Friday, February 17, 2012
- Administrative Practice: The Administrative Procedure Act and Tax Administration: How Does it Apply? What Is the Debate? What Do Tax Professionals Need to Know? -- Kristin Hickman (Minnesota)
- Bankruptcy & Workouts: Acquisition of Troubled Corporations -- Don Leatherman (Tennessee)
- Diversity: Could 9-9-9 Ever Really Work? Considering Alternative Taxation Structures on the Road to a Fairer, Simpler Tax System -- Linda Beale (Wayne State), Julie Manasfi (Whittier)
- Employee Benefits: Employee Benefits Distributions Update -- Kathryn J. Kennedy (John Marshall)
- Exempt Organizations: The Future of the Charitable Deduction -- Ellen P. Aprill (Loyola-L.A.)
- Foreign Activities of US Taxpayers: Foreign Tax Credits -- Mark S. Hoose (San Diego)
- Insurance Companies: DOMA vs. the States, with Tax Rules in the Middle -- Patricia Cain (Santa Clara)
- Partnerships & LLCs: Hola, Ni Hao, Shalom, Say Hello to Your Foreign Partner -- Noel P. Brock, (West Virginia)
Thursday, February 16, 2012
- Erica L. Brady (The Ferraro Law Firm, Washington, D.C.)
- Matthew J. Eickman (Utz, Miller & Eickman, Overland Park, KS)
- Jon Finkelstein (McDermott, Will & Emery, Washington, D.C.)
- Cathy Fung (IRS Office of Chief Counsel. Washington, D.C.)
- Ivan H. Golden (Schiff Hardin, Chicago)
- Rachel L. Partain (Caplin & Drysdale, New York)
Named for the late Jack Nolan, a dedicated and respected Tax Section member, the distinction is awarded to young lawyers who are actively involved in the Section and have shown leadership qualities. Each one-year fellowship includes waived Meeting registration fees and assistance with travel to some Section meetings.
The ABA Tax Section midyear meeting kicks off today in San Diego. With the opening of the meeting came news of the death of Stuart Lewis (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Washington, D.C.), Chair of the ABA Tax Section in 2009-10. Mr. Lewis (B.A. 1967, Virginia; J.D. 1970, Virginia), was an Adjunct Professor in Georgetown's Graduate Tax Program; Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and American College of Tax Counsel; and Member of the Board of Advisors of the Virginia Tax Review and NYU Law School. From the memorandum released to Section Members:
Stuart contributed greatly to the work of the Section and to the administration of the tax system. He had a witty, dry sense of humor and even through trying times had a twinkle in his eye. He cared about the next generation of tax lawyers and was always willing to lend a helping hand. We admire his courage and we extend our condolences to his wife, Bronwen, and his family. In keeping with Stuart's wishes, his immediate family plans to spread his ashes on the family farm in Culpeper, Virginia. A funeral service will not be held.
In place lieu of flowers, the family requests that those who wish to make donations please support the following:
(Hat Tip: Francine Lipman.)
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
- Pro Bono Matters: Still Fighting the War on Poverty, by Francine Lipman (Chapman), pp. 1, 23-24
- From the Chair, by William M. Paul (Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.), p. 3
- Interview: Douglas L. Lindholm, by Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C.) & Alan J.J. Swirski (Skadden, Washington, D.C.), pp. 4-8
- Points to Remember: Protecting Yourself and Your Client in a Joint Defense Arrangement, by Rachel L. Partain (Caplin & Drysdale, New York), pp. 9-10
- Points to Remember: The New Voluntary Classification Settlement Program, by Robb A. Longman (McMillan Metro, Rockville, MD), pp. 11-12
- Points to Remember: Recent Developments Affecting Employee Benefit Plans, by David Pratt (Albany), pp. 12-13
- Points to Remember: Don’t Forget to Review the Interest, by T. Angie Napier (KPMG, Atlanta), pp. 13-14
- Opinion Point: Will Section 199 Stand the Test of Time?, by Vlad Frants (New York), pp. 15-16
- Special Report: Social Security Benefits 101: The Windfall Elimination Provision, by Francine J. Lipman (Chapman) & James E. Williamson (San Diego State), pp. 17-22
- Tax Bites Revisits the 1986 Act Era, by Gail L. Richmond (Nova), p. 25
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 26
- Career Resources, p. 27
- CLE Calendar, p. 30
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The ABA Tax Section has submitted a comment letter to the House Ways & Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, Options for Tax Reform Relating to Partnerships (18 pages), on these topics:
- Partners as Employees
- Income from Self-Employment of Limited Partners
- Hot Assets Under Section 751(b)
- Section 465 At-Risk Rules
- Section 708(b)(1)(B) Technical Termination
- Section 197(f)(9) Antu-CHurning Rules
- Expand section 108(e)(6) to Cover Partnerships
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
- Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Raleigh, NC), Circular Cash Flows and the Federal Income Tax, 64 Tax Law. 535 (2011)
- Charles I. Kingson (NYU), Risk, Ownership, Equity: 2011 Erwin N. Griswold Lecture, 64 Tax Law. 635 (2011)
- Mark Leeds (Greenberg Traurig, New York), A Riff on Cliff: Calloway and Anschutz Expand Tax Ownership Authorities from Debt to Equities, 64 Tax Law. 657 (2011)
- Anisa Afshar (J.D. 2012, Georgetown), Comment, The Statute of Limitations for the TEFRA Partnership Proceedings: The Interplay Between Section 6229 and Section 6501, 64 Tax Law. 701 (2011)
- Megan Newman (J.D. 2012, Georgetown), Comment, The Low-Income Tax Gap: The Hybrid Nature of the Earned Income Tax Credit Leads to Its Exclusion from Due Process Protection, 64 Tax Law. 719 (2011)
- Danielle Gill (J.D. 2012, Georgetown), Note, Something Rotten in the Netherlands: The Case of X and Passenheim-van Schoot and the Demise of EU Taxpayer Rights Under the EU Treaty, 64 Tax Law. 747 (2011)
- Shannon Tucker (J.D. 2012, Georgetown), Note, Recognizing Roth IRAs as S Corporation Shareholders: A Critique of Taproot v. Commissioner, 64 Tax Law. 765 (2011)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
- Points to Remember: The Service Abandons Two-Year Limit to File for Equitable Innocent Spouse Relief, by Carlton M. Smith (Cardozo), pp. 1, 10-12
- From the Chair, by William M. Paul (Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.), p. 3
- Interview: N. Jerold Cohen, by Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C.) & Alan J.J. Swirski (Skadden, Washington, D.C.), pp. 4-6
- Pro Bono Matters: A Chain Is Only As Strong As Its Weakest Link, by Francine Lipman (Chapman), pp. 7-8
- Book Review: A Practitioner’s Guide to Innocent Spouse Relief: Proven Strategies for Winning Section 6015 Tax Cases (by Robert B. Nadler), reviewed by Mark Westlake (Gullett Sanford Robinson & Martin, Nashville, TN), p. 9
- Points to Remember: Cohen: Hard Case Makes (Semi) Bad Law, by Steve R. Johnson (Florida State), pp. 12-14
- Points to Remember: More Mayo Please? Temporary Regulations After Mayo Foundation v. United States, by Leandra Lederman (Indiana) & Michael M. Mazza (Kansas), pp. 15-16
- Identity Theft in Tax Administration, pp. 17-19
- CLE Calendar, p. 20
- Tax Bites Sings Again, pp. 21-22
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 22
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
As part of National Pro Bono Celebration Week, the ABA Tax Section is offering three webcasts this week:
Tax Court Controversy: The Nuts and Bolts of Pro Bono Representation (Oct. 25)
U.S. Tax Court Pro Bono Programs (Oct. 26)
Federal Income Tax Issues Facing Unauthorized Workers and Their Families (Oct. 27)
Saturday, October 22, 2011
- Employee Benefits and Employee Benefits Group: Ethics Issues in Employee Benefits -- Andrew M. Perlman (Suffolk)
- Low Income Taxpayers: Benefits and Pitfalls of Advanced Pre-Refund Compliance Checks -- Keith Fogg (Villanova), Scott Schumacher (U. Washington)
- Pro Bono: Identity Theft vs. Fourth Amendment and Taxpayer Privacy Rights: The Case of Amalia’s Translation and Tax Services in Greeley, CO -- Francine J. Lipman (UNLV)
- Pro Bono: Update on Pro Bono Matters -- Francine J. Lipman (UNLV)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: Check-the-Box Bramblett -- Bradley T. Borden (Brooklyn)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: Non-§1031 Current Developments -- Erik M. Jensen (Case Western)
- Section Program: Next Generation Disputes in the Family Business: Navigating the Remedial, Ethical and Tax Quagmires -- A Case Study -- Mark J. Loewenstein (Colorado)
- Section Program: Representing Your Client Before the Tax Court -- Keith Blair (District of Columbia), Jack Snyder (Baltimore)
Friday, October 21, 2011
- Administrative Practice: Taxpayer Reliance on “Formal” and “Informal” IRS Guidance -- Kristin Hickman (Minnesota)
- Affiliated & Related Corporations: Consolidated Section 382 and the SR LY Rules: Can They Be Refined and Simplified? -- Don Leatherman (Tennessee)
- Court Procedure & Practice: Common Evidentiary Issues in Tax Cases -- Joni Larson (Thomas Cooley)
- Employee Benefits Distributions Update -- Kathryn J. Kennedy (John Marshall)
- Exempt Organizations and Charitable Planning & Organizations: Gift Tax on Transfers to Section 501(c)(4) Organizations -- Ellen P. Aprill (Loyola-L.A.)
- Individual & Family Taxation: IRS Collection -- Is the Pendulum in the Right Place? -- Scott A. Schumacher (U. Washington)
- Standards of Tax Practice: Recent Amendments to Circular 230 and Their Potential Impact on Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings -- Linda M. Beale (Wayne State)
- Task Force on Patenting Tax Strategies -- Ellen P. Aprill (Loyola-L.A.)
- Tax Practice Management: Ethics in Estate Planning -- Michael B. Lang (Chapman)
- Teaching Taxation: Three Views of Supreme Court Tax Jurisprudence -- Adam S. Chodorow (Arizona State), Charlotte Crane (Northwestern), Nancy Staudt (USC)
- Young Lawyers Forum & Diversity: Critical Tax Theory: The Impact of the Tax Code on Traditionally Subordinated Groups -- Anthony C. Infanti (Pittsburgh), Francine J. Lipman (UNLV)
Monday, October 17, 2011
Congress uses the income tax to regulate. Because states impose their own income taxes on the federally-defined income tax base, rather than on separately determined state tax bases, states automatically import federal policies into their own tax systems. But federal tax policies reflect national, not local, political choices. This Article calls attention to the practice of tax base conformity and to its advantages and drawbacks. Conformity conserves legislative, administrative, and judicial resources, and it reduces taxpayers’ compliance burdens. At the same time, however, conforming states cede tax autonomy to the federal government, thereby exposing themselves to revenue volatility stemming from the ever-changing federal tax law. Additionally, conformity jeopardizes the values served by federalism, including regulatory competition, diffusion of power, promotion of local values and policy preferences, and policy experimentation. Conformity also imports the defects of the federal tax base into state tax law. While the significant administrative and compliance advantages of federal-state tax base conformity suggest that it is here to stay, this Article makes recommendations for reducing its adverse impacts and for further study.
Kirk J. Stark (UCLA) is the commentator.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Applications must be received by November 1, 2011 to be considered. Applicants selected for interviews will be invited to attend the Section’s meeting in on February 16-18, 2012, and asked to participate in interviews on February 18, 2012.
Monday, October 10, 2011
The award may be based upon any of the following criteria:
- Handling a significant number of tax controversies for low-income taxpayers on a pro bono basis over an extended period of time, or intensive involvement over a limited time with significant impact
- Voluntarily forming, operating or participating in organizations, such as low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs) devoted to representation of low-income taxpayers, particularly if such participation is over an extended period
- Formation, supervision and participation in programs to assist tax controversies, including “attorney of the day” programs for the Tax Court
- Mentoring law students and other individuals who work for LITCs
- Preparation of resource materials for LITCs and other low-income programs
- Providing pro bono legal assistance to tax-exempt organizations, especially those formed to help low-income taxpayers
Please submit nominations on the online nomination form by November 14, 2011.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Vice Chairs Catherine B. Engell (DLA Piper LLP, NY, NY) and Brian David Yacker (Long Beach, CA) join me in welcoming you to the Pro Bono Committee Website!
As the new Chair of the Pro Bono Committee I am hopeful that we can make this website "the go to link" for all of your tax Pro Bono matters, concerns, issues, thoughts, dreams and goals. Toward that goal I hope you will send any and all of your relevant materials to me for posting and broad distribution.
As you know the ABA - Section of Taxation is over 20,000 strong!! Therefore, we have an amazing team, network of deep and broad resources that can make a difference in the lives of everyday people across America. I have volunteered to serve in this role, because I know that it is an enormous privilege and pleasure to give to others especially something as extraordinary as our tax training and skills. As a law professor I bear witness almost every day to the steep learning curve and complexity inherent in our tax systems. This committee is a bridge between the haves and the have nots. I welcome and encourage your participation in any capacity. So please send me any and all of your suggestions, ideas, problems and solutions via email at Francine.Lipman@UNLV.edu
Francine J. Lipman
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
- Bradley T. Borden (Brooklyn) & Douglas L. Longhofer (Martin Pringle, Wichita, KS), The Liability-Offset Theory of Peracchi, 64 Tax Law. 237 (2011)
- Douglas A. Kahn (Michigan), The Taxation of a Gift or Inheritance from an Employer, 64 Tax Law. 273 (2011)
- Robert P. Rothman (Akin Gump, New York), Tax Opinion Practice, 64 Tax Law. 301 (2011)
- Andrew Walker (Milbank, New York), The Submerged Logic of “Doing Business” and Attribution: Diving Below the Surface of the Offshore Lending “GLAM”, 64 Tax Law. 405 (2011)
- Brea E. L’Heureux (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, Why Common Law Calculus Failed: An Analysis of the Economic Substance Doctrine in Klamath Strategic Investment Fund v. United States, 64 Tax Law. 471 (2011)
- Joseph McCain (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, United States v. Fletcher: Through the Lens of Section 83 Applied to Restricted Stock Accounts, 64 Tax Law. 489 (2011)
- Michael Pih (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, A (Federal) Civil Action: When the Tax Injunction Act and Comity Bar Federal Court Jurisdiction, 64 Tax Law. 503 (2011)
- John O. Sawyko (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, The Tax Practitioner–Client Privilege: Valero’s Shortcomings and a Better Approach, 64 Tax Law. 519 (2011)
Friday, August 19, 2011
- Points to Remember: How Pro Bono Tax Professionals Can Help Low Income Taxpayers Claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, by Kate Leifeld (Staff Attorney, Pine Tree Legal Assistance Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic, Bangor, ME), pp. 1, 21-23
- Section Meeting Calendar, p. 2
- From the Chair, by Charles H. Egerton (Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, Orlando), pp. 3-4
- From the Chair-Elect, by William M. Paul (Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.), pp. 5-6
- Letter to the Editor by Sen. Charles Grassley, p. 6
- Interview with Kees van Raad, by Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C.) & Alan J.J. Swirski (Skadden, Washington, D.C.), pp. 7-9
- Opinion Point: Are Criminal Fines "Collected Proceeds"?, by Erica L. Brady (The Ferraro Law Firm, Washington, D.C.), pp. 10-11
- 2011 Distinguished Serive Award Recipient: Jerold N. Cohen, by Stanley L. Blend (Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, San Antonio, TX), pp. 12-13
- 2010 Law Student Tax Challenge Bench Briefs, pp. 14-18
- Pro Bono Matters: Access to Justice for Underserved Taxpayers, by Peter A. Lowy (Shell Oil Co., Houston, TX), pp. 19-21
- Point to Remember: An EITC Case Study, by Rodney A. Lake (Eaton Peabody, Bangor, ME), pp. 23-24
- Tax Bites: Sing Along With Tax Bites, p. 25
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 26
- CLE Calendar, p. 26
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
In these Comments, we identify certain specific areas in which the regulations do not adequately address inconsistencies between the mechanical rules and the purposes underlying § 355(d), and we request new guidance to eliminate these inconsistencies.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
As requested in Notice 2011-39, the ABA Section of Taxation has identified the following tax issues that we recommend be addressed through Regulations, rulings or other published guidance in 2011-2012. In each case, the name and contact information for a representative of the committee making the suggestion are provided.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The final Regulations included significant changes with regard to which there was no opportunity to comment. We believe that some of the changes may have unintended negative consequences. Specifically, the removal of references to the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) is of concern.
Friday, June 10, 2011
The chair of the ABA Section of Taxation, unfazed by the prospect of losing 22% of the section's membership -- which occurred after the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 -- said June 9 that the tax code is in desperate need of another overhaul.
"The goal that Congress ought to have is to put as many of us out of business as possible. Now I say that with full confidence that it's not going to happen," said Charles H. Egerton. Although Congress may stop short of completely restructuring the code, he said, "we'll have to reinvent ourselves. That's a price we need to be willing to pay."
All Tax Analysts content is available through the LexisNexis® services.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
- Tax Link Live: What If Uncle Jim Is Undr Audit or Your Client Wants to Give You a Porsche? Ethical Issues When There Is a Personal Connection with a Client, by Lance E. Rothenberg (Hodgson & Ross, New York, NY), pp. 1, 24-25
- Section Meeting Calendar, p. 2
- From the Chair, by Charles H. Egerton (Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, Orlando), pp. 3, 26
- Report of the Nominating Committee, p. 4
- Letter to the Editor, p. 4
- Interview with Grover Norquist, by Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C.) & Alan J.J. Swirski (Skadden, Washington, D.C.), pp. 5-10
- Points to Remember: Do Treasury and the Service have to Explain Their Choices?, by Steve R. Johnson (UNLV), pp. 11-13
- Points to Remember: The Service Traces Clearer Definitions in the Proposed Regulations on “Publicly Traded” Debt Instruments, by A.J. Picchione (KPMG, Boston, MA), pp. 13-15
- Points to Remember: Is Your Client Planning to Expatriate? Why the HEART Act May Cause a Change of Heart, by Vlad Frants (J.D. & M.S.T., New York Law School), pp. 15-16
- Points to Remember: Mayo v. United States: Treasury Earns Chevron Deference, by Matthew R. Sontag (KPMG, Houston, TX), pp. 17-18
- Opinion Point: The Time for Tax Reform Is Now, by Chris Pietruszkiewicz (LSU), pp. 19-21
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 21
- Pro Bono Matters: "Be the Change You Want to See in the World", by Francine J. Lipman (Chapman), pp. 22-23
- 2010 Member Survey Results, pp. 27-28
- Tax Bites: Tax: That Three Letter Hour Letter Word, p. 28
- CLE Calendar, p. 29
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 30
Saturday, May 7, 2011
“Jerry Cohen is an outstanding and committed tax lawyer,” said Charles Egerton, chair of the Section of Taxation. “His work in the tax profession and his public service to the tax system and to the broader community is an inspiration to all. Jerry has achieved the highest levels of success in the profession, and respect among his peers. He continues to work toward improving the legal system and to mentor and inspire young lawyers.”
- Foreign Lawyers Forum: Exploring the Terrain of Territorial Exemption Systems -- Stephen Shay (Harvard)
- Low Income Taxpayers: Opening Remarks by the Chair: Kathryn Sedo (Minnesota)
- Low Income Taxpayers: What's Next? -- Kristin Hickman (Minnesota), Kathryn Sedo (Minnesota), Carlton Smith (Cardozo)
- Pro Bono: Update on Projects -- Francine Lipman (Chapman)
- Pro Bono: Role of the National Taxpayer Advocate -- Leslie Book (Vilanova), Bryan Camp (Texas Tech)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: Non-§ 1031 Current Developments -- Erik Jensen (Case Western)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: Section 1031 Developments -- Brad Borden (Brooklyn)
Friday, May 6, 2011
- Banking and Savings Institutions, Financial Transactions, Insurance Companies, Investment Management and Tax Exempt Financing Committees Luncheon --Richard Harvey (Villanova)
- Bankruptcy & Workouts: IRS Expense Standards -- Kristin Hickman (Minnesota)
- Court Procedure & Practice: Common Evidentiary Issues In Tax Cases -- Joni Larson (Thomas Cooley)
- Employee Benefits Distributions Update -- Kathryn Kennedy (John Marshall)
- Financial Transactions: Upfront Payments: Cash Without Taxation? -- Dana Trier (Miami)
- Individual and Family Taxation: Divorce Taxation -- Patricia Cain (Santa Clara), David Rice (Pomona)
- Individual and Family Taxation: Tax Simplification: Individuals and Families -- Adam Chodorow (Arizona State), Martin McMahon (Florida)
- Partnerships & LLCs: To Book-Up, or Not to Book-Up, That is the Question -- Howard Abrams (Emory)
- Standards of Tax Practice: Ethical Implications of DOJ Decision Not to Enforce the “Defense of Marriage Act” -- Linda Beale (Wayne State)
- Standards of Tax Practice: Resolved: That the Standards for Tax Return Positions of Circular 230 Section 10.34 Should Conform in All Respects to the Standards Prescribed by § 6694 -- Linda Beale (Wayne State)
- Task Force on Patenting Tax Strategies -- Ellen Aprill (Loyola-L.A.) (Co-Chair)
- Tax Policy and Simplification: Opening Remarks by Chair -- Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan)
- Tax Policy and Simplification: Tax Reform and Deficit Reduction: Proposals, Implementation, and Policy Considerations, Part I (Administrative and Legislative Perspectives) -- John Buckley (Georgetown), Jonathan Forman (Oklahoma)
- Tax Policy and Simplification: Tax Reform and Deficit Reduction: Proposals, Implementation, and Policy Considerations, Part II (Policy Commentary) -- Mona Hymel (Arizona), David Cay Johnston (Syracuse), Martin McMahon (Florida)
- Teaching Taxation: Opening Remarks by the Chair -- Tracy Kaye (Seton Hall)
- Young Lawyers Forum & Diversity; The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Internal Revenue Code -- Patricia Cain (Santa Clara)
Thursday, May 5, 2011
- Points to Remember: What Is the Value of a “Should” Opinion?, by Kathryn Morrison Sneade (Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D.C.), pp. 1, 15
- Section Meeting Calendar, p. 2
- From the Chair: A Renewed Call for Tax Simplification, by Charles H. Egerton (Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, Orlando), p. 3
- Interview with Dan Rostenkowski, by Jasper L. Cummings, Jr. (Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C.) & Alan J.J. Swirski (Skadden, Washington, D.C.), pp. 4-7
- Special Report: Update on Employee Benefits and Retirement Plans:
- Employee Benefit Plans: Recent Developments, by David Pratt (Albany), pp. 8-10
- Some Immediate and Long-Term Advantages of a Roth IRA Conversion, by William K.S. Wang (UC-Hastings), pp. 10-12
- In-Plan Roth Conversions, by Scott D. McMillen (Ernst & Young, Cleveland), pp. 12-14
- Points to Remember: Just A Matter of Fairness -- Tax Consequences of the Service’s Revised Community Property Treatment of California Registered Domestic Partners (RDPs), by Francine J. Lipman Chapman) & Rebecca J. Kipper (Chapman), pp. 16-18
- Government Submissions Boxscore, p. 18
- Book Review: Why Every Lawyer Needs the New Edition of Employee vs. Independent Contractor Guidebook, by Jonathan R. Flora (Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia) (reviewing Legal Guide to Independent Contractor Status (5th ed. 2010) by Robert W. Wood), pp. 18-19
- 10th Annual Law Student Tax Challenge, pp. 19-20
- Tax Bites: Tax Bites Takes Another Law School Exam, p. 21
- CLE Calendar, p. 24
- Low Income Taxpayers Representation Workshop: Communicating by Mail with the IRS -- Keith Fogg (Villanova)
- Low Income Taxpayers Representation Workshop: Face to Face Meetings in Audits and Appeals, including CDP Hearings -- Diana Leyden (UConn), Kathryn Sedo (Minnesota)
- Low Income Taxpayers Representation Workshop: IRS E-Services -- George Willis (Chapman)
Francine Lipman (Chapman) is spearheading an effort on behalf of the Pro Bono Committee to have ABA Tax Section members work with local organizations today in providing free tax assistance to D.C. area residents. For more details or to volunteer, email Francine.
- Proposed Regs on Domestic Series Organization Series (Apr. 29, 2011)
- Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as Grandfathered Plan (Mar. 22, 2011)
- IRS Funding (Mar. 16, 2011)
- The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Offset Provisions Relating to Beneficiaries of Trusts (Feb. 14, 2011)
- Draft Form 8939, Allocation of Increases in Basis for Property Acquired From a Decedent (Jan. 31, 2011)
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thousands of Innocent Spouse claims are filed each year -- this comprehensive and concisely written guide provides you with the framework for representing your client successfully. In straightforward language, the Guide takes you step-by-step through the Innocent Spouse claim process, from information gathering, to administrative proceedings, to determination, to trial, and to refund relief. Learn:
- How to advise clients going through a divorce on whether to file a joint or a separate return.
- How to represent the client who did not meet his or her "duty to inquire" when he or she signed the return.
- When to argue duress and when to argue abuse in innocent spouse cases.
- When the IRS can grant innocent spouse relief even though the tax is attributable to your client's income.
- When it might be in your client's best interests to oppose the IRS granting relief.
- When it is possible to file a claim for innocent spouse relief after the two-year limitations period has expired.
- How to use discovery to identify which equitable relief factors are in dispute.
- When to file a motion to shift the burden of proof to the IRS.
- How to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees in innocent spouse cases.
- When and how to recover refunds in innocent spouse controversies.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
- Willard B. Taylor (Sullivan & Cromwell, New York), “Blockers,” “Stoppers,” and the Entity Classification Rules, 64 Tax Law. 1 (2010)
- Deborah L. Paul (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York), The Taxation of Distressed Debt Investments: Taking Stock, 64 Tax Law. 37 (2010)
- Shin-yi Peng (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan), Taxing Innovation?—The Evolving Coverage of the Information Technology Agreement, 64 Tax Law. 79 (2010)
- Gregg D. Polsky (North Carolina), Deterring Tax-Driven Partnership Allocations, 64 Tax Law. 97(2010)
- Michael Louis Minns (Minns Law Firm, Houston, TX), Cross-Examination of the Government’s Witnesses in a Criminal Tax Defense Case, 64 Tax Law. 125 (2010)
- Sarah Grandfield (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Comment, A Foolish Inconsistency? The Differential Treatment of Recurring Obligations in Treasury Regulation Sections 20.2053-1 and 20.2053-4, 64 Tax Law. 161 (2010)
- Mhairi Collins (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, Right Answer, Wrong Questions: Rethinking Private Letter Ruling 2008-22-041 and Its Implications for Supporting Organizations Seeking Excess Business Holdings Exemptions, 64 Tax Law. 175 (2010)
- Edward B. Dix (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, From General to Specific: The Arm’s-Length Standard’s Evolution and Its Relevancy in Determining Costs to Be Shared in Cost-Sharing Agreements, 64 Tax Law. 197 (2010)
- Jennifer Rothschild (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, Pitt County v. Hotels.com: The Dormant Commerce Clause and State Taxation of Online Travel Companies, 64 Tax Law. 223 (2010)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Anna Tavis, scheduled to earn her J.D. from the Boston College Law School in May 2011. After graduating, Tavis will be working on tax-related matters at the South Brooklyn Legal Services in Brooklyn, N.Y. ... Anna Tavis will work with the Immigrant Workers’ Tax Advocacy Project to provide community education, outreach and representation to low-income immigrants in Brooklyn. Anna’s project will focus on Russian- and Spanish-speaking workers who encounter barriers to obtaining tax credits, and who are involved in controversies with the IRS. Anna is fluent in both Russian and Spanish. ...
Sean Norton, currently a lawyer in private practice in Jenkintown, Pa. Norton will be returning to his native state of Maine to work with Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc. ... to expand federal tax assistance in Maine and to implement an outreach program that will increase the organization’s panel of volunteer tax lawyers and allow the organization to offer services to the mentally ill. ...
The Public Service Fellowships were developed in 2008 to address the need for tax legal assistance, and to foster an interest in tax-related public service among those individuals who participate. The fellowships provide funding for the Fellows’ salaries and benefits, as well as law school debt assistance, by means of charitable contributions to the sponsoring organizations. All applications were reviewed and the successful applicants selected by the Tax Section’s Public Service Fellowship Committee. The section plans to award as many as two fellowships each year.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Section commends the Court on the proposed amendments to its Rules and endorses the Court’s efforts to provide clarity with regard to its procedures and promote efficiency in case administration and resolution. The amendments proposed on December 20, 2010, include modifications and clarifications of several of the Court’s discovery rules, timing and filing rules, and the rules regarding alternative dispute resolution. We believe that these proposed amendments further the Court’s efforts in achieving expeditious and balanced review of tax disputes, while taking into account the varying nature of the taxpayers that appear before the Court and the types and sizes of cases that the Court hears. The following comments summarily reflect the Section’s understanding of how the new provisions work, why they are necessary, and/or the problems they seek to address, as well as issues and suggestions that may assist the Court in refining the proposed amendments.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Young Lawyers Division of the ABA has joined the chorus of voices calling for more accurate job data for would-be law students.
The division on Saturday adopted the Truth in Law School Education resolution: a six-point resolution urging law schools to beef up the availability and accuracy of information on the cost of legal education and the job and salaries of graduates. ... For instance, the resolution urges law schools to stipulate on their websites and acceptance notices what percentage of graduates are in full-time, part-time and temporary positions. It also calls for schools to provide median salary statistics for different types of employment rather than provide a single median covering both private law firms jobs and other jobs such as public interest -- a statistic that can be misleading to prospective law students since law firm jobs typically pay more than public interest jobs. Additionally, the resolution calls on law schools to report the "actual" cost of legal education by disclosing the per-credit costs, and average cost of living expenses.
The resolution goes beyond simply asking law schools to comply, however. The final two provisions urge the ABA's Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to consider requiring law schools to comply with these conditions and have its questionnaire committee include more detailed job information on the survey each ABA-approved law school must fill out every year. ...
The ABA's questionnaire committee, which devises the annual survey each accredited law school must complete, is in the process of overhauling the questionnaire. "What we'd like to see is that the information we gather deals with jobs in individual categories," said chairman Art Gaudio, dean of Western New England College School of Law. "Job information would be school specific. For instance, you could look up the median income for graduates in a specific state working at law firms of 2 to 10 lawyers." ...
Similarly, the ABA committee charged with revising accreditation standards is also looking into the accuracy and transparency of cost and employment data. "This resolution is largely consistent with the direction the Standards Review Committee is taking," said member David Yellen, dean of Loyola University Chicago School of Law. "So although I don't know whether or how schools will respond to the resolution, I believe that fairly soon most of this data will be required to be disclosed, assuming the [council of the Section on Legal Education] adopts the [committee's] proposal."
Saturday, February 12, 2011
- Permission For Late Filing (Jan 20, 2011)
- Requirements For Tax- Exempt Hospitals (Jan. 20, 2011)
- Codification of Economic Substance (Jan. 18, 2011)
- Grandfathering Rules In The HIRE Act (Jan. 10, 2011)
- Bond-Financed Grants (Jan. 5, 2011)
- PBGC Proposed Rule on Reportable Events (Dec. 22, 2010)
- Circular 230 (Dec. 7, 2010)
- The Effective Date of § 909 (Nov. 15, 2010)
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Please join Lindy Paull, former Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, and Eric Solomon, former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, as they discuss the latest legislative and tax policy developments over the past year and offer their thoughts and insights on the upcoming tax policy debate, including the possibility of fundamental tax reform. This discussion will not only look back to 2010. Even more it will look forward to the tax policy agenda for 2011. The discussion will include the tax legislative agenda for 2011, including issues around tax reform generally and business tax reform in particular.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The contest features J.D. and LL.M. divisions, both of which compete in two person teams that research the tax issues involved, and then submit technical memoranda and client letters with their solutions. The teams’ written submissions are judged by tax practitioners from across the country; the teams with the best written submissions are chosen to present their tax planning strategies before the competition judges at the section’s Midyear Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida.
“We were pleased this year to have a record number of entries,” said Charles H. Egerton, chair, ABA Section of Taxation. “Ninety-five J.D. teams and 31 LL.M. teams, from 55 law schools, submitted their solutions to a challenging, complex tax planning problem that involved individual and business entity issues.”
- 1st Place: Samford -- Wes Hill & Sims Rhyne III (Brannon Denning, faculty coach)
- 2nd Place: Cleveland State -- Caryn Gross & Michael Tangry (Deborah Geier, faculty coach)
- 3rd Place: William & Mary -- Peter Farrell & Jonathan Puvak (William Richardson, faculty coach)
- Best Written Submission: William & Mary -- Peter Farrell & Jonathan Puvak (William Richardson, faculty coach)
- Runner-Up Best Written Submission: Cleveland State -- Caryn Gross & Michael Tangry (Deborah Geier, faculty coach)
- Semi-finalist #1: Kentucky -- Leah Chalkley & Patrick Kern (Jennifer Bird-Pollan, faculty coach)
- Semi-finalist #2: Florida -- Ben Friedman & Christopher Mikes (Charlene Luke, faculty coach)
- Semi-finalist #3: Liberty -- Tim Todd & Melissa Ogden (Philip Manns, faculty coach)
- 1st Place: Northwestern -- Judson Bryant & John Goodell (Robert Wootton, faculty coach)
- 2nd Place: Temple -- Travis Wheeler & Jeanmarie Dunn-Kane (Andrea Monroe, faculty coach)
- Best Written Submission: Missouri-K.C. -- Nicholas Bracco & Samuel Burnett (Judith Wiseman, faculty coach)
- Finalist #1: Missouri-K.C. -- Nicholas Bracco & Samuel Burnett (Judith Wiseman, faculty coach)
- Finalist #2: Denver -- Jennifer Jewkes & Matthew Wiseman (Alicia Buckingham, faculty coach)
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Please join Professors Martin J. McMahon, Jr. and Ira B. Shepard as they review the most significant statutory enactments, judicial decisions, IRS rulings, and Treasury regulations promulgated during the last twelve months that affect general income taxation, transfer taxation, and tax procedure.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
- Chad R. DeGroot (Bryan Cave, St. Louis)
- Stacey Delich-Gould (Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York)
- Melissa L. Galetto (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C.)
- Vanessa A. Scott (Southerland Asbill & Brennan, Washington, D.C.)
- Lisa M. Stern (Proskauer Rose, New York)
- Mark E. Wilensky (Roberts & Holland, New York)
Named for the late Jack Nolan, the fellowship is awarded to young lawyers who are actively involved in the Section and have shown leadership qualities. Each one-year fellowship includes waived Meeting registration fees and assistance with travel to some Section meetings. For a list of prior winners, see here.
The Janet Spragens Pro Bono Award, named after the late American University Law professor who greatly contributed to ensuring representation for low-income taxpayers, is presented each year to an individual lawyer or law firm that has demonstrated outstanding and sustained commitment to pro bono (free) legal services, particularly with respect to federal and state tax law. ...
Fulbright provides support for the U.S. Tax Court Pro Bono Programs in Texas and New York. The program encourages lawyers to offer pro bono consultation services to unrepresented or pro se, taxpayers at calendar calls. Lawyer volunteers mediate disputes between the IRS and Tax Court petitioners. A number of Fulbright & Jaworski’s tax attorneys have participated in the programs sponsored by the State Bar of Texas and the New York County Lawyer’s Association.
For a list of prior winners, see here.
- Low Income Taxpayers -- Leslie Book (Villanova), Kathryn J. Sedo (Minnesota), William N. Timm, Jr. (Georgia State)
- Pro Bono: Tax Counseling for the Exploding Population of Elderly -- Francine J. Lipman (Chapman)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: Non-§ 1031 Current Developments -- Erik M. Jensen (Case Western)
- Sales, Exchanges & Basis: § 1031 Current Developments -- Bradley T. Borden (Brooklyn)
- Section Program: Current Developments in Individual, Corporate, Partnership and Estate & Gift Taxation -- Elaine Hightower Gagliardi (Montana), Martin J. McMahon, Jr. (Florida), Ira B. Shepard (Houston), Daniel L. Simmons (UC-Davis)
- Tax Policy & Simplification: Options for Corporate Tax Reform in 2011 -- Rosanne Altshuler (Rutgers), Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan), Michael Graetz (Columbia), Edward Kleinbard (USC)
- Tax Policy & Simplification: Coordinating Federal and State Tax Policy -- Brian Galle (Boston College), Roberta Mann (Oregon), John Swain (Arizona)
Photos from last night's Tax Prof dinner:
Friday, January 21, 2011
- Exempt Organization Committee Luncheon -- Frances R. Hill (Miami)
- Foreign Activities of US Taxpayers: Foreign Tax Credit Panel -- Robert J. Peroni (Texas)
- Individual and Family Taxation: Elder Law Taxation -- David Rice (Pomona)
- State & Local Taxes: Current Developments in State & Local Taxation -- Richard D. Pomp (Connecticut)
- Teaching Taxation: Tax Policy Responses to the Current Economic Climate and the Long-Term Fiscal Crisis -- Tracey Kaye (Seton Hall), Edward Kleinbard (USC), Rebecca Kysar (Brooklyn), Daniel N. Shaviro (NYU)
- Young Lawyers Forum & Diversity: To Recognize Or Not to Recognize Gain or Loss on Corporate Formation -- Don Leatherman (Tennessee)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
- Low Income Taxpayers Representation Workshop -- Keith Blair (District of Columbia), Sandy Freund (Rutgers-Newark), Michelle Kwon (Texas Tech), Jan Pierce (Lewis & Clark), Kathryn J. Sedo (Minnesota)
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
In Notice 2010-62, the Treasury and the IRS requested comments on certain aspects of the economic substance legislation contained in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. These comments, which have been prepared by members of the ABA Section of Taxation and by members of the AICPA, generally address the need for prompt guidance on the implementation of the statutory provisions, comment on the interim guidance set forth in Notice 2010-62, and make recommendations to promote fair and consistent application of the economic substance legislation. Both of our organizations are separately submitting these comments to Treasury and the Service.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The dust is settling on the flurry of year-end estate planning activity resulting from the Tax Relief Act of 2010. For the estates of decedents who died in 2010, executors must determine whether to use the default provisions of a $5 million exemption and 35% rate or make the election to have no estate tax and the modified carryover-basis regime. Other clients must determine how to take advantage of the $5 million exemption, reunified gift and estate tax exemptions, and portability that may only be available for two years.
- Jonathan G. Blattmachr (Eagle River Advisors, New York, NY)
- Robert Keebler (Keebler & Associates, Green Bay, WI)
- Martin M. Shenkman (Martin M. Shenkman PC, Tenafly, NY)
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
With the wonderland year of 2010 behind us and all last-minute gifts to grandchildren safely protected from GST tax, we can now settle back and enjoy estate planning with certainty in the law – at least for the next two years. This panel will review the estate, gift and GST tax provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the “2010 Act”), with an emphasis on its practical impact on estate planning going forward. Apart from reviewing the 2010 Act and how we arrived where we are, the panel will discuss the planning issues and opportunities with respect to portability of the estate tax exclusion amount, the increased GST tax exemption and gift tax exclusion, and the now familiar sunset provision.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
- Richard D. Pomp (Connecticut), The Unfulfilled Promise of the Indian Commerce Clause and State Taxation, 63 Tax Law. 897 (2010)
- Anthony Ciolli (Suffolk), The Power of United States Territories to Tax Interstate and Foreign Commerce: Why the Commerce and Import-Export Clauses Do Not Apply, 63 Tax Law. 1223 (2010)
- Darren Azman (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Comment, Don’t Tell Mom I Didn’t Pay My Taxes!: The Efficacy of State Shaming Campaigns on Taxpayer Compliance and Ideas for the Future, 63 Tax Law. 1251 (2010)
- Zelda Ferguson (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, Is the Tax Holiday Over for Online Sales?, 63 Tax Law. 1279 (2010)
- Chaim Gordon (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, Protecting Peter When the Legislature Robs Peter to Pay Paul After Empress Casino v. Giannoulias, 63 Tax Law. 1299 (2010)
- Amy Jupin (J.D. 2011, Georgetown), Note, The Resurrection of the Tonnage Clause and the Death of Fair Apportionment in Polar Tankers v. City of Valdez, Alaska, 63 Tax Law. 1319 (2010)
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Under the proposed amendments to Circular 230 the definition of “Practitioner” is expanded to include a new category of “Registered Tax Return Preparers,” defined by reference to § 7701(a)(3) and Reg. § 301.7701-15. This new category of practitioners is estimated to include 900,000 to 1.2 million individuals.
We concur in the proposed amendments to sections 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 of Circular 230 providing jurisdiction to OPR to determine the competency and suitability of a Registered Tax Return Preparer. We believe regulation of tax return preparers by OPR to be an essential and long overdue component of an effective national tax compliance program. We also strongly support an increased enforcement program which will include increased oversight of paid tax preparers. A core of competent and ethical paid preparers must be a part of any strategy to strengthen the integrity of the tax system.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The IRS has been aggressively auditing taxpayers who have donated conservation easements and claimed federal tax benefits, with a reported 1,459 landowners having been audited during 2005 to 2009. In addition, since 2006, the Tax Court, District Courts, and Circuit Courts have collectively issued fifteen court decisions addressing various issues relating to compliance with the federal tax law requirements applicable to conservation easement donations.
Using a unique problem format that continues the discussion from Part I of this presentation, this panel returns to further discuss the tax aspects of the realization of debt discharge for COD income and the planning opportunities available for exclusion or deferral under Section 108. Special emphasis will be placed on real estate and partnership debt workouts and current developments and emerging trends will be identified as well. This teleconference is fully self-contained and so is appropriate for those who joined the first conference as well as for those who missed it.
[T]he Institute will offer the most knowledgeable panelists from the defense bar, the government, and the judiciary. The sessions are regularly attended by judges, federal, state and local prosecutors, other law enforcement officials, defense attorneys, corporate in-house counsel, accountants, and members of the academic community. The audience includes attorneys and accountants just beginning to practice in the tax fraud area, as well as highly experienced practitioners. The program will provide valuable updates on new developments and strategies, along with the opportunity to meet colleagues, renew acquaintances and exchange ideas.
This year the Institute will include a criminal tax roundtable discussion with senior representatives from the IRS and the Department of Justice together with panels focusing on
- the enhancement of the government's enforcement efforts targeting offshore accounts;
- the use of foreign evidence at trial;
- an Ask the Experts panel presentation encompassing the "Top 5" practice tips for the criminal tax practitioner;
- handling the sensitive issue examination and the impact of IRS Fraud Technical Advisors during the civil examination;
- the future, if any, of voluntary disclosures;
- defending the target;
- civil penalty relief following the criminal prosecution and
- the continuing controversy regarding the application of the federal sentencing guidelines.
In addition, the program will provide an annual general overview of nuts and bolts techniques for responding to a criminal tax fraud investigation.
For a list of the speakers and their topics, see here.
Friday, December 3, 2010
We urge that Congress, before adjournment, address the limbo that legislative inaction has created for the nation's taxpayers. Specially, we ask Congress to resolve the systemic uncertainties resulting from the one-year suspension of the estate and generation-skipping transfer (“GST”) taxes in 2010 and reinstatement of the 2001 transfer tax laws as of January 1, 2011, under the “sunset” provisions of Section 901 of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (“EGTRRA”). Our comments reflect our belief that taxpayers should not suffer worse tax consequences due to this one-year limbo than they would have otherwise, under either the pre-2010 or post-2010 law. We are concerned that the current uncertainty regarding application of the estate, gift and GST tax laws has created substantial obstacles for families and business owners trying to plan for the orderly transfer of their assets. Because the uncertainty was created legislatively, we believe its resolution requires legislative action, as it does not appear that the Treasury Department or the IRS would have the authority to resolve all of the numerous issues through rulings, regulations or other issuances.
By this letter, we seek to identify several of the most urgent issues requiring immediate resolution. We do not seek to review the extensive discussion of the numerous technical issues described in the comprehensive report that we submitted on December 7, 2004, as two of the sponsoring organizations of the Report on Reform of Federal Wealth Transfer Taxes. ...
Members of Congress have voiced many different positions about the proper approach to the transfer tax laws during the past several years. We do not take a position on the policy decisions that Congress must make in fashioning these tax laws, but believe that Congress must provide certainty regarding the general structure of the unified estate, gift and GST tax system. Attorneys around the country tell us that many Americans have been paralyzed in their basic estate planning, for fear that the final regime that Congress enacts may result in adverse tax consequences or require a new estate plan.
An initial uncertainty that Congress should address is whether any legislative changes in the transfer tax system will be applied retroactively to events that occurred prior to the enactment of such changes. Given the significant time that has elapsed since the estate and GST tax were suspended on January 1, many of your colleagues have suggested that retroactive estate or GST taxation is no longer feasible. Alternatively, some have suggested that if the estate tax will be imposed retroactively, such taxation might be elective, so that an estate could opt for the estate tax with the normal basis adjustment rules of § 1014 or elect to be subject to the modified carryover basis rules of new § 1022. Although such an election might mitigate the public perception of unfairness and avoid the attendant litigation resulting from retroactive application of the federal estate tax, it would not resolve the myriad technical problems with application of modified carryover basis detailed in the Report.
However Congress chooses to proceed with respect to a retroactive application of estate or GST taxation, there are many technical issues that are important to resolve, the most significant of which are described below.