS would accept that approach? In short, there is uncertainty whether the settlement percentages will always add to 100 percent in the simplistic way contemplated by FIN 48. I. Assumed IRS Knowledge: How Expansive? FIN 48 states that you must assume an IRS audit will occur and that the IRS has knowledge of all relevant information. That leaves open some questions. Does it mean the IRS examiner must be assumed to audit the particular uncertain tax issue involved? For example, a particular tax issue may be one that the IRS would not normally review. In a given case, there may have been several audit cycles and the tax issue may never have been reviewed. Also, does FIN 48 require an assumption that all relevant legal arguments will be made? Or does the assumption of all relevant information mean only factual information? The second FIN 48 question regarding settlement prospects is designed to mirror reality, which is why it incorporates a probable settlement, not litigation. The reality is that many potential legal theories are not advanced. In a classic opinion context, which is the first step under FIN 48 for determining whether a tax position is more likely than not, all legal and factual issues are raised and are assumed to be fully and perfectly argued. Is that also the case in the measurement step of FIN 48? If so, FIN 48 should be clarified. Thus, FIN 48 could address a situation in which there is a potential legal argument that could be made by the IRS but that probably will not be made. J. Reduction of FIN 48 Reserve After Audit Suppose there is an IRS audit and the company, on resolution of the audit, substantially restates its FIN 48 uncertain tax positions downward? That would suggest - 9 -
11 that the IRS audit missed an issue. Would that be grounds to open a second IRS audit? 8 Alternatively, in the next audit cycle, will the IRS be inclined to find out what happened to cause a change in the FIN 48 reserve? K. Valuation Issues Consider how the FIN 48 more likely than not standard operates in a pure valuation-type case. One example might be a charitable deduction. There is a simple valuation issue. Is it more likely than not that 100 percent of the charitable deduction would be allowed? In most cases, the answer is no. Is it more likely than not that some charitable deduction would be allowed? In most cases, the answer would be yes. It seems reasonably clear that FIN 48 would apply the more likely than not standard on a gross allowance level and that a pure valuation fight never (or very rarely) triggers a determination that the allowance of even $1 of deduction fails the more likely than not standard. One would have to conclude that it was more likely than not that the allowable charitable deduction was zero. That is not a likely result. In effect, therefore, the two levels of analysis normally involved in FIN 48 are conflated into one level when it is a purely factual issue, for example, a valuation issue. III. Conclusion This discussion suggests that the FIN 48 world is not yet highly developed. Presumably, over time, there will be guidance on these and other FIN 48 matters. 8 The potential for a second IRS audit, assuming that section 7605(b) is complied with, may suggest that the company should not change its FIN 48 position until the statute of limitations has expired
ORIGINAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
Financial Accounting Standards Board ORIGINAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS AMENDED FASB Interpretation No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 Copyright 2010
More informationTAX MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM
TAX MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM Reproduced with permission from Tax Management Memorandum, Vol. 48, No. 8, 04/16/2007. Copyright 2007 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372- 1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationFinancial Accounting Series
Financial Accounting Series NO. 281-B JUNE 2006 FASB Interpretation No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 Financial Accounting Standards Board of
More informationThe IRS Approach to Retroactive Relief for VDP Taxpayers
The IRS Approach to Retroactive Relief for VDP Taxpayers Introduction By Allen J. Littman and Michael W. Nydegger Allen J. Littman is a tax partner in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. Michael
More informationIRS Administrative Appeals Process Procedures
IRS Administrative Appeals Process Procedures Charles P. Rettig Avoiding litigation is often the best choice for a client. The Administrative Appeals process can make it happen. Charles P. Rettig, a partner
More informationETHICS AND STANDARDS OF TAX PRACTICE IN THE NEW AGE OF TRANSPARENCY: FROM SELF-ASSESSMENT TO SELF-AUDIT
ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF TAX PRACTICE IN THE NEW AGE OF TRANSPARENCY: FROM SELF-ASSESSMENT TO SELF-AUDIT Emily A. Parker & Robert D. Probasco Thompson & Knight LLP 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300 Dallas,
More informationAnd as we do our best to understand and manage complexity, some joke that we have gone from complexity to perplexity.
PREPARED REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DOUGLAS SHULMAN NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAXATION SECTION ANNUAL MEETING NEW YORK CITY JANUARY 26, 2010 Thank you for that gracious introduction
More informationCLIENT MEMORANDUM. I. The Basics. June 18, 2013
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FTC v. Actavis: Supreme Court Rejects Bright Line Tests for Reverse Payment Settlements; Complex Questions Remain in Structuring Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Settlements June 18,
More informationSUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR FILING AND PERFECTING PROTECTIVE CLAIMS UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS 20.2053-1
SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR FILING AND PERFECTING PROTECTIVE CLAIMS UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS 20.2053-1 I. BRIEF BACKGROUND by Robin L. Klomparens DISCUSSION IRC 2053(a)(3) states, in relevant part, that,
More informationWHAT TO DO IF THE IRS COMES KNOCKING
WHAT TO DO IF THE IRS COMES KNOCKING USA Risk Group The Whole 9 Yards 9th Annual Executive Educational Services Charlotte, North Carolina Ballantyne Resort & Spa May 22, 2014 GARY BOWERS Johnson Lambert
More informationLifting the fog* Accounting for uncertainty in income taxes
Lifting the fog* Accounting for uncertainty in income taxes Contents Introduction 01 Identifying uncertain tax positions 02 Recognizing uncertain tax positions 03 Measuring the tax benefit 04 Disclosures
More informationAgreement for 2015 S Corporation Income Tax Preparation
Agreement for 2015 S Corporation Income Tax Preparation Dear Client: We will prepare the federal, resident state and city S-corporation income tax returns for for the year ended December 31, 2015 and we
More informationCommodity Futures Trading Commission Commodity Whistleblower Incentives and Protection
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Commodity Whistleblower Incentives and Protection (7 U.S.C. 26) i 26. Commodity whistleblower incentives and protection (a) Definitions. In this section: (1) Covered
More informationFinancial Statements 101 - An Accounting Primer for Tax Attorneys
Financial Statements 101 - An Accounting Primer for Tax Attorneys Devin Simon Clifton Gunderson LLP devin.simon@cliftoncpa.com Jessica Johnson KPMG LLP jessicaljohnson@kpmg.com Dustin Covello Chamberlain,
More informationThe Inside Scoop About the IRS's Appeals Division by David M. Fogel
Page 1 of 7 The Inside Scoop About the IRS's Appeals Division by David M. Fogel David M. Fogel, CPA, offers some helpful advice for practitioners on dealing with the IRS Appeals Division. Date: Jun. 2,
More informationBelgian Dividend Tax Treatment of Nonresidents Illegal, ECJ Says
Volume 68, Number 3 October 15, 2012 Belgian Dividend Tax Treatment of Nonresidents Illegal, ECJ Says by David Mussche Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, October 15, 2012, p. 258 Reprinted from Tax Notes
More informationADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUES IN TAX
Chapter 8 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUES IN TAX ADMINISTRATION Problems identified in previous chapters have often shown up as part of the operation of the tax administration. The pressure created on the operation
More informationDefending Taxpayer Penalties - Audit, Appeals and Litigation Considerations
Walter Doggett, VP Taxes, E*Trade Tom Cullinan, Partner, Sutherland Joe DePew, Partner, Sutherland Defending Taxpayer Penalties - Audit, Appeals and Litigation Considerations 1 Accuracy-Related Penalties
More informationTerms and Conditions for Tax Services
Terms and Conditions for Tax Services In the course of delivering services relating to tax return preparation, tax advisory, and assistance in tax controversy matters, Brady, Martz & Associates, P.C. (we
More informationAlternative tax dispute resolution techniques: Is litigation the only option?
Alternative tax dispute resolution techniques: Is litigation the only option? Moderator: Milan 6 February 2014 Ulrich Raensch (Baker & McKenzie, Frankfurt) Pedro Aguaron (Baker & McKenzie, Barcelona) Richard
More informationProgram History. Prior Law and Policy
Executive Summary Section 7623(b), providing for whistleblower awards, was enacted as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (the Act). For information provided to the Internal Revenue Service
More informationUncertainty in Income Taxes. A Roadmap to Applying Interpretation 48
Uncertainty in Income Taxes A Roadmap to Applying Interpretation 48 Section indicator Descriptor Deloitte Uncertainty in Income Taxes A Roadmap to Applying Interpretation 48 FASB Interpretation No. 48,
More informationCoordinating State and Federal Income Tax Audits
Leah Robinson, Partner Scott Wright, Partner May 21, 2015 Coordinating State and Federal Income Tax Audits 1 State Tax Exam Issues Coordinating Disclosure of Information to IRS and State Tax Authorities
More informationIMPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF TAX TREATY DISPUTES
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT IMPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF TAX TREATY DISPUTES (Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 30 January 2007) February 2007 CENTRE FOR TAX
More informationIRS PROCEDURAL ISSUES
IRS PROCEDURAL ISSUES I. Introduction A. In general, IRS procedural issues involving organizations that are, are seeking to become, or claim to be exempt from Federal income tax are the same as those for
More informationEITF ABSTRACTS. Dates Discussed: June 19 20, 2002; September 11 12, 2002; October 25, 2002; November 21, 2002; March 20, 2003
EITF ABSTRACTS Issue No. 02-3 Title: Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities Dates Discussed:
More informationTHE PARTNER S PERSPECTIVE by Charles R. Levun, Esq.
THE PARTNER S PERSPECTIVE by Charles R. Levun, Esq. Charles R. Levun, JD, CPA, is a Partner in the Chicago-area law firm of Levun, Goodman & Cohen, Adjunct Professor of Law at the IIT Chicago-Kent Graduate
More informationTHE SEC OFFICE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT: HELPFUL HINTS FROM THE SEC ON BECOMING A SUCESSFUL WHISTLEBLOWER BY DANIEL J.
THE SEC OFFICE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT: HELPFUL HINTS FROM THE SEC ON BECOMING A SUCESSFUL WHISTLEBLOWER BY DANIEL J. HURSON The recent release of the SEC s Office of the Whistleblower
More informationCorporate Income Tax: Compiling and Maintaining Audit Files Strategies for Preparing an Effective Record for Federal and State Exams
presents Corporate Income Tax: Compiling and Maintaining Audit Files Strategies for Preparing an Effective Record for Federal and State Exams A Live 110-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A
More informationQualified Settlement Funds: A Quick Guide for Trial Lawyers
Qualified Settlement Funds: A Quick Guide for Trial Lawyers By Jason D. Lazarus, Esq. Introduction Assume you just settled a personal injury case for John Doe who is married to Jane. John has a significant
More informationAvoiding Tax Surprises In Trust And Estate Litigation: Transfer Tax Aspects Of Settlements
Avoiding Tax Surprises In Trust And Estate Litigation: Transfer Tax Aspects Of Settlements Julie K. Kwon A. Introduction 1. Parties negotiating the resolution of their disputes regarding interests in trusts
More informationINSIDE. Implications of the
N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 1 2 3 6 INSIDE Implications of the GlaxoSmithKline Settlement FIN 48 Highlights Issues in Determining Transfer Pricing and Tax Valuation Risks The Services Cost Method of the New
More informationNew United Kingdom Tax on Cross-Border Tax Planning: Diverted Profits Tax
UK CLIENT MEMORANDUM ENGLISH LAW UPDATES New United Kingdom Tax on Cross-Border Tax Planning: Diverted Profits Tax 5 February 2015 AUTHOR Judith Harger Introduction Following heated press coverage and
More informationTax Free Transfer of IRA to Divide Marital Property Revisited: Separation Agreement Must Be Incident To Decree of Divorce
In the October 2007 issue of Family Law News we published an article which reviewed the circumstances under which an Individual Retirement Account might be divided. We now provide you with the following
More informationTHE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education
9 THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Third Party Litigation Funding: Pros, Cons, and How It Works November 1, 2012 Telephone Seminar/Audio Webcast Alternative Litigation Funding Conference
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution Michael Cohen, Chairman Emeritus, The Academy of Experts, Past President, EuroExpert Before even starting to look at ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) it is important
More informationThinking About Controversy at the Planning Stage
Anticipating the Audit Call Thinking About Controversy at the Planning Stage By John W. Porter, Stephanie Loomis-Price, and Charles E. Hodges II Corbis Have you considered the effect of the attorney-client
More informationBreaking Down the Borders Operating Charitable or Tax Exempt Organizations Across the Canada/US Border
ALM500-2011-FA07.qxd 11/22/2010 7:47 PM Page 107 G U I D E T O T H E L E A D I N G 500 L A W Y E R S I N C A N A D A Breaking Down the Borders Operating Charitable or Tax Exempt Organizations Across the
More informationChapter 25. Tax Administration and Practice. Eugene Willis, William H. Hoffman, Jr., David M. Maloney and William A. Raabe
Chapter 25 Tax Administration and Practice Eugene Willis, William H. Hoffman, Jr., David M. Maloney and William A. Raabe Copyright 2004 South-Western/Thomson Learning Tax Administration (slide 1 of 3)
More informationTax Dispute Resolution Services kpmg.com
TAX Tax Dispute Resolution Services kpmg.com 1 Tax Dispute Resolution Services Are you prepared for a federal, state, or local income tax examination? Facing potential double taxation from an adjustment
More informationWhat to Do When the IRS Comes Calling:
Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Las Vegas, NV, September 15, 2011 What to Do When the IRS Comes Calling: Loss Reserves & Other Current Tax Issues Richard Riley Partner Foley & Lardner LLP Washington, D.C.
More informationWOODCRAFT. tax notes. Can You Form a Qualified Settlement Fund With a Judgment? By Robert W. Wood
Can You Form a Qualified Settlement Fund With a Judgment? By Robert W. Wood Robert W. Wood practices law with Wood & Porter in San Francisco (http://www.woodporter.com) and is the author of Taxation of
More informationDoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 5, Chapter 31 August 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 31 DEBT COMPROMISE: SUSPENDING AND TERMINATING COLLECTION ACTIVITY; DEBT WRITE-OFF AND RETENTION 3101 Applicability 3102 Debt Compromise 3103 Suspending and Terminating Collection
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217
JRN UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PEYMON MOTTAHEDEH, D.B.A. FREEDOM LAW SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. Docket No. 12440-10SL. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent OR D E R In an Order And
More informationGOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE DIVISION I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT. TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION. CHAPTER 3B. OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS. SUBCHAPTER
More informationActuarial Standard of Practice No. 23. Data Quality. Revised Edition
Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 23 Data Quality Revised Edition Developed by the General Committee of the Actuarial Standards Board and Applies to All Practice Areas Adopted by the Actuarial Standards
More informationThe Life Cycle of an IRS Audit
The Life Cycle of an IRS Audit By Robert M. Finkel and Diana C. Española mbbp.com Business Technology & IP Employment & Immigration Taxation 781-622-5930 Reservoir Place 1601 Trapelo Road, Suite 205 Waltham,
More informationRECENT CONNECTICUT CASE RAISES THE BAR FOR SMALL BUSINESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 1. Eric L. Green, Esq. Robert J. Percy, Esq.
RECENT CONNECTICUT CASE RAISES THE BAR FOR SMALL BUSINESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 1 CASE ALSO STRUCK COMMISSIONER S JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT Eric L. Green, Esq. Robert J. Percy, Esq. 2 On March 17, 2009,
More information39. Indonesia. International Transfer Pricing 2013/14
39. Indonesia Introduction Indonesia has adopted the arm s-length standard for transactions between related parties. As the tax system is based on self-assessment, the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer,
More informationBig Risks and Disadvantages of Arbitration vs. Litigation
Big Risks and Disadvantages of Arbitration vs. Litigation Aaron Foldenauer, Corporate Counsel July 29, 2014 Three recent high-profile arbitral awards highlight the risks of arbitration and demonstrate
More informationConstraining the cumulative amount of revenue recognised
IASB Agenda ref 7A STAFF PAPER Week of 24 September 2012 FASB IASB Meeting Project Revenue Recognition FASB Education Session 19 September, 2012 IASB Education Session 20 September, 2012 Paper topic Constraining
More informationinsurance specialists
insurance specialists Damming Evidence: Judges Empowered to Restrict the Flow of Expert Evidence July 2012 Wotton + Kearney Insurance Lawyers Sydney Level 5, Aurora Place, 88 Phillip Street, Sydney Telephone
More informationSecurities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection
Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection 15 USC 78u-6 (As added by P.L. 111-203.) 15 USC 78u-6 78u-6. Securities whistleblower incentives and protection (a) Definitions. In this section the following
More informationMatthew Von Schuch. Tax Attorney and CPA
Matthew Von Schuch Tax Attorney and CPA 7 METHODS TO RESOLVE IRS TAX DEBT Offer in Compromise Settling tax debt for less than owed Installment Agreement A payment plan for tax debts Non- Collectable Status
More information"(b) If so, should installation operating funds be used for this purpose?"
\ ~~/ g65-r7 sitj > THE * COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION >½h7;,. OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D. C. 2054B FILE: B-199291 DATE: June 19, 1981 MATTER OF:EEO Regulations - Attorney Fees DIGEST: 1. Title
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT. SARA J. BURNS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No. 11924-04. Filed September 12, 2007.
T.C. Memo. 2007-271 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SARA J. BURNS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11924-04. Filed September 12, 2007. John W. Sunnen, for petitioner. Erin
More informationWhat s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax
What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax IRS Challenges Property and Casualty Policyholder Dividend Deductions Property and casualty insurance companies are allowed a deduction
More informationSample Disclosures Accounting for Income Taxes. February 2015
Sample Disclosures Accounting for Income Taxes February 2015 Contents Use of These Sample Disclosures 1 Management s Discussion and Analysis General 2 MD&A Results of Operations 2 MD&A Critical Accounting
More informationTop 5 TAX ChAllenges And strategies. www.cliftoncpa.com www.vantagepointglobaltax.com
Top 5 TAX ChAllenges And strategies for multinational CompAnies www.cliftoncpa.com www.vantagepointglobaltax.com VantagePoint is a product of U.S. Tax Advantage, an affiliate of Clifton Gunderson. TABle
More informationThe Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
More informationOriginal Issue Discount Accruals for Debt When Collectability is Doubtful
WALL STREET CONCEPTS [Title] WSC BRIEFING Original Issue Discount Accruals for Debt When Collectability is Doubtful IRS Guidance in Technical Advice Memorandum 9538007 and Litigation Guideline Memorandum
More informationSeptember 2011. Tax accounting services: The impact of transfer pricing in financial reporting
September 2011 Tax accounting services: The impact of transfer pricing in financial reporting This publication serves to highlight several important areas of financial reporting that can be affected by
More informationIRS Withholding on Whistleblower Awards Ignites Controversy
IRS Withholding on Whistleblower Awards Ignites Controversy by Jeremiah Coder News that the IRS intends to withhold on tax whistleblower award payments has raised cries of protest from practitioners representing
More informationINCOME TAX ADVANTAGES OF STRUCTURING ATTORNEY FEES IN THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AND WORKER S COMPENSATION SETTLEMENTS
INCOME TAX ADVANTAGES OF STRUCTURING ATTORNEY FEES IN THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AND WORKER S COMPENSATION SETTLEMENTS By John J. Campbell, Esq. Introduction The use of structured settlements to settle third
More informationInquiry of a Client s Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims, and Assessments: Auditing Interpretations of Section 337
Inquiry of a Client s Lawyer 2017 AU Section 9337 Inquiry of a Client s Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims, and Assessments: Auditing Interpretations of Section 337 1. Specifying Relevant Date in an
More informationSETTLEMENT GUIDELINES. Claim Revenue Under A Long-Term Contract
SETTLEMENT GUIDELINES Claim Revenue Under A Long-Term Contract STATEMENT OF ISSUE Whether a taxpayer must include "claim revenue" in the total contract price in determining the gross income from a long-term
More informationINTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING (UK AND IRELAND) 540
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING (UK AND IRELAND) 540 AUDITING ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES, INCLUDING FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES, AND RELATED DISCLOSURES (Effective for audits of financial statements for
More informationBankruptcy plan doesn t toll time limit for asbestos claims
Bankruptcy plan doesn t toll time limit for asbestos claims Ruling makes it tougher to tap debtor s liability policy By: Pat Murphy February 19, 2015 The terms of an asbestos manufacturer s bankruptcy
More informationWhat Is Small Claims Court? What Types Of Cases Can Be Filed In Small Claims Court? Should I Sue? Do I Have the Defendant s Address?
SMALL CLAIMS COURT What Is Small Claims Court? Nebraska law requires that every county court in the state have a division known as Small Claims Court (Nebraska Revised Statute 25-2801). Small Claims Court
More informationControl Number: 38339. Item Number : 301. Addendum StartPage : 0
Control Number: 38339 Item Number : 301 Addendum StartPage : 0 301 SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-10-5001 DOCKET NO. 38339 APPLICATION OF CENTERPOINT BEFORE THE ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC STATE OFFICE OF,m{ FOR
More informationDEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK CREDIT CARD DISCLOSURES. This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate.
(DSNB180TC122315) (PL068) DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK CREDIT CARD DISCLOSURES Interest Rates and Interest Charges Annual Percentage Rate 24.75% * (APR) for Purchases Store Accounts This APR will vary
More informationwww.pwc.com Current issues in income tax accounting (US GAAP & IFRS)
www.pwc.com Current issues in income tax accounting (US GAAP & IFRS) May 16, 2012 Agenda Introductions Basic overview of the model Uncertain tax positions Unremitted foreign earnings Special topics (Intraperiod
More informationWhy a Floating Exchange Rate Regime Makes Sense for Canada
Remarks by Gordon Thiessen Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain Montreal, Quebec 4 December 2000 Why a Floating Exchange Rate Regime Makes Sense for Canada
More informationFIN 48: What Every Nonprofit Needs to Know
FIN 48: What Every Nonprofit Needs to Know Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, Esq. Matthew T. Journy, Esq. Association of Corporate Counsel Nonprofit Organizations Committee Legal Quick Hit January 12, 2010, 3:00-3:30
More informationSecured Lender Primes Earlier Federal Tax Lien in Fourth Circuit Split Decision
Alert Secured Lender Primes Earlier Federal Tax Lien in Fourth Circuit Split Decision November 19, 2014 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on Oct. 31, 2014, held in a split decision that
More informationSECURING AND ENHANCING INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE MEDIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS. Lawrence M. Watson, Jr.
SECURING AND ENHANCING INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE MEDIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS Lawrence M. Watson, Jr. INTRODUCTION Without question, active and engaged involvement by relevant insurance
More informationBEPS within the EU Framework Compatibility and Implementation
Univ.-Prof. DDr. Georg Kofler, LL.M. (NYU) BEPS within the EU Framework Compatibility and Implementation CFE Forum 2014 Policies for a Sustainable Tax Future Thursday, 27 March 2014 1 BEPS Report Addressing
More informationEffective Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies
Tax Executives Institute: Audits and Appeals Effective Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies Gary Hook Chevron Corporation (Moderator) Julia Kazaks Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP David
More informationARIZONA TITLE 12 - COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, CHAPTER 20, STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS, ARTICLE 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS
12-2901. Definitions ARIZONA TITLE 12 - COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, CHAPTER 20, STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS, ARTICLE 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Annuity
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
NO CV 03 0519616S LAURA A. GAVIGAN, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : NEW BRITAIN COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : FEBRUARY 20, 2004 NO CV 03 0519924S DENNIS M. GAVIGAN : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX
More informationInsurance Coverage Issues for Products Manufactured by Foreign Companies
Insurance Coverage Issues for Products Manufactured by Foreign Companies James S. Carter August 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. COVERAGE PROVISIONS...1 A. Duty to Defend...1 B. Duty
More informationWhat to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration
What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819
More informationExcess Benefit Transactions Under Section 4958 And Revocation Of Tax-Exempt Status
Excess Benefit Transactions Under Section 4958 And Revocation Of Tax-Exempt Status Originally published in the Spring 2009 issue of The Practical Tax Lawyer, published by ALI-ABA in cooperation with the
More informationManaging IRS Examinations: Large Business and International Taxpayers
Managing IRS Examinations: Large Business and International Taxpayers A Discussion of the New LB&I Structure and its Impact on Audits Prepared by: Patti Burquest, Washington National Tax patti.burquest@mcgladrey.com
More informationInternational Tax Developments Inbound Update. By Robert A. Chaves, Esq. Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher P.A.
International Tax Developments Inbound Update By Robert A. Chaves, Esq. Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher P.A. I. Legislative/Statutory Updates A. Suspension of Three Year Assessment Limitation
More information2015 TAX COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
2015 TAX COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE CONFLICTS AND CHAOS: THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY RECOGNIZING AND MANAGING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND RELATED PROBLEMS IN TAX LITIGATION Discussion Hypotheticals May 22, 2015
More informationMANUAL ON EFFECTIVE MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURES (MEMAP)
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL ON EFFECTIVE MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCEDURES (MEMAP) February 2007 Version CENTRE FOR TAX POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION MANUAL ON EFFECTIVE MUTUAL
More informationFebruary 12, 2002 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE NATIONAL OFFICE FIELD SERVICE ADVICE MEMORANDUM FOR ASSOCIATE AREA COUNSEL (FINANCIAL SERVICES)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL February 12, 2002 Number: 200212030 Release Date: 3/22/2002 CC:CORP:4/POSTS-162257-01 UILC: 302.00-00,
More informationTHE IRS APPEALS PROCESS: A PRIMER IN RESOLVING FEDERAL TAX DISPUTES WITHOUT LITIGATION
THE IRS APPEALS PROCESS: A PRIMER IN RESOLVING FEDERAL TAX DISPUTES WITHOUT LITIGATION B and Lee Meyercord 1 When faced with a Revenue Agent s Report ( RAR ), a taxpayer may file a protest within 30 days
More informationAMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS COMMENTS ON ANNOUNCEMENTS 2010-9, 2010-17, AND 2010-30 WITH REGARD TO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS COMMENTS ON ANNOUNCEMENTS 2010-9, 2010-17, AND 2010-30 WITH REGARD TO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE IRS June 1, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the
More informationDAVIS SMITH ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATES, P.A.
DAVIS SMITH ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATES, P.A. 5582 Milford-Harrington Hwy. Harrington, DE 19952 (302) 398-4020 (302) 398-3665 fax Email: info@davis-smithaccounting.com Web site: www.davis-smithaccounting.com
More informationCOURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR EXPERTS
COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR EXPERTS Justice Peter Biscoe 1. It is a pleasure to present this paper to the Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand s Professional Environmental Practice
More informationSAN FRANCISCO AMENDS BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE BOARD OF REVIEW ELIMINATED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFUNDS INCREASED AND MUCH MORE. Tax March 26, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO AMENDS BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE BOARD OF REVIEW ELIMINATED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFUNDS INCREASED AND MUCH MORE Tax On February 19, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom approved recent
More informationProvisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets
559 Accounting Standard (AS) 29 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets Contents OBJECTIVE SCOPE Paragraphs 1-9 DEFINITIONS 10-13 RECOGNITION 14-34 Provisions 14-25 Present Obligation
More informationCase 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., ) ) No: 06-701-MJR-DGW Plaintiffs,
More informationLegal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation
Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation by charlene m. morrow and dargaye churnet 1. Who enforces a patent? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants a patent. Contrary to popular belief, a patent
More informationOffer in Compromise Application Guide
Offer in Compromise Application Guide How To Avoid The Most Common Reasons For IRS Offer in Compromise Rejection Presented to you by: http://aaataxaccountants.com About Offers in Compromise The Offer in
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationSub. H.B. 9 * 126th General Assembly (As Reported by H. Civil and Commercial Law)
Aida S. Montano Bill Analysis Legislative Service Commission Sub. H.B. 9 * 126th General Assembly (As Reported by H. Civil and Commercial Law) Reps. Oelslager, Flowers, Buehrer, White, Trakas BILL SUMMARY
More informationDEBT FORGIVENESS AND MODIFICATION: A Primer for the Non-tax Attorney. Wayne R. Johnson, Esq. 1
DEBT FORGIVENESS AND MODIFICATION: A Primer for the Non-tax Attorney by Wayne R. Johnson, Esq. 1 The last two years have been trying to say the least. The dot-com implosion and the events of September
More information