Planning judgment, applied under scrutiny
A letter, examination request, proposed adjustment, or collection notice can look self-contained. The real questions are broader: what position is the agency taking, what record supports the taxpayer’s response, which deadline controls, and what choices remain before the issue becomes harder to resolve. Controversy work requires a durable theory, organized proof, and a practical path through the agency or court process.
Useful for
Individuals and businesses facing examinations, adverse determinations, penalties, collection pressure, or disputed assessments.
Understanding the transaction behind the dispute
Effective controversy work often requires more than responding to an agency's stated theory. The underlying transaction, legal relationships, documents, and planning assumptions may determine whether the assessment is correct and how it should be challenged.
A disciplined response starts with the file
Effective representation begins by identifying the notice, preserving the date, organizing the relevant documents, and understanding the transaction or reporting decision behind the issue. The goal is not simply to send a response. It is to take a position that can be explained, supported, and carried through the next stage if necessary.
What this can include
- Tax audits and examinations
- Tax penalties
- Administrative appeals
- Tax litigation
- Tax collection
- IRS and California Franchise Tax Board disputes
- Employment tax matters
Reported Decisions
Most engagements resolve at examination or administrative appeal, as they should. Matters that required litigation include the following.
Brennan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-187 (consolidated with Ashland), addressing jurisdiction and assessment limitations in TEFRA partnership-level proceedings.
Brennan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-209, addressing partners' distributive shares and penalty determinations following the sale of partnership assets.
Knappe v. United States, 713 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013), addressing whether an executor's reliance on expert advice regarding a filing deadline establishes reasonable cause for estate tax late-filing penalties.
Sanchez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-174, defending against the section 6663 civil fraud penalty, including reasonable cause and reliance on a return preparer.
For a detailed discussion of California collection limits, see California's 20-Year Tax Collection Clock Has a Constitution Problem.