4th Circuit Holds the Tax Partnership Receiving an Administrative Summons is Different Than its Representative for Purposes of § 7602(d) (7/9/22; 7/12/22)

In Equity Inv. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 40 F.4th 156 (4th Cir. July 8, 2022), CA 4 here and GS here, the Court held that, for purposes of the § 7602(d) limitation on IRS administrative summonses after a criminal referral to DOJ, the person investigated for whose records a third party (bank) was summonsed (in this case a syndicated conservation easement tax partnership) is not the same as a related person (the partnership representative under 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.6223-1) who was under criminal referral, at least in part arising from the same set of facts. See the discussion at Slip Op. 8-11 under the heading “A. “Person” in § 7602(d) does not include a legal person's agents.”  The Court rejects the suggestion that anything other than an actual referral of the person to whom the summons is issued will meet the terms of the statutory limitation. See Slip Op. 11-14, saying at Slip Op. 12:.

            Equity [the summonsed tax partnership] must show evidence that a referral existed before the IRS summons, because the IRS can generally use its summons power to further a criminal investigation. § 7602(b). The summons power only ends “at the point where an investigation was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.” United States v. Morgan, 761 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1985). And a Justice Department referral is not simply some generalized suspicion of criminal activity, but a specific procedural mechanism used to share information. Id. (describing a Justice Department referral as a “mechanical test”).

These are pretty straightforward holdings that I am surprised were seriously disputed.  Hence, I think they require no further discussion for the prototypical reader of this blog (as I imagine that reader). But I note that the court makes some statements in the opinion that on their face seem noteworthy or curious. I will just list them without further comment:

 1. Slip Op. 2 n1:

   n1 The IRS has broad powers to investigate criminal tax fraud, but it lacks the power to prosecute tax fraud. So if an IRS criminal investigation discovers evidence of criminal activity, the IRS must refer the case to the Justice Department for prosecution. Once referred, the IRS typically plays a continued role in investigating and prosecuting the case.

2. Explaining how the tax partnership inflates the value of the donated easement (Slip Op. 3 n3):

   n3 This inflation is possible because the easement's value is often not calculated based on the land's recent purchase price but based on the value of its highest and best use. See PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd. v. Comm'r, 900 F.3d 193, 209 (5th Cir. 2018). So the limit on the valuation is little more than the imagination of the appraiser (who may be in on the scheme), tempered only by the fear of an audit. See generally Mary Clark, Greedy Giving, Bad for Business: Examining Problems with Arbitrary Standards in Appraising Conservation Easements, 51 U. Mem. L. Rev. 479 (2021).

District Court Enforces Summons to Delaware Dept of Insurance for Micro-Captive Information (10/4/21)

The district court has enforced the IRS summons issued to the Delaware Department of Insurance (“DDOI”) for information and documents on about 200 micro-captive insurance companies that DDOI issued certificates of authority.  United States v. Del. Dep't of Ins., No. 20-829, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186623 (D. Del. Sep. 29, 2021), CL here.  I previously wrote on the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) to enforce the summons.  Magistrate Judge Recommends Enforcement of IRS Summons to Delaware Dept of Insurance for Information Filed by Micro-Captives (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/19/21), here.  Substantial portions of the district court’s Background are simply a copy and paste from the Magistrate’s Report.

DDOI raised arguments of error in the Magistrate’s Report related to the interpretation and application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”):

(1) by applying a “threshold test” of whether the conduct at issue constitutes the business of insurance for a non-antitrust case; and (2) by determining that the challenged conduct does not constitute the “business of insurance.” DDOI also argues that the Report erred by failing to recommend dismissal of the Petition on the grounds that the MFA reverse-preempted the Summons.

The resolution of this issue gets into arcana of the MFA, so I won’t delve into it here in detail.  In summary, the district court held that, in non-antitrust cases, there was a threshold requirement for MFA that the activity in question constitute the business of insurance.  In doing so, the district court has an interesting discussion of precedential authority in the Third Circuit regarding whether a subsequent panel opinion that seems inconsistent with an earlier panel precedential decision can reverse the earlier holding without en banc consideration.  The Court finds that, under Third Circuit, authority, the prior precedential opinion controls.  Interesting.

The district court also affirmed the Magistrate’s Report’s finding that the activity in question was record maintenance rather than insurance subject to MFA.

The district court then summarily rejected the DDOI argument for reverse preemption under the MFA.

Magistrate Judge Recommends Enforcement of IRS Summons to Delaware Dept of Insurance for Information Filed by Micro-Captives (7/19/21)

In United States v. Del. Dep't of Ins., Civil Action No. 20-829-MN-CJB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132716 (D. Del. July 16, 2021), here, the magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation that the IRS summons to the Delaware Department of  Insurance (“DDOI”) be enforced to compel production of documents related to “Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (“Artex”), Tribeca Strategic Advisors, LLC (“Tribeca”) (which is owned by Artex) and others, in transactions involving micro-captive insurance plans.”  The summons “seeks information pertaining to approximately 200 insurance certificates of authority that DDOI issued to micro-captive insurance companies associated with Artex and Tribeca.”

Readers will recall that the routine for such petitions to enforce summons requires a rather minimal showing of need, called the Powell factors (United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964)) as stated by the Court:

(1)  “that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose”; (2) “that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose”; (3) “that the information sought is not already within the [IRS’] possession”; and (4) “that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed.”

The Government handily met that Powell showing and DDOI failed to rebut it (as is usually the case for persons opposing IRS summonses).

The material dispute the Court resolved related to so-called reverse pre-emption.  The State insurance code provided secrecy protections to micro-captive insurance companies submitting documents and information to the DDOI.  Normally, the federal law permitting IRS summonses would pre-empt such a state law.  However, the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”) permits state statutes to trump federal law in certain circumstances.  The MFA reserves to the states the “regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance.”  The statute, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1012(b), provides that

 (b) Federal regulation
No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, [t]hat . . . the Sherman Act, . . . the Clayton Act[] and . . . the Federal Trade Commission Act . . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.

The Court says (cleaned up):

Microsoft Summons Enforcement on Transfer Pricing "Planning" - Mixed on Privilege Claims (1/22/20)

After publishing this blog entry, a new article was published about Microsoft's transfer pricing planning and the audit.  I discuss that article in my comments below (Comment #4.)

In United States v. Microsoft, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8781 (W.D. Wash. 1/17/20), here, the district court resolved a contentious summons enforcement proceeding started in December 2014.  (See the CourtListener docket entries, here.)  Summons enforcement proceedings are supposed to be “summary in nature.”  United States v. Clarke, 573 U.S. 248, 254 (2014) (citing United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989)).

So, why was this summons enforcement proceeding not so summary, taking just over 5 years to resolve?  A hint at the answer is the amount of the tax savings involved (perhaps $5 billion over 10 years, achieved at a cost of $10 million (I don't think that planning included tax professional fees)), the promoter tax shelter context (involving one of the prominent bullshit promoter tax shelter players, KPMG, in the early 2000s), and the sheer number of attorneys appearing in the case (many of whom are amici).  (For the attorneys, see the CourtListener list which may be reviewed by clicking on the “Parties and Attorneys on the CourtListener docket list above; the Government lists 4 attorneys, Microsoft lists 14 (included terminated attorneys), and the amici attorneys are more than I want to count; the relative imbalance between the attorneys for Government and attorneys for the parties opposing the Government reminds me of the old saying about Texas rangers–one mob, one Ranger; in this case one mob, 4 Government attorneys.)

Well, there is not much in the case.  It is, after all, a summons enforcement proceeding where, once the minimal Powell standards are met, the summons is enforced.  United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964).  The Court thus early on ordered the summons enforced.  United States v. Microsoft Corp., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (2015).  But that left the privilege assertions to be thrashed over, hence the delay.

So, what’s the context for this battle?  Not surprisingly, high-dollar transfer pricing cost sharing arrangements that has drawn similar high dollar litigation with loads of attorneys.  E.g., Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1061 17143 (9th Cir. 2019), reh. en banc den. 941 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2019) (with an analogous melange of attorneys, including amici).  As the Microsoft Court said in the most recent opinion (the one linked in the opening paragraph):

Ultimately Microsoft did enter into cost sharing arrangements through technology licensing agreements. Because those cost sharing arrangements were required by law to be arm's length transactions, the design and implementation details are a central focus of the government's examination. The government expresses skepticism that a third party would be likely to enter into the agreements, thereby satisfying the arm's length standard, because the agreements contained several unique provisions. Dkt. #146 at ¶¶ 18-20. While many of the terms changed before and afterward the agreements were to have been formed, they remained favorable for Microsoft's income tax liability. Id. at ¶¶ 9-11. The government believes that the transactions were "designed and implemented for the purpose of avoiding tax." Id. at ¶ 20. n1
   n1 The government expresses further skepticism on the basis that the agreements effectively netted the Puerto Rican entity $30 billion for the "routine" reproduction of CDs containing software and did not otherwise have a significant impact on Microsoft's operations. Dkt. #146 at ¶¶ 15-20. 

Microsoft maintains that nothing was abnormal about its actions. [*7]  Microsoft argues that transfer pricing disputes with the government were prevalent and, "[r]ecognizing the inevitability of an [Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")] challenge, Microsoft was determined to be adequately prepared to defend these cost sharing arrangements." Dkt. #140 at 6; see also Dkt. #143 at ¶ 23. To this end, and because of the complexity of facts relevant to corporate international tax, Microsoft employed KPMG "to help the lawyers provide legal advice" and to give its own tax advice. Dkt. #140 at 1; Dkt. #143 at ¶¶ 7, 10. Mr. Boyle, then Microsoft's Corporate Vice President and Tax Counsel, maintains that the materials at issue were prepared for his use and that they were "prepared in anticipation of an administrative dispute or litigation with the IRS over the Puerto Rican cost sharing arrangement, the pricing of the software sales to Microsoft, and other issues expected to be in dispute relating to those transactions." Dkt. #143 at ¶ 23.

Second Circuit Opinion Affirming Denial of Motion to Quash Summons (10/1/15)

We have studied IRS summonses and summons enforcement in the class.  See Student edition pp. 271 - 282.  A recent nonprecedential opinion from the Second Circuit provides a useful review.  Highland Capital Management LP v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS _____ (2d. Cir. 2015), here.

The Court provides a helpful introduction (footnote omitted):

Petitioner-Appellant Highland Capital Management, L.P. ("Highland Capital") challenges a decision and order of the District Court denying its motion to quash a third-party summons served by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") and granting the IRS's cross-motion for enforcement. The IRS had issued the summons seeking documents related to its audit of Highland Capital (the "2008 audit"), and particularly regarding losses claimed for 2008 related to two transactions with Barclays. On appeal, Highland Capital argues that the District Court erred in refusing to quash the summons because (1) the IRS failed to provide reasonable notice in advance of issuing the summons, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7602(c)(1);1 (2) the summons seeks privileged and irrelevant documents; and (3) the summons was issued in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Finally, Highland Capital argues that the District Court erred by refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the question of the IRS's bad faith. "We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code de novo." Adamowicz v. United States, 531 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

Summons Relevance

As in some many of the endless stream of summons enforcement and quashing cases, the Court cites the Powell standard:

The standard set forth in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964), governs motions to quash an IRS summons. Under Powell, "[t]he IRS must make a prima facie showing that: (1) the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, (2) 'the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose,' (3) 'the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession,' and (4) 'the administrative steps required by the [Internal Revenue] Code have been followed.'"

The Court then moves to the second Powell requirement -- relevance.  The Court reasoned:

Highland Capital contends that the summons seeks irrelevant information insofar as it requests documents related to transactions other than the two being investigated in connection with the 2008 audit. In determining relevancy, "[t]his court has consistently held that the threshold the Commissioner must surmount is very low, namely, 'whether the inspection sought might have thrown light upon' the correctness of the taxpayer's returns." Adamowicz, 531 F.3d at 158 (quoting United States v. Noall, 587 F.2d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 1978)). A court properly "defer[s] to the agency's appraisal of relevancy . . . so long as it is not obviously wrong." Mollison, 481 F.3d at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the IRS agent conducting the 2008 audit has submitted a declaration explaining that information about the other transactions was necessary to determine how payments made in connection with a settlement agreement relate to the two transactions being investigated in the audit. Highland Capital has provided no reason for us to conclude that the IRS's appraisal of relevancy was "obviously wrong," and we accordingly find that Highland Capital has not satisfied its "heavy" burden to disprove this Powell factor. Mollison, 481 F.3d at 122-23, 124.

JAT Comment:  Basically, the agent said it was relevant to the tax investigation and the taxpayer did not show otherwise.  Obviously in a discovery context where the proponent of the discovery may not know the actual relevance of the documents requested, a broad standard of potential for relevance is required.

Reasonable Notice Pursuant to § 7602(c)(1)