Malta Pension Plans: The Anatomy of a Foreign Tax Shelter

Recently, it has come to the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) attention that some Americans have been participating in Malta pension plans. A Malta pension plan permits participants to contribute highly appreciated assets (i.e. appreciated cryptocurrency or stocks) to the plan. After the contribution to the plan is completed, the Malta pension plan typically sells the appreciated asset or assets to a third party in exchange for cash. The cash is then returned to the U.S. participant through a series of distributions. The asset contributed to the Malta pension plan is sold at a significant gain. However, the U.S. participant claims a treaty position under the U.S.-Malta tax treaty that no U.S. tax is triggered on the sale of the asset, other income earned by the plan, or distributions from the plan.

In 2021, the U.S. government and the Malta government entered into a competent authority arrangement (“CAA”) that most Malta pension plans do not meet the definition of a pension fund under the U.S.-Malta income tax treaty. The IRS has also issued proposed regulations that disapprove of Malta pension plans and classify Malta pension plans as listed transactions. An IRS listed transaction is a specific tax avoidance scheme that the IRS has identified through published guidance as being the same or substantially similar to known abusive strategy, requiring mandatory disclosure by participants and their advisors, with significant penalties for non-compliance. As a result of being a listed transaction, a U.S. participant’s failure to report a Malta pension can result in a minimum penalty of $5,000 and a maximum penalty of $100,000, plus any accuracy related (typically 20% of the portion of the tax underpayment) or civil fraud penalties (equal to 75% of the tax liability).

Being identified as a listed transaction imposes a number of record keeping requirements on Malta pension participants. Malta pension plan participants must retain a copy of “all documents and other records” related to the transaction that “are material to an understanding of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction.” See Treas. Reg. Section 1.6011-4(g)(1). Documents that may be considered “material” for Malta pensions are as follows:

1. Marketing materials
2. Written analysis used in decision making
3. Correspondence and any agreements between the pension plan participant and advisor, lender, or third parties to the transaction
4. Documents discussing, referencing, or demonstrating the purported tax benefits of the transaction
5. Documents referring to the business purpose of the transaction. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.6011-4(g)(1)

In June of 2023, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”) sent Summonses to a number of parties requesting information regarding Malta pensions and Malta pension transactions. The IRS CID Summonses demanded the identification of Malta pension participants and promoters of Malta pensions.

This article discusses the controversy regarding the U.S. taxation of Malta pension plans. This article also discusses the U.S. reporting requirements associated with Malta pension plans that U.S. participants in these plans often overlook. Finally, this article discusses various options U.S. participants can do to reduce their exposure to IRS penalties associated with being a beneficiary of a Malta pension plan.

Key Provisions of the U.S.-Malta Income Tax Treaty Applicable to the Taxation of Malta Pensions

The United States and the Republic of Malta ratified an income tax treaty in 2008.

Under Article 1, the “General Scope” of the United States-Malta income tax treaty, the United States and the Republic of Malta agreed to resolve their respective abilities to tax their residents and citizens. However, Article 1(5)(a) of the treaty provides for an exception from taxation for “pension funds.” Article 1(k) of the treaty broadly defines the term “pension fund” established in the United States as generally exempt from income taxation, and in the case of pension funds established in Malta, a licensed fund or scheme subject to tax only on income derived from immovable property situated in Malta; and operated principally either: a) to administer or provide pension or retirement benefits; and b) to earn income for the benefit of one or more persons.

Article 3 of the United States-Malta income tax treaty provides a definition to the term “pension fund.” According to Article 3 of the treaty, a “pension fund” is defined as 1) any person (including a trust, partnership, or company) established in Malta; 2) which is a licensed fund subject to tax only on income from immovable property located in Malta; and 3) operated principally to provide pension or retirement benefits, or to earn income for the benefit of one or more such arrangements.

Article 18 of the United States-Malta income income tax treaty provides where an individual who is a resident of one of the States is a member or beneficiary of, or participant in, a pension fund that is a resident of the other State, income earned by the pension fund may be taxed as income of that individual only when, and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 1, of Article 17 (Pensions, Social Security, Annuities, Alimony, and Child Support), to the extent that, it is paid to, or for the benefit of, that individual from the pension fund (and not transferred to another pension fund in that other State).

Under the Technical Explanation of the United States-Malta income tax treaty, Article 18 provides that, if a resident of a Contracting State participates in a pension fund established in the other Contracting State, the State of residence will not tax the income of the pension fund with respect to that resident until a distribution is made from the pension fund. Thus, for example, if a U.S. citizen contributes to a U.S. qualified plan while working in the United States and then establishes residence in Malta, Article 18 prevents Malta from taxing currently the plan’s earnings and profits with respect to that individual. In other words, under Article 18 of the treaty, if an individual is a resident of one of the treaty countries and a beneficiary of a pension fund that is a resident in the other treaty country, income earned by the pension fund may be taxed as income to the individual only and to the extent that it is paid to, or for the benefit of, that individual from the pension fund.

Article 17 of the United States-Malta income tax treaty provides that distributions from “pensions” that are beneficially owned by a resident of the United States or Malta shall only be taxed by the country where the beneficiary resides. Under the Technical Explanations to the United States-Malta income tax treaty provides an example to clarify Article 17. The example states as follows: “A distribution from a U.S. Roth IRA to a resident of Malta would be exempt from tax in Malta to the same extent the distribution would be exempt from tax in the United States if it were distributed to a U.S. resident.”

The U.S.-Malta income tax treaty contains a “savings clause” in Article 1 of the treaty. A treaty savings clause is a standard provision in U.S. income tax treaties that preserve the United States’ right to tax its citizens and residents as if the treaty were not in effect. The savings clause contained in Article 1 of the U.S.-Malta income tax treaty does not apply to Article 17 and Article 18 of the treaty. Thus the savings clause contained in Article 1 of the treaty did not prevent Americans claiming a treaty position to avoid or mitigate U.S. tax on Malta pensions. The U.S.-Malta income tax treaty contains a “limitation on benefits clause” or (“LOB”). A LOB is an anti-abuse provision contained in most U.S. tax treaties designed to prevent “treaty shopping” by ensuring only residents with a substantial economic connection to the treaty country receive reduced tax rates. It also prevents third-country residents from using conduit companies in treaty countries to unjustly access tax benefits. Article 22 of the U.S.-Malta income tax treaty did not prevent Malta pensions from qualifying for treaty benefits because typically more than 75 percent of the participants of a Malta pension were U.S. citizens or residents.

Malta Law Governing Pensions

Malta law authorizes its residents or citizens to establish a number of different types of pension plans. The Malta pension type that attracted the attention of U.S. participants is known as the “personal retirement scheme.” This pension permits Malta individuals and/or employers to contribute assets to a trust or other investment vehicles without any requirement that the contributions come from employment or self-employment income. Malta law also allows participants to contribute an unlimited amount of cash contributions or noncash assets to a personal retirement scheme.

U.S. Participants’ Tax Position in Regards to Malta Pensions

U.S. Participants of Malta pensions have taken the position that the plans should be treated as resident of Malta and a Malta pension plan should be treated as a trust for U.S. tax purposes. Malta pensions were established in a way that were classified as grantor trusts. A grantor trust is a legal arrangement established under foreign law, funded by a U.S. person (grantor) who retains control or power over the trust assets. Malta pension plan administrators were located in Malta and acted as trustees of the pension making the plans foreign trusts. The purpose of the Malta pension plan was to provide retirement benefits to the U.S. participants and as a result, a Malta pension plan is a “pension fund” for purposes of the U.S.-Malta income tax treaty.

As owners of the Malta pensions that were treated as grantor trusts for U.S. tax purposes, participants were able to contribute appreciated property to Malta pension plans without triggering immediate U.S. taxation for the participant. U.S. participants of Malta pension plans often contributed appreciated capital assets to the plans such as securities, ownership interests in entities, or cryptocurrency. U.S. Malta pension plan participants were provided no limit on the amount of contributions that could be made to the plan. Article 17 and Article 18 of the United States-Malta income tax treaty provided for tax-deferral of the proceeds transferred to the pension. Thus, U.S. participants believed that their contributions to Malta pensions grew tax-free.

Under Malta law, Maltese pensions were only taxed when there was a distribution from the plan. Malta law permitted a participant of a Malta pension plan to take a distribution from the plan at age 50. At that point, the participant could take an initial lump-sum distribution of up to 30 percent of the total value of the pension tax-free. This 30-percent tax exemption rule is on condition that the participant take another distribution three years after the initial distribution. Consequently, U.S. participants in Malta pension plans were free to take an initial lump-sum distribution of up to 30% of the value of the retirement plan tax-free under 17 and Article 18 of the U.S.-Malta income tax treaty. After the initial distribution, U.S. participants of Malta pension plans could take annual distributions from the plan based on actuarial principles stated in Section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 72(t) distributions are IRS-approved, penalty free withdrawals from retirement accounts (such as 401(k) or IRAs) taken before age 59 1/2. These distributions rely on the IRS actuarial tables to determine the annual amount, which must be taken for at least 5 years or until age 59 ½, whichever is longer.

Once three years had passed from the initial distribution, U.S. participants were free under Maltese law to take a second lump-sum distribution of 50 percent of the value of the assets transferred to the retirement plan free of United States taxes under Article 17 and Article 18 of the U.S-Malta income tax treaty.

IRS’s Position Regarding Malta Pensions

The IRS has taken the position that for treaty purposes, a Maltese plan must generally be funded by contributions from employment or self-employment, rather than a contribution of appreciated assets. The IRS has also threatened to audit the income tax returns of any U.S. participant of a Malta pension plan and tax any appreciated assets that were previously contributed to a Malta pension plan. In addition, the IRS has threatened to assess penalties and interest on any assessed tax liabilities assessed on Malta pension plan participants for previous tax years.

Can the IRS Disregard a Tax Treaty?

Some participants of Malta pension plans argue that the contributions of appreciated assets to a Malta pension was done prior to the IRS designating a Malta pension as a listed transaction. These same participants also argue that they relied on the United States-Malta income tax treaty to exclude income from contributions of appreciated assets to Maltese pension plans. Thus, the IRS is foreclosed from retroactively setting aside a tax treaty they relied upon. They may have a point.

The IRS issued the CAA in 2021. The CAA issued by the IRS can be considered a formal ruling making proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The APA has a notice-and-comment requirement when a federal agency promulgates rules. The CAA was enacted without notice-and-comment. Consequently, the CAA may violate the APA. In addition, the CAA may directly conflict with treaty language that was negotiated and ratified by the Senate. The IRS may have an uphill battle in any tax litigation that may take place in the future in regards to the taxation of Malta pension plans. This does not mean that U.S. participants of Malta pension plans are off the hook. As discussed below, participants in Malta pension plans had a number of informational returns requirements with the IRS. If these returns are not timely filed by the participant, the IRS can assess steep penalties. The investments U.S. participants made through Malta pensions can also trigger significant tax consequences irrespective of any treaty provisions.

Malta Plan’s Effects on U.S. Tax Return Preparation

U.S. individuals that participated in a Maltese pension have a number of information return filing obligations with the IRS that cannot be avoided. Below, we will discuss each information return filing requirement.

Reporting Requirements Relating to Foreign Bank Accounts FinCEN 114

In 1970, Congress enacted what has commonly become known as the bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), as part of the Currency and Foreign Transaction Report Act. This was codified in Title 31 (Money and Finance) of the U.S. Code. The purpose of the BSA was to prevent money laundering by requiring the filing of reports and the retention of records where doing so would be helpful to the U.S. government in carrying out criminal, civil, tax, and regulatory investigations. Failure to timely file a FinCEN can result in a non-willful penalty of up to $16,536 per violation or a penalty of $165,353 or 50% of the account balance for willful violations. These penalties are assessed annually. Under the BSA provisions, a U.S. person has a legal obligation to disclose a foreign financial account on a FinCEN 114 if all of the following conditions are met: 1) a “U.S. person,” 2) had a “financial interest” in, or “signature authority” over, or “other authority” over 3) one or more “financial account,” 4) located in a “foreign country,” 5) and the aggregate value of such account(s) exceeded $10,000, 6) any any time during the calendar year.

Malta pensions are foreign financial accounts in which U.S. participants have “signature authority” or “other authority over.” Thus, U.S. participants in a Malta pension are required to report the existence of the plan on FinCEN 114. Failure to do so can not only result in the civil penalties discussed above, the beneficial owner of such a plan could also be subject to serious criminal penalties.

Form 8938 and Malta Pensions

Form 8938 is used to report interest in specified foreign financial assets to the IRS. Specified foreign financial assets includes: 1) financial accounts maintained by a foreign financial institution; 2) stock or securities issued by a non-U.S. person; 3) any interest in a foreign entity; and 4) any financial instrument or contract that has an issuer or counterparty that is not a U.S. person. The reporting threshold depends on whether the U.S. person is married or unmarried, whether the U.S. person resides inside or outside the United States. The reporting threshold for the Form 8938 ranges between $50,000 and $150,000 of the value of the specified foreign financial asset. Under Section 6039D of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS may assess a penalty of $10,000 per year for each Form 8938 not timely filed.

A Malta pension plan is a specified foreign financial asset that must be timely and annually disclosed on a Form 8938 to the IRS. Failure to timely disclose a Malta pension on a Form 8938 can trigger annual $10,000 penalties.

Reporting Requirements Associated with Foreign Trusts

Most foreign pensions are treated as foreign trust for U.S. purposes because they involve a foreign fiduciary arrangement managing assets for U.S. beneficiaries. As discussed above, Malta pensions are classified as foreign trusts under U.S. law. U.S. persons that are beneficiaries of foreign trusts or interact with foreign trusts are annually required to file Forms 3520 and Form 3520-A with the IRS. The penalty for failing to timely file a Form 3520 is the greater of 1) $10,000; 2) 35% of the gross value of any property transferred to the foreign trust; 3) 35% of the gross value of the distributions received from the foreign trust; or 4) 5% of the gross value of the portion of the foreign trust’s assets treated as owned by a U.S. person under the grantor trust rules. The penalty for failing to timely file a Form 3520-A is the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the gross value of the portion of the trust’s assets treated as owned by the U.S. person.

The failure of a Malta retirement plan participant to annually file Forms 3520 and Forms 3520-A over the years can result in penalties that exceed the value of the pension plans.

Malta Pensions and PFIC Investments

In our experience, U.S. persons that hold Malta pensions are often advised to invest in mutual funds or other passive foreign investments through the pension plan. This is a big mistake because foreign mutual funds and other passive foreign investments are taxed under the passive foreign investment company (or “PFIC”) rules. Once a foreign mutual fund or other passive investment is liquidated it is taxed at ordinary income rates rather than favorable capital gains rates. The PFIC tax regime also assesses a throwback interest on the accumulation of income by the foreign trust. There are no treaty provisions that shield U.S. Malta plan participants from these harsh tax consequences. Below, is a detailed discussion of how the PFIC rules operate.

In order to understand why PFIC rules were enacted, it is important to take a step-back and understand the historical background as to why these rules were enacted. U.S. investors in domestic mutual funds have always been taxed on the fund’s investment income because a domestic fund must distribute at least 90% of its income each year in order to avoid U.S. corporation taxation. See IRC Section 851 and 852. On the other hand, at one time the U.S. holders of foreign mutual funds were able to avoid U.S. tax as a result of the funds not paying dividends. Congress believed that U.S. owners of foreign mutual funds had an unfair advantage over U.S. owners of domestic mutual funds. This resulted in the enactment of the PFIC tax regime that significantly expanded the reach of the IRS with respect to passive investment income earned by U.S. persons through foreign corporations.

The objective of the PFIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code is to deprive a U.S. taxpayer of the economic benefit of deferral of U.S. tax on a taxpayer’s share of the undistributed income of a foreign investment company that has predominantly passive income. Although the PFIC provisions were aimed at U.S. persons holding stock in foreign investment funds, the PFIC provisions have a much broader impact. The PFIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may apply to any U.S. person holding stock in any foreign corporation, even one engaged in an active foreign business such as manufacturing, for any tax year in which the corporation derives enough passive income or owns enough passive assets to meet the definition of a PFIC.

Definition of PFIC

A foreign corporation is a PFIC if it satisfies either an income or asset test. Under the income test, a foreign corporation is a PFIC if 75% or more of the corporation’s gross income for the taxable year is defined as “foreign personal holding company” for purposes of Subpart F provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, with certain adjustments. Internal Revenue Code Section 954(c) defines “foreign personal holding company income” to include most types of passive income, such as interest, dividends, rents, annuities, royalties and gains from the sale of stock, securities or other property that produces interest, dividends, rents, annuities or royalties. See IRC Section 954(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B)(i).

For purposes of the income test, passive income is subject to four exceptions. The first two exceptions relate to income from the active conduct of a banking or insurance business. See IRC Section 1297(b)(2)(A) and (B). The third covers interest, dividend, rent or royalty income received from a related person to the extent that such income is properly allocated to income of such related person that is not passive income. See IRC Section 1297(b)(2)(C). The fourth covers certain foreign trade income subject to special treatment under two preferential tax regimes for export sales. Under the asset test, a foreign corporation is a PFIC if the average market value of the corporation’s passive assets during the taxable year is 50% or more of the corporation’s total assets. An asset is characterized as passive if it has generated (or is reasonably expected to generate) passive income in the hands of the foreign corporation. See IRC Section 1297. Assets that generate both passive and nonpassive income in a tax year are treated as partly passive and partly nonpassive to the proportion to the relative amounts of the two types of income generated by those assets in that year. See IRC Notice 88-22.

Taxation of PFICS

A U.S. person that has invested in PFIC through a pension plan is subject to the Section 1291 excess distribution rules in which shareholders must allocate excess distributions and gains realized upon the sale of their PFIC shares pro rata to their holding period. See IRC Section 1291(a)(1)(A).

An excess distribution includes the following:

A gain realized on the sale of PFIC stock, and

2) Any actual distribution made by the PFIC, but only to the extent the total actual distribution received by the taxpayer for the year exceeds 125 percent of the average actual distribution received by the taxpayer in the preceding three taxable years. The amount of an excess distribution is treated as if it had been realized pro rata over the holding period of the foreign share and, therefore, the tax due on an excess distribution is the sum of the deferred yearly tax amounts. This is computed by using the highest tax rate in effect in the years the income was accumulated, plus interest. Any actual distributions that fall below the 125 percent threshold are treated as dividends. This assumes they represent a distribution of earnings and profits, which are taxable in the year of receipt and are not subject to the special interest charge.

Interest charges are assessed on taxes deemed owed on excess distributions allocated to tax years prior to the tax year in which the excess distribution was received. All capital gains from the sale of PFIC shares are treated as ordinary income for federal tax purposes and thus are not taxed at favorable long-term capital gains rates. See IRC Section 1291(a)(1)(B). In addition, holders of PFIC investments cannot claim capital losses upon the disposition of PFIC shares.

Below, please see Illustration 1. and Illustration 2. which demonstrates the U.S. taxation of investments taxed as PFICs.

Illustration 1.

Jim is an engineer and a citizen of Germany. Jim moved to California and became a U.S. green card holder. Jim likes to invest in foreign mutual funds. On the advice of his German broker, on January 1, 2016, Jim buys 1 percent of FORmut, a mutual fund incorporated in a foreign country for $1. FORmut is a PFIC. During the 2016, 2017, and 2018 calendar years, FORmut accumulated earnings and profits. On December 31, 2018, Jim sold his interest in FORmut for $300,001. To determine the PFIC excess distribution, Jim must throw the entire $300,000 gain received over the entire period that he owned the FORmut shares – $100,000 to 2016, $100,000 to 2017, and $100,000 to 2018. For each of those years, Jim will pay tax on the throw-back gain at the highest rate in effect that year with interest on the holding period of the PFIC.

It is easy to envision significantly more complex scenarios. Such a scenario is described in Illustration 2 which is based on an example in Staff of Joint Comm. On Tax’n, 100 Cong., 1st Sess., General Explanation of Tax Reform of 1986, at 1027-28(1987).

Illustration 2.

On January 1 of year 1, Samatha, a U.S citizen, acquired 1,000 shares in FC, a foreign corporation that is a PFIC. She acquired another 1,000 shares of FC stock on January 1 of year 2. During years 1 through 5, Samatha receives the following dividend distribution from FC:

Date of Distribution                                               Amount of Distribution

Dec. 31 of year 1                                                     $500
Dec. 31 of year 2                                                     $1,000
Dec. 31 of year 3                                                     $1,000
Dec. 31 of year 4                                                     $1,000
Apr. 1 of year 5                                                         $1,500
Oct. 1 of year 5                                                         $500

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 1291, none of the distributions received before year 5, are excess distributions since the amount of each distribution with respect to a share is 50 cents. However, with respect to distributions during year 5, the total distribution to each share is 37.5 cents ($1 minus 62.5 cents (1.25 times 50 cents)).

Accordingly, the total excess distribution for FC’s tax year ending December 31 of year 5 is $750 (37.5 per share times 2,000 shares). This excess distribution must be allocated ratably between the two distributions during year 5. Thus, $562.50 (75 percent of the excess distribution, i.e., $750 times $1,500/$2,000) is allocated to the April 1 distribution and $187.50 (the remaining 25 percent of the excess distribution, i.e. $750 $500/$2,000) is allocated to the October 1 distribution. These amounts are then ratably allocated to each block of stock outstanding on the relevant distribution date. For the distribution on April 1 of year 5, $281.25 of the excess distribution is allocated to the block of stock acquired on January 1 of year 1 and $281.25 is allocated to the block of stock acquired on January 1 of year 2 and $281.25 is allocated to the block of stock acquired on January 1 of year 3. The $187.50 excess distribution on October 1 of year 5 is also allocated evenly between the two blocks of stock outstanding on the date of the distribution. Finally, the excess distribution for each block of stock is in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 1291(a)(1).

The federal tax due in the year of disposition (or year of receipt of an excess distribution) is the sum of 1) U.S. tax computed using the highest rate of U.S. tax for the shareholder (without regard to other income or expenses the shareholder may have) on income attributed to prior years (called “the aggregate increase in taxes” in Section 1291(c)(1)), plus 2) U.S. tax on the gain attributed to the year of disposition (or year of receipt of the distribution) and to years in which the foreign corporation was not a PFIC (for which no interest is due). Items (1) and (2) together are called the “deferred tax amount” in Section 1291. Item (2), the interest charge on the deferred tax, is computed for the period starting on the due date for the prior year to which the gain on distribution or disposition is attributed and ending on the due date for the current year in which the distribution or disposition occurs.

As indicated above, not only are the PFIC taxing rules complex, these rules can generate significant tax liabilities which, in certain cases, exceed the value of the foreign stock.

Elections to Mitigate PFIC Consequences

An individual that holds PFIC through a Maltese pension or other foreign pension may potentially make a “Qualified Electing Fund” or “mark to market” election to mitigate his or her exposure to the PFIC tax regime.  A “Qualified Electing Fund” election taxes PFIC differently than the default PFIC regime. A U.S. person who has elected to make a “qualified electing fund” treatment with respect to a PFIC will currently include in gross income that shareholder’s pro rata share of the PFIC’s earnings and profits.

Under the “mark-to-market” election, a U.S. person holding an interest in a Maltese pension that owns an investment subject to the PFIC tax regime may elect to make a “mark-to-market” election of the PFIC investment can be classified as a “marketable stock.” Under the “mark-to-market” rules, any increased value of the investment is taxed for U.S. tax purposes whether or not the stocks are sold. Making a timely “qualified electing fund” or “mark-to-market” election can typically save the pension holder a significant amount of tax, interest, and penalties. The problem is “qualified electing fund” or “mark-to-market” elections must be made timely. Sometimes “qualified electing fund” and “mark-to-market” elections can be made late.

Anytime a U.S. person holds foreign investments directly or through a foreign pension that can be classified as PFICs, the U.S. person is required to annually disclose those assets to the IRS on a Form 8621.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion is intended to provide the reader with a basic understanding regarding the taxation of Malta pension plans and reporting requirements. The IRS has threatened significant civil and criminal penalties to Malta pension plan participants. If you have participated in a Malta pension plan, you should immediately consult with a competent international tax attorney regarding your filing requirements and options to mitigate your exposure to civil and criminal penalties. We have significant experience advising individuals that have invested in a Maltese pension plan.

Anthony Diosdi is a tax attorney at Diosdi & Liu, LLP. He has significant experience defending private clients before the IRS in difficult and complex tax disputes. Anthony counsels clients through examinations and liability disputes and, when necessary, takes disputed issues to court. Anthony is a member of the California and Florida bars. He can be reached at 415-318-3990 or adiosdi@sftaxcounsel.com.

This article is not legal or tax advice. If you are in need of legal or tax advice, you should immediately consult a licensed attorney.