Some readers have commented about the use of the Taxpayer Advocate Service ("TAS") of the IRS to intermediate differences between the IRS and the taxpayer regarding the seemingly rigid application of OVDP 2009 and OVDI 2011, thereby producing harsh results. The TAS may also play a role in opt outs where the fear is that the IRS will be punitive or in audits for taxpayers who never joined either initiative where the same fear exists. I thought it would be helpful to offer readers a blog and thread devoted to just the advantages and limitations of the Taxpayer Advocate Service in these IRS initiatives. Readers thoughts and experiences are solicited.
The Taxpayer Advocate Service website is here.
I do encourage those who have submitted comments on the TAS to re-post them here, modified as appropriate for subsequent developments. I can assure you all that you will be doing a service for a lot of people in stress.
Showing posts with label Taxpayer Advocate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxpayer Advocate. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Taxpayer Advocate Criticizes IRS Implementation of OVDP on Bait and Switch (6/30/11)
The Taxpayer Advocate has issued a Report to Congress on its Fiscal Year 2012 Objectives (6/30/11).
In the Report at pp. xxxiv and xxxv, the Taxpayer Advocate criticizes the IRS's implementation of its statement in the 2009 OVDP that “[U]nder no circumstances will a taxpayer be required to pay a penalty greater than what he would otherwise be liable for under existing statutes.” The IRS did the old bait and switch on that seemingly clear statement. The Taxpayer Advocate lays it out pretty well in her report. The relevant excerpt (with footnotes) is here. I have cut and paste the relevant excerpt without the footnotes are follows:
Read more »
In the Report at pp. xxxiv and xxxv, the Taxpayer Advocate criticizes the IRS's implementation of its statement in the 2009 OVDP that “[U]nder no circumstances will a taxpayer be required to pay a penalty greater than what he would otherwise be liable for under existing statutes.” The IRS did the old bait and switch on that seemingly clear statement. The Taxpayer Advocate lays it out pretty well in her report. The relevant excerpt (with footnotes) is here. I have cut and paste the relevant excerpt without the footnotes are follows:
Read more »
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)