Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City
Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City
Many companies' tax disputes do not begin when they receive a tax penalty.
The real starting point might just be a letter:
Alternatively, notify the company's responsible person and financial personnel to be present for questioning.
At first glance, it might seem like simply: "Just hand over the documents."
However, for businesses, what information they provide the first time, how they explain the transaction, who answers the questions, and whether the accounting information is consistent with the actual business process often directly affect how the IRS understands the entire case later.
Therefore, after receiving a tax audit notice, the first question a company should ask itself is not: "Should we fight back against the IRS?"
Instead:What exactly is the IRS investigating right now?What are the true facts of the company's transactions?What accounts and documents can prove this fact?as well as:Is this currently just a tax investigation, or has it already potentially involved penalties or even criminal risks?
After receiving the document, please confirm the following:
Is the presence of the person in charge or a specific person required?
For example, the same phrase could be: "The IRS is auditing the accounts."
They might actually be investigating:
Or a specific trading partner.
If a company submits years of accounting records and a large amount of data directly to the IRS without even confirming the real issues, it is easy to lose focus of the case later.
When it comes to specific notifications, you can start from...Tax lawyers, IRS audits and administrative remediesFrom this perspective, confirm the scope of this procedure and the data.
Can.
according to"Tax Collection LawArticle 30 states that tax collection authorities may, in order to investigate taxation data, conduct investigations with relevant authorities, organizations, or individuals in accordance with the law. The following points should be noted:
Other relevant documents may also be provided to taxpayers to their office for inquiries.
Therefore, the company cannot simply dismiss it as "internal company information."
They completely rejected legitimate investigations.
However, the same law also clearly requires:Investigations must not exceed the scope necessary for the purpose of taxation.Therefore, the correct approach is neither to refuse the investigation nor to hand over all company information indiscriminately.
Instead, confirm first:
Which documents actually correspond to the items being investigated?
Some simple cases may be handled by accounting staff through normal procedures.
But if the case has already occurred:
If the company's responsible person may be involved, then it cannot be treated as a regular replacement part.
Because what the IRS really wants to understand is probably not: "How it's recorded in the books."
Instead:What actually happened in this deal?Accounting entries are only one part of it.
Further comparison is needed:
Board of Directors or other decision-making materials.
When corporate decisions and original transactions are involved, they should also be clarified together.Company business and transaction disputes.
For example, the IRS is investigating a company for paying $10 million in consulting fees.
Don't just prepare: invoices.
The complete transaction should be organized as follows:
If the line itself is complete, the case is relatively easy to explain.
if:
If the actual payment is D, the reason should be found out before the first formal explanation.
The IRS typically does not rely on a single document to determine the authenticity of a transaction.
The real issue in many tax disputes is ultimately:Does the account name match the actual transaction?For example, the account might state:
bad debt.
But what really needs to be determined in taxation is: whether there was a real transaction?
Is the service actually provided?
Is this expense related to the company's operations?
Is the recipient of the payment the actual counterparty in the transaction?
Which year does the income belong to?
Is there any related-party transaction involved?
Is there any capital repatriation? If the funds involve transactions between the company and its shareholders, this should also be clarified.How to handle situations where the State Taxation Administration discovers shareholder transactions or other receivables?.
so:Accounting entries are not the end of the case.We need to get back to the real business facts.
Cases involving large enterprises are common:
External accountants are familiar with the reporting process.
It's possible that no one intentionally misspoke.
However, if the information is different from each other, the IRS may end up seeing contradictions.
Therefore, it is best to establish the following before giving a formal reply:
When did this happen?
Whoever makes the decision, executes it, and records the transaction.
Are the contracts, invoices, payments, and ledgers consistent?
What is the IRS really questioning?
This is not a demand for everyone to "say the same thing".
Instead, ensure that the company's answers are based on:On the same set of real data.
For example, the person in charge might ask, "Was this transaction decided by the chairman?"
Why was this payment made in this way in 2019?
"Is this company related to you?"
If the person involved truly cannot confirm, do not try to guess the answer based on memories from many years ago just to appear cooperative.
In particular, it involves:
It's best to check the contract details in the documents first.
A more accurate explanation would be: "This part needs to be supplemented after confirming the original data with the company."
It's usually safer to guess an answer only to later discover it contradicts written information.
have.
《Taxpayer Rights Protection LawArticle 11 requires that when tax collection authorities investigate evidence, they must, regarding taxpayers:
All unfavorable factors should be noted.
The investigation method must be:
And adopt methods that minimize the infringement on taxpayers' basic rights.
In principle, the tax collection authority still bears the burden of proof regarding the essential facts required for taxation or punishment in accordance with the law.
Therefore, a tax investigation is not a matter of "the IRS having suspicions, and the company must prove that there are absolutely no problems."
However, taxpayers are still legally obligated to fulfill their obligations to file reports, retain documents, and cooperate with investigations.
Both must be understood together.
According to Article 12 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Law, in principle, tax authorities should provide written notification before conducting an investigation.
And the scope.
The respondents have the right to:
Or they may be accompanied by an assistant.
The law also provides protection against making statements or accepting investigations until an agent or assistant is present.
Therefore, if the case already involves:
Regarding criminal risks, don't wait until after the initial explanation to ask, "Will there be any problems with what I just said?"
Article 12 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Law further stipulates that after informing the tax collection authority, the person being investigated may record audio or video on their own, or request the tax collection authority to record audio or video of the on-site investigation process.
Unless there are legitimate reasons under the law for maintaining the confidentiality of the investigation, and as required by law, they shall be recorded.
Whether recording is necessary in a specific case should be determined based on the nature of the investigation and the overall strategy.
The point is not to confront the investigator, but to ensure that important factual statements and the investigation process are clearly documented.
According to Article 32 of the Tax Collection Law, when tax collection agencies or investigators designated by the Ministry of Finance are performing their duties in accordance with the law, they shall present relevant documents proving their official duties.
If the document is not presented, the law provides otherwise for the person being investigated to refuse to cooperate.
This issue typically doesn't arise from official IRS notices.
But if it happens:
If the identity or investigative authority is unclear, it should be verified first:
Scope of the investigation.
Avoid situations where a company submits original documents to the IRS but fails to keep a record of what was actually submitted.
Recommendation:
Delivery date.
Keep the version delivered on the day of delivery.
Every message sent is saved.
Meeting minutes.
If we really enter this future:
In administrative litigation, these will become the most important procedural timeline of the case.
This does not refer to legally supplementing information that already exists but has not yet been provided.
The real danger is that a file that didn't exist originally is later imaged and was already present at the time of its creation.
For example:
The counterparty in the transaction is required to cooperate in revising the wording.
These actions could escalate what was initially a tax dispute into something much more serious.
Even criminal issues.
The most important principle after receiving an investigation notice is:Preserve the original data.
Allegations involving falsified books and vouchers should be evaluated separately.Business accounting law, books and vouchers risks.
This is not how it should be handled.
Within the scope of a lawful investigation, the company still has an obligation to cooperate in accordance with the law.
However, if a range is required:
If the connection to this tax matter is unclear, further investigation can be conducted through legal procedures.
Or confirm whether other methods can be used to provide it.
The key point is to respond in accordance with the law, not to deliberately conceal unfavorable information.
That's not the case either: throwing away all the company's documents without any organization whatsoever.
uncertain.
These three things should be separated.
The core issue is: how much tax should have been paid according to the law.
In addition to objectively violating obligations, further examination of the elements required for punishment is necessary.
Article 16 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Law stipulates that acts that violate tax obligations are not punishable unless they are committed intentionally or negligently.
so:Deemed to be required to pay additional taxesNot necessarily equals:They must be punished with the same level of penalty.
Criminal cases also have higher requirements for the elements of a crime and the proof of the crime.
therefore:
Criminal cases cannot all be lumped together as one thing.
What actually happened in the transaction?
Do I need to pay additional taxes?
Did it involve intent or negligence, or other elements required for a penalty?
Does this involve fraudulent transactions, false documentation, forged accounting records, or other criminal issues? Further information on the relevant tiered assessment is available.Taxation, penalties, and criminal liability when the IRS identifies fraudulent transactions or false invoices..
Taxes, fines, and criminal liability are not the same thing and should be analyzed separately.
If the survey content begins to appear:
If the company's responsible person was aware of the involvement, they should have conducted a further evaluation:
Even other related criminal liabilities.
At this point, the case can no longer be treated simply as: "The IRS needs to provide additional information."
Tax administrative procedures and criminal risks must be considered simultaneously.
These situations should be assessed simultaneously.Corporate criminal and criminal risks of company executivesInstead of just processing replacement parts.
no.
generally:
They are required to explain that this is part of a tax investigation process.
Criminal searches involve different legal thresholds and judicial procedures.
Article 31 of the Tax Collection Law provides for a system for applying for a search warrant from judicial authorities in accordance with the law for cases involving suspected criminal evasion of income tax and business tax.
Therefore, receiving an adjustment notice does not mean that the company is already involved in a criminal case.
However, if the investigation gradually involves:
The possibility of the program escalating should not be ignored.
If the program has been upgradedCompany executives summoned by the investigation bureau or company searchedPreparations for such investigations should be assessed separately from those for general tax investigations.
The answer to many major cases is:We need both.Accountants are usually more familiar with:
Financial report.
The lawyer mainly handles:
And criminal risks.
Truly complex corporate tax cases are not:
No, it's not that accountants replaced lawyers.
Instead, it is:Transaction facts + accounting treatment + legal liabilityThey are placed within the same architecture.
Declaration, accounting, tax amount, accounting treatment
Scope of investigation, legal characterization, evidence, penalties, administrative remedies, and criminal risks
Major corporate tax disputes typically require collaboration between the two parties, rather than one replacing the other.
uncertain.
Professional accounting or tax advice may be material fact and may affect the company and its responsible parties:
Judgment of intentional negligence.
However, confirmation is still required:
Professional advice addresses:
It's still a matter of complete legal procedures.
Therefore, do not say: "The accountant handled it."
This is directly equivalent to: "The company is absolutely legal."
However, we should not overlook the significant evidentiary value that professional opinions may possess.
At least organize:
Company internal approval process.
The real question to answer is: Why did this deal happen?
How are these conditions formed?
What does the company get?
What does the other party provide?
It's not enough to simply say, "This is a normal transaction."
Don't just give an invoice.
At least further preparations should be made:
Basis for accounting entries.
because:Invoice availableand:Fees can be recognized according to lawThey are not exactly the same problem.
Conversely, the absence of a formal document does not necessarily mean that a real transaction does not exist.
We still need to examine the evidence in its entirety.
confirm:
When to submit the application.
Many income disputes are not about whether the money actually exists.
Instead:During which period should the recognition be made?Therefore, don't just use the bank deposit date to answer all income questions.
It cannot be generalized.
If, after full confirmation by the company, accountant, and lawyer, it is indeed true that:
Any matters requiring supplementary tax payment should, of course, be handled in accordance with the law.
But if the dispute truly involves:
Before applying tax law, it should be confirmed whether the IRS has a complete understanding of the facts.
Don't be afraid that things will escalate.
To acknowledge a legal conclusion that is actually controversial without any analysis.
If the original data clearly shows:
When the transaction details were insufficient, the response was always, "The IRS is wrong."
It may not necessarily be a good strategy.
Truly effective tax dispute resolution should break down the issues into:
You can confirm first.
It will be handled in accordance with the law.
Preserve and present complete evidence.
In addition, we will analyze the degree of intentional negligence and responsibility.
In addition, establish a defensive line.
Don't tie everything together.
Very important.
Because if we need to leave afterwards:
In administrative litigation, the case will be re-examined:
How does the National Taxation Bureau form factual findings?
Therefore, a truly sophisticated approach to tax audit responses should consider the following from the very first explanation:If administrative relief is needed six months from now, will this document still hold up today? If a formal disciplinary action has been received, further confirmation is required.Review, appeal and administrative litigation after receiving supplementary tax or finesDeadlines and procedures.
Corporate tax disputes are usually not just about one tax law issue.
A transaction that has been questioned by the IRS may involve the following:
Even criminal liability.
When handling corporate tax disputes, Fidelity Law Firm first establishes:
Administrative and criminal risks.
Further decision:
How should administrative litigation be handled?
Attorney Li Yusheng previously served as the assistant manager of the legal department at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, where he worked extensively with accountants and corporate finance teams on corporate, financial, tax, and legal issues.
The value of this kind of background lies in the fact that it can:Accounts seen by the IRSand:The actual transactions that occur in the enterpriseAnalyze them within the same legal framework.
Normally can be throughCorporate legal counsel and routine tax legal risksManagement ensures the complete flow of company decisions and transaction documents.
Not recommended. Article 30 of the Tax Collection Act grants tax authorities the authority to investigate taxable information, request the presentation of accounting documents, and issue notices for inquiry in accordance with the law. Companies should first confirm the content of the notice and the legal scope of the investigation before preparing a response, rather than directly refusing or ignoring it.
First, confirm the notification requirements, the purpose of taxation, and the scope of information. Legal and relevant information should be provided in accordance with the law; if the scope is unclear or overly broad, the specific period and items can be legally clarified first, but you should not deliberately conceal, delete, or only select favorable information.
It is permissible to legally assess the presence of an appointed agent or accompanying representative. Article 12 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Act provides procedural safeguards for investigations, notifications of inquiries, and the presence of agents or representatives. This pre-assessment strategy is particularly suitable for cases involving significant matters or potential penalties or criminal liability.
Not necessarily. Tax disputes often require comparing invoices with contracts, actual performance, payments, bank transactions, accounting books, and the counterparty to determine the authenticity of the transaction and the legal nature of the expenses and income.
It depends on the nature of the case. Generally, reporting and accounting issues are handled by an accountant; however, if the case involves significant disputes with the IRS, legal determinations, administrative penalties, reviews, appeals, administrative litigation, or criminal risks, a joint effort between a lawyer and an accountant is usually more comprehensive in covering both accounting and legal issues.
Not necessarily. Paying back taxes and administrative penalties are different issues. Article 16 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Act stipulates that violations of tax obligations are not punishable unless intentional or negligent. Actual cases still require assessment based on the specific tax return, evidence, and liability.
Not all tax investigations lead to criminal proceedings. However, if a case involves fraudulent transactions, false documentation, falsified accounting records, significant tax evasion, or other suspected crimes, the criminal risks should be assessed separately. Generally, a tax investigation notice and a criminal search are not part of the same process.
If errors are indeed due to memory, insufficient information, or misunderstanding, they should be clarified and formally supplemented as soon as possible based on the original documents. However, inconsistencies in the statements may affect the IRS's judgment of the facts, so it is best to complete the basic documents and timeline before the first explanation.
Documents created after the fact should not be disguised as original documents that existed at the time of the transaction. The true original data should be preserved; if explanatory documents are created now, the creation time and purpose must be accurately indicated, and the original records should not be backdated, falsified, or modified.
Possibly. The assessment of review, appeal, and administrative litigation should be based on the type of penalty, the date of service, and the statutory time limit. This section primarily addresses the initial stages of the investigation; once a formal assessment or penalty is received, a separate analysis of tax administrative remedies should follow.