- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,340
- Reaction score
- 33,260
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The lead auditor the first time round was the lead auditor for the IRS in the State of NY. Go figure. Don't be so sure. My tertiary attorney, now deceased, was one of the best in the country. The IRS never had anyone close to his talents and abilities, let alone his knowledge base. My CPA, still alive was trained by my tertiary attorney.
I'm pretty well versed in tax law, I don't understand most of my returns, and I created the transactions, investments and businesses that fueled my returns. Right now I'm working on a transaction larger than any I made before I retired. The complexity fo the transaction is enough to keep three major law firms contract divisions, on my side, busy. My CPA has called in two major accounting firms to assist him. The complexity of the transaction, which if it closes, will do so in 19 different countries simultaneously, requires my CPA to ask questions of the IRS daily. They have responded to more than 80% of the questions with "We don't understand what you are asking or the applicable scope of the laws," if and when they respond. I need to know my tax liabilities as I structure this transaction, and the American tax liabilities for all parties involved. Don't think it is much better in the other nations involved. The tax authorities in one country, when queried, respond "we have to put this in front of the EU taxing commission." They're busy trying to steal revenues from US companies hoarding money overseas. Forget new transactions.
I don't hold the auditors at fault, I hold congress at fault for underfunding the IRS and Treasury.
David Stanhope, 12 years ago complained the IRS commenced an audit of his personal finances, after costing him close to 1/4 mil $ in billable hours to his attorneys and accountant, the IRS shut down the audit with no explanation and walked. Stanhope's attorneys laughed it off as another audit by inept auditors in over their heads. Stanhope, a private investment banker representing only himself, 6 years later pulled off one of the largest security frauds in the history of the country. By the time the Treasury Dept. realized how they'd been scammed, Stanhope had not only left the nation and shifted both his older wealth and new found wealth out of the country, only god knows where, he died from cancer. No one knows who his heirs were, where they might be and where the money might be. The only success was to keep it all out of the media so no imitators might rise to the occasion.
The only thing you're missing is to not understand how complex some returns can get in rare instances.
Think about this, we have new tax law, and an IRS too understaffed to prepare the new tax tables and get them out quickly enough to all necessary parties. Congress wrote new tax law, but left the IRS in a gelded state. It's going to be fun when professionals and average citizens start calling the IRS for answers to serious questions.
I don't have any way to evaluate your claims, but they just are not consistent with my dealings with IRS.
Just as one example, the typical way lawyers and accountants get comfort on IRS treatment of the tax effects of the kinds of complex deal you're talking about is with private letter rulings, or PLRs. There are other ways to get binding advice but the PLR route is typical, and relatively expensive, because IRS has to consult their experts, write an opinion, get it signed off, etc. But those PLRs are based on YOUR specific fact situation, that your team lays out in great detail, and are binding on the IRS. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any way or any reason why competent tax professionals would be consulting with IRS in the way you describe it because unless I'm missing something big, and that may be the case, that advice isn't needed and if IRS gives it outside the formal ruling process (which has controls on their side, sign offs, etc.) it's functionally worthless to the taxpayer. It's just one man or woman's opinion at IRS that the entity can and will ignore later if they want to because they will tell you up front that any advice given outside the formal process cannot be relied on. So your side isn't gaining anything. The CPA firms have experts in those deals and they are the ones to rely on, not IRS.
But, again, maybe I'm missing something. If I am we are WAY outside the scope of DP and this topic in general.
BTW, I'm about tired of you asserting what I do and don't understand or am missing. I worked for years for a now Big Four firm in Atlanta and believe it or not, that cowtown has some complex returns going through the major tax firms down there....
Last edited: