May 24, 2012

IRS in the Dark About Number of Tax Shelters and Avoidance Schemes

Tax avoidance schemes, like tax shelters, present a continual problem for IRS. In the 1990s, large corporate tax shelters gained popularity, but more recently, there has been an emphasis on international tax avoidance, like hiding funds in offshore accounts. The IRS’ data on tax shelters is limited, and since the schemes are constantly changing to avoid detection, it presents a constant enforcement issue for the agency.

Some accounting firms or tax firms sell advice to wealthy individuals or corporation on schemes to avoid paying taxes. Tax shelters can involve extremely complex arrangements. The “lease-in, lease-out” shelter involves corporations supposedly leasing large assets, such as sewer systems, from owners without a tax liability and then immediately leasing them back to the original owners to delay income recognition. Simpler techniques involve using inflated or false credits for tax returns, which allow firms to systematically take small-scale reductions with multiple clients and deter IRS detection.

While the IRS has many efforts focused on eliminating tax shelters, it has struggled to estimate the scope of the problem accurately or document results and the impact of its current initiatives, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

IRS has limited data on the number of firm or companies promoting tax avoidance schemes and taxpayers investing in their advice. Using different methods, IRS estimated in 2006 that about 1 million tax returns and between about 11,000 and 15,000 promoters were involved in tax avoidance.

The IRS also lacked information on why investigations were closed without penalties, which could help determine which cases to investigate. Out of the 130 cases discontinued in 2009, GAO could not analyze 33 because officials lacked documentation. In two-thirds of the remaining 97 cases analyzed, the investigations closed because the parties were not actively promoting abusive transactions or because IRS could not obtain enough evidence to support a penalty.

“While measuring the impact of IRS’s efforts is challenging, having more information on the results of its enforcement efforts such as why investigations were closed without penalties or injunctions would better inform IRS management when making judgments about program effectiveness and resource allocation,” the GAO said.

Between 2006 and 2010, the IRS investigated 1,466 promoter situations, about 38 percent of which were given penalties or injunctions and 62 percent which were closed out. IRS has no criteria to indicate whether the investigation results were at desired levels, which would be important in deciding which types of cases to select for investigation.

FAST FACT: The large business division’s examination of 9,400 tax returns with suspected avoidance schemes recommended additional assessments for tax issues totaling $42.4 billion, of which taxpayers disagreed with about 84 percent. The Small Business division examination of 125,700 returns with suspected avoidance schemes recommended assessments for issues worth $6 billion, of which taxpayers contested 54 percent through the IRS’s Appeals office. 

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.