here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case: 11-1612 Document: 003110561288 Page: 34 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 states that: ―the IRS has singled out a small group of USVI taxpayers for special treatment – the very types of high income taxpayers that federal tax incentives are seeking to attract to the USVI – by effectively eliminating the [statute of limitations] applicable to them but not the [statute of limitation] applicable to other similarly situated taxpayers (emphasis added).‖ Id. at 391- 92; Doc. # 1-6; A-000085-86. Ms. Olsen goes on to note that: ―the IRS has, without legislation, upset longstanding expectations by singling out for special treatment those taxpayers with gross incomes of more than $75,000 who are claiming USVI residency. For many taxpayers the [statute of limitations] will not begin (or end) for tax years ending before December 31, 2006, even if they have properly filed nonfraudulent returns and have not claimed [USVI tax] benefits.‖ Id. at 397; Doc. # 1-6; A- 000091. Moreover, both the District Court and this Court stand as bulwarks to protect taxpayers‘ rights from IRS over-reaching. Again, the Taxpayer Advocate notes: For a year and a half, the National Taxpayer Advocate has been requesting specific data regarding USVI cases. Only after it became evident that she would publicly discuss this lack of transparency did the IRS provide any USVI data to [the Taxpayer Advocate]. The IRS’s repeated failure to provide such information to [the Taxpayer Advocate], an entity designed by Congress to protect taxpayer rights, is cause for concern. FUERST ITTLEMAN, PL 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, 32 ND FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33131 • T: 305.350.5690 • F: 305.371.8989 • WWW.FUERSTLAW.COM 26 | P a g e
Case: 11-1612 Document: 003110561288 Page: 35 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 Without transparency of statutory limits on the IRS‘s exercise of discretion in conducting audits of a certain group of USVI residents for an unlimited period of time, taxpayer rights are at risk. (emphasis added). Id. at 398-99; Doc. # 1-6; A-000092-93. All of Ms. Olsen‘s statement should be taken as an admission of a party opponent under Fed.R.Ev. 801(d)(2), and should be taken as definitive evidence of institutional bad faith, and was argued as such in the proceeding below. As Ms. Olsen‘s statement demonstrates, this Court should construe her statement as an admission that the IRS as an institution has not acted in good faith. This Court should not allow the IRS to trample over the rights of taxpayers, ignore its obligations under the law, and defy the intent of Congress: ―[u]nquestionably the broad investigatory powers of IRS agents will occasionally be subject to abuses. The courts should be attentive to circumstances where such abuses are likely to have taken place.‖ United States v. McCarthy, 514 F.2d 368, 375 (3d Cir. 1975). Moreover, ―federal courts have never lent their enforcement machinery to an executive branch investigative body in the manner of a rubber stamp.‖ SEC v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc) (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 486 F.2d 85, 90 (3d Cir. 1973)). Indeed, the District Court properly noted that ―the requirement of legitimate purpose means nothing more than that the government‘s summons must be issued FUERST ITTLEMAN, PL 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, 32 ND FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33131 • T: 305.350.5690 • F: 305.371.8989 • WWW.FUERSTLAW.COM 27 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: Case: 11-1612 Document: 00311056128
Page 3 and 4: CONCLUSION……………………
Page 7 and 8: 26 U.S.C. (IRC) § 6501…………
Page 33: Case: 11-1612 Document: 00311056128
Page 47 and 48: Case Case: 3:10-mc-00024-GEB 11-161
Page 55 and 56: Case 3:10-mc-00024-GEB Case: 11-161

here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?