Bryan C. Skarlatos spoke on the panel "Life of a Criminal Tax Case: Litigation Stage" at the 2017 Federal Bar Association Tax Law Conference
This panel was moderated by Richard T. Lunger, Deputy Division Counsel/ Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax), I.R.S.
Mr. Skarlatos was accompanied by distinguished panel members Tino M. Lisella, Assistant Chief, Criminal Enforcement Section, Western Region, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division and Jay R. Nanavati, Counsel, Baker & Hostetler LLP.
Bryan C. Skarlatos and Juliet L. Fink Obtain Sentence Of Nine-Months Home Confinement For Defendant Facing 15 Years’ Imprisonment In Connection With $80 Million Art Fraud Scheme
The Long Island woman who fooled the art world by pawning off paintings by an unknown artist from Queens as the work of Modernist masters was sentenced to time served on Tuesday, more than five years after her actions helped lead to $80 million in fraudulent sales and the demise of New York’s oldest gallery.
Megan L. Brackney and Bryan C. Skarlatos presented "Effectively Representing Taxpayers Before the IRS" at the Sid Kess All-Star Series
On December 28th at the New York State Society of CPAs, we followed the journey of Joe & Mary through the IRS process. This full-day program used a particular client’s fact pattern to highlight the various areas of the IRS representation process and the opportunities and pitfalls for practitioners and their clients.
Bryan C. Skarlatos presented "The Next Wave: The Government’s Focus on U.S. Investments to Evade Foreign Taxes" at the ABA 33rd Annual National Institute on Criminal Tax Fraud and 6th Annual National Institute on Tax Controversy
There is increasing attention to the use of U.S. investments, structures, and bank accounts to facilitate tax evasion in other countries. The last year has seen a number of initiatives to increase information reporting concerning these activities, as well as increased investigations in this area. This panel discussed these initiatives, the tools available to the government, and ways to be prepared for the next wave of enforcement.
Trump faces potential decision on IRS
by: Kevin McCoy
President-elect Donald Trump could face a decision that may affect whether his tax returns will continue to be audited throughout his four-year term of office.
IRS regulations call for annual audits of tax returns filed by U.S. presidents and vice presidents. But those rules, in place roughly 40 years, theoretically could be changed by the tax agency — whose current leader is under fire from Capitol Hill.
The rules are included in the Internal Revenue Service Manual, which guides actions by the nation's tax agency. It states that tax returns filed by the president and vice president "are subject to mandatory examinations," and should not get less-rigorous screening.
The protocol dates back to the Watergate era and President Richard Nixon. He refused to release his 1971 and 1972 tax returns, said they had been audited and initially opposed any re-check.
Bryan C. Skarlatos quoted in the Bloomberg BNA Article "IRS Expands Offshore Tax Avoidance Efforts Past Switzerland"
IRS Expands Offshore Tax Avoidance Efforts Past Switzerland
Oct. 27 — The IRS’s criminal investigations arm is moving beyond Switzerland in its efforts to track down U.S. tax evaders, the agency’s investigations chief said.
“In fiscal year 2017, IRS-CI will continue to rigorously pursue U.S. citizens seeking to evade income taxes by placing assets in other countries,” said Richard Weber, chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division. The focus so far has been mostly on Switzerland, but the division is beginning to pursue those efforts on a wider scale, he said Oct. 27 at an anti-money laundering conference sponsored by the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants.
Bryan C. Skarlatos quoted in the Wall Street Journal Article "You Made a Mistake on Your Tax Return. Should You Amend It?"
Whether or not you should do it—and the consequences—depends on the details of your case, experts say
By Tom Herman
Broadway’s brightest star, Alexander Hamilton, summarized the problem neatly.
“In common life, to retract an error even in the beginning is no easy task,” Mr. Hamilton once wrote, according to Ron Chernow’s biography of the nation’s first Treasury secretary. “Perseverance confirms us in it and rivets the difficulty.”
While Mr. Hamilton wasn’t writing about income-tax bloopers, his words undoubtedly will resonate with millions of modern-day taxpayers. Nobody likes to admit mistakes, especially on tax returns. But as lawmakers continually add layers of complexity to the nation’s tax system, millions of taxpayers each year face thorny questions about how—and even whether—to fix errors and omissions.
Tax practitioners often give tax advice on things like how to structure an investment in a business venture, sell an asset, plan for retirement or pass wealth to the next generation. Sometimes a practitioner’s tax advice turns out to be wrong and the IRS assesses a tax deficiency against the taxpayer.
Typically, the question of whether the tax practitioner could be subject to a penalty for providing faulty advice would be governed by the standards under Code Sec.6694—i.e., whether the advice had a reasonable basis and was adequately disclosed, or was supported by substantial authority or, in the case of a tax shelter, it was reasonable to believe that the position was more likely than not to be sustained on its merits. However, another standard also could apply to the tax advisor’s advice. Under Code Sec. 6700, the IRS could attempt to impose a much larger tax shelter promoter penalty if the advisor “had reason to know” the advice was wrong. Most practitioners believe that the penalty under Code Sec. 6700 is designed for abusive tax shelters that are marketed by unscrupulous tax shelter promoters. While that appears to have been the purpose behind the enactment of Code Sec. 6700, the statute itself contains some technical yet broad language which, taken literally, possibly could apply to a wide variety of arrangements that involve tax benefits. There is nothing in the body of the statute that limits the penalty to tax practitioners or tax return preparers, defines the type of investment plan or arrangement that is covered or requires any specific marketing efforts. Thus, the IRS could attempt to argue that Code Sec. 6700 applies to ordinary tax advice if the practitioner giving the advice “knew or had reason” to know that the advice was wrong.