Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 22 June 2015 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)12. Pro Big Corporate IRS: Agency Guts Whistleblower Program, Leaves Billions on the Table
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/pro-big-corporate-irs-agency-guts-whistleblower-program-leaves-billions-table.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
Its widely known among tax professionals that the US does little in the way of tax enforcement, and the little that it does do is directed against individuals and small businesses. What is not so widely known is how deep the institutional bias is in the IRS in favor of letting big corporate tax cheats get away with it. Conventional wisdom is similar to the rationalization of weak enforcement at the SEC: that the agency is afraid that if they go after big companies, theyll have the penalties and fines challenged in court, and theyll often lose by virtue of being outgunned by better lawyer (yes, Virginia, even if you have a solid case, that doesnt mean youll win at trial). And top tax litigators are among the most highly paid legal talent. Im not up on current rates, but in the mid 1980s, Sumitomo Bank fought the IRS on a $100 million assessment and won. Their attorney was a solo practitioner who charged $1000 an hour.
It turns out that the picture is vastly worse than that. In 2006, recognizing that the IRS was losing over $450 billion a year in revenue to tax evasion, Congress mandated that the agency establish a whistleblower office and pay whistleblowers 15% to 30% of amounts recovered from their filings. Unfortunately, as a whistleblower from the IRS Office of the General Counsel in New York has revealed, the IRS at its highest levels is opposed to implementing the policy.
This whistleblower, Jane Kim, makes it clear that in this letter, she is acting as a de facto spokesperson for an attorney that represents IRS whistleblowers. The missive, which weve embedded at the end of the post, presents three cases where the tax revenue lost exceeded $13 billion. Two of them looked to be particularly egregious. In one, a company set up completely sham foreign companies, with no operations whatsoever in any of these tax jurisdictions. Yet it claimed all of its profits were due to these phony companies and were kept permanently offshore (regular readers may recall that US technology companies who use Ireland and other low-tax domiciles to attribute their profits to offshore operations actually keep those offshore monies in US banks. For instance, Apple runs what amounts to a hedge fund to manage its offshore funds in Nevada). The effect of this scheme was that the company paid corporate taxes nowhere. That scam with that one company alone lost the IRS a purported $3 billion a year in revenues.
Another mind-boggling case involved a criminal case that was peculiarly shut down. The target had foreign brokerage accounts for US individuals. The target clearly knew it had reporting, withholding, and remittance obligations for foreign accounts, since it had come forward to fess up an amnesty program for past abuses. Yet it was still engaged in effectively hiding offshore income of US clients by not keeping the required records. The case had advanced far enough that the DoJ was ready to empanel a grand jury, and was waiting for the final go-ahead from the IRS. The IRS closed the investigation because it went along with the targets claim that there were too many accounts to be audited (huh?) and therefore it should be permitted to sample them. The target manipulated the random sample to hide the misconduct. So why does this occur? The very top level of the IRS is opposed to the whistleblower program, and more broadly, is effectively in bed with large corporations. As the whistleblowers letter points out:
DETAILS AT LINK
Its widely known among tax professionals that the US does little in the way of tax enforcement, and the little that it does do is directed against individuals and small businesses. What is not so widely known is how deep the institutional bias is in the IRS in favor of letting big corporate tax cheats get away with it. Conventional wisdom is similar to the rationalization of weak enforcement at the SEC: that the agency is afraid that if they go after big companies, theyll have the penalties and fines challenged in court, and theyll often lose by virtue of being outgunned by better lawyer (yes, Virginia, even if you have a solid case, that doesnt mean youll win at trial). And top tax litigators are among the most highly paid legal talent. Im not up on current rates, but in the mid 1980s, Sumitomo Bank fought the IRS on a $100 million assessment and won. Their attorney was a solo practitioner who charged $1000 an hour.
It turns out that the picture is vastly worse than that. In 2006, recognizing that the IRS was losing over $450 billion a year in revenue to tax evasion, Congress mandated that the agency establish a whistleblower office and pay whistleblowers 15% to 30% of amounts recovered from their filings. Unfortunately, as a whistleblower from the IRS Office of the General Counsel in New York has revealed, the IRS at its highest levels is opposed to implementing the policy.
This whistleblower, Jane Kim, makes it clear that in this letter, she is acting as a de facto spokesperson for an attorney that represents IRS whistleblowers. The missive, which weve embedded at the end of the post, presents three cases where the tax revenue lost exceeded $13 billion. Two of them looked to be particularly egregious. In one, a company set up completely sham foreign companies, with no operations whatsoever in any of these tax jurisdictions. Yet it claimed all of its profits were due to these phony companies and were kept permanently offshore (regular readers may recall that US technology companies who use Ireland and other low-tax domiciles to attribute their profits to offshore operations actually keep those offshore monies in US banks. For instance, Apple runs what amounts to a hedge fund to manage its offshore funds in Nevada). The effect of this scheme was that the company paid corporate taxes nowhere. That scam with that one company alone lost the IRS a purported $3 billion a year in revenues.
Another mind-boggling case involved a criminal case that was peculiarly shut down. The target had foreign brokerage accounts for US individuals. The target clearly knew it had reporting, withholding, and remittance obligations for foreign accounts, since it had come forward to fess up an amnesty program for past abuses. Yet it was still engaged in effectively hiding offshore income of US clients by not keeping the required records. The case had advanced far enough that the DoJ was ready to empanel a grand jury, and was waiting for the final go-ahead from the IRS. The IRS closed the investigation because it went along with the targets claim that there were too many accounts to be audited (huh?) and therefore it should be permitted to sample them. The target manipulated the random sample to hide the misconduct. So why does this occur? The very top level of the IRS is opposed to the whistleblower program, and more broadly, is effectively in bed with large corporations. As the whistleblowers letter points out:
The IRS Chief Counsel Donald Korb, under whose tenure the Office was created, openly expressed his views on this issue when stating, The new whistleblower provisions Congress enacted a couple of years ago have the potential to be a real disaster for the tax system. I believe that it is unseemly in this country to encourage people to turn in their neighbors and employers to the IRS as contemplated by this particular program. The IRS didnt ask for these rules; they were forced on it by the Congress.
DETAILS AT LINK
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
“If You Are Not Building a Nation, Then What the Fuck Are You Doing?” By Tony Wikrent
Demeter
Jun 2015
#3
Experts Say Best Option Now Is Keeping Nation As Comfortable As Possible Till End ONION
Demeter
Jun 2015
#4
You know, Republican policy does sound kind of like putting America on hospice care.
tclambert
Jun 2015
#5
The "Noble" Post-White House Career Path of Obama’s Core Team By Glenn Greenwald
Demeter
Jun 2015
#9
Turkey becomes first domino for emerging market debtors as politics split country JUNE 8
Demeter
Jun 2015
#10
Pro Big Corporate IRS: Agency Guts Whistleblower Program, Leaves Billions on the Table
Demeter
Jun 2015
#12
Gaius Publius: The Only Solution to Climate Change — Outlaw Fossil Fuel Production
Demeter
Jun 2015
#13