While Stephen, Keith and I are traveling, important and interesting tax procedure developments keep coming. For those who are missing their tax procedure fix, I point to two cases and other nice write ups that will give some good context.
The first is the Hom case; Mr. Hom has filled a few PT posts with varied and important tax procedure issues. In the development this week, in a nonprecedential and unpublished (but freely available) opinion the Ninth Circuit reversed in part the district court in a case involving whether online gambling sites were accounts that were required to be reported under the FBAR rules.
Jack Townsend at Federal Tax Crimes and Ed Zollars at Current Federal Tax Developments both discuss the case.
The other case that caught my eye and is one that I will be returning too is the Maze v IRS case out of the federal district court in DC. It contains an important discussion of the Anti-Injunction Act. In particular, the opinion considers whether the AIA is a bar to preventing the court from considering the taxpayer’s argument that the IRS should have used streamlined procedures rather than transition streamlined procedures.
Not surprisingly, Jack’s blog, which is the place to turn for developments generally relating to criminal tax but in particular on all offshore issues, hits the opinion hard here.
What caught my eye in the opinion is the extensive discussion of Florida Bankers and other important AIA cases, including Cohen v US, Foodservice and Lodging Inst. v Regan, and Seven-Sky v Holder. We have discussed some of those issues in PT previously. The opinion is careful to limit the openings in the AIA that some cases have revealed.