On May 12, 2023, the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2023-38 (Notice), stating that they intend to propose regulations to address the requirements taxpayers must satisfy when claiming domestic content bonus credit amounts provided by the Inflation Reduction Act under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 45, 45Y, 48, and
Clients trust Carina Federico to advise on wide-ranging, complex tax issues, including transfer pricing, investment tax credits, research and experimentation credits, and energy credits. Carina Federico handles tax disputes at all stages, including IRS audits, IRS Appeals, federal district court litigation, tax court litigation, and appellate court litigation across the United States. Her experience includes serving as first chair at trial, taking and defending depositions, briefing a wide range of tax issues, negotiating settlements, and representing clients in IRS Appeals conferences.
Carina previously was a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, where she represented the IRS as lead counsel in civil actions, contested matters, and adversary proceedings before the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts, as well as in bankruptcy appeals before U.S. District Courts. At DOJ, Carina was awarded the Tax Division’s Outstanding Attorney Award in 2014 and a Special Commendation in 2013. She also served as deputy associate counsel for the White House, where she was the tax counsel on the vetting team for presidential nominations and appointments. She was also seconded to Ernst & Young as a legal consultant to the general counsel’s office, where she advised EY engagement teams on tax controversy issues, including requests for penalty abatement and tax advice that could be given to audit clients.
On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in In re Grand Jury. In this case, the Court is asked to decide the appropriate test for determining whether documents that include legal advice, but also discuss other non-privileged issues, are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The question before the Court is whether a “dual purpose” communication is privileged only if its “primary purpose” was obtaining legal advice, or if the privilege extends to documents that have only a “significant purpose” of obtaining legal advice. While the case arose in a criminal context and relates to tax advice, the Court’s decision could have broad implications across the legal profession. The case has drawn an enormous amount of attention, as evidenced by the thirteen amici briefs filed in the case.
The case arose when a law firm specializing in international tax issues was ordered to turn over documents containing communications that discussed both the preparation of the client’s tax returns and legal advice. Communications solely involving preparation of a tax return are generally not privileged. The law firm claimed that because the communications had a “dual purpose” that included legal advice, they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and refused to produce them. Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Whether “Dual Purpose” Communications Are Privileged in In re Grand Jury