Feral Jundi

Friday, February 4, 2011

Legal News: Contractor That Worked In Iraq Cannot Exclude Compensation Under § 112

     Ok gang, this is important and please feel free to pass this around.  This contractor lost in this case and the one thing that saved his bacon was this little memo that came from an IRS Acting Deputy Director in 2004.  If you filed your taxes with the impression that you fell under the same ‘combat zone compensation’ that the members of the Armed Forces received back then, then this memo could be your life saver. If anyone has a copy of this thing, I will make an edit and add it to this post so everyone knows where to find it. Robert L. Hunt was the IRS Acting Deputy Director at the time.

     The other point I wanted to bring up here is this. The powers that be are certainly trying all they can to put us under military/government control or under UCMJ, but god forbid if contractors actually enjoyed the same tax benefits as the Armed Services in combat zones? –Matt

Edit: 02/06/2011 – Thanks to Chris for sending me a copy of this memo.  I put it up in my Scribd account here if you want to check it out.

Court: Blackwater Contractor in Iraq Cannot Exclude Compensation Under § 112

By The Tax Prof

February 1, 2011

The Tax Court yesterday held that a Florida man who earned $98,400 in 2005 working for Blackwater (since renamed Xe) providing security services to the U.S. Army in Iraq could not exclude the compensation from income under § 112 as “combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces.” Holmes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-26 (Jan. 31, 2011). The Tax Court concluded that the taxpayer did not serve in the Armed Forces of the United States but instead was a private citizen hired by and paid by a private company (Blackwater). The Tax Court refused to impose a penalty because the taxpayer relied on an IRS memorandum wrongly stating that civilian personnel in direct support of combat zone military operations qualified for the § 112 exclusion.

Link to TaxProf blog post here.

——————————————————————

From the Tax Court memo Holmes v. Commissioner, Page 9

     Petitioner admitted on brief that he did not file a return for calender year 2005.  Petitioner’s only explanation for failing to file is that in 2005 while in Iraq, he was given a memorandum that caused him to believe that the income he was receiving from Blackwater was not taxable.  This memorandum was an internal memorandum written to give the Commissioner’s employees field guidance for examination and collection activity involving taxpayers in Iraq.  The memorandum, titled “Memorandum for Acting Deputy Director, Compliance Field Operations”, was issued by the Internal Revenue Service Small Business/Self-Employment Division on June 28, 2004.  The memorandum states that civilian or military personnel who are in direct support of a combat zone military initiative and physically located in the combat area are entitled to the exclusion.  It also states that time spent in a combat zone by an individual serving in support of the Armed Forces will be disregarded with respect to “certain acts required under the Internal Revenue Code.”  It goes on to state that “This change in procedure will be reflected in the next revision of the IRM, which is in the process of being written.”

     Petitioner satisfies all the criteria found in the memorandum.  He was serving in Iraq alongside the military, provided security to Government officials, and aided in giving air support, medical aid, and emergency response assistance. Petitioner had no background in tax law and was given this memorandum written by an IRS employee while serving in Iraq.  We believe that receiving this memorandum while serving in Iraq could give someone reasonable cause to believe that his payments from Blackwater were excluded from gross income.  Therefore, petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

——————————————————————

From the Judicial Review

     While in Iraq, petitioner was given a memorandum issued by Robert L. Hunt, the Acting Deputy Director, Compliance Field Operations, Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This memorandum discussed the appropriate steps for civilian personnel to take when engaged in an IRS examination and collection activity involving a taxpayer deployed to a Qualified Combat Zone. Petitioner did not remember who gave the memorandum to him.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Legal News: Robert Langdon Escapes Death Sentence After Paying Afghan Family

     Thanks to Elena for forwarding me this news about Robert.  This article describes briefly what the ‘ibra’ is, and it is an interesting concept.

     As for Robert, the only thing I have to add is that I hope he survives imprisonment for the next 20 years in Pol-e-Charki prison. –Matt

Australian escapes death sentence after paying Afghan family

Ex-soldier has sentence commuted to 20 years in jail after paying relatives of murdered guard $100,000

By Jon Boone

Wednesday 5 January 2011

An Australian private security guard who murdered an Afghan worker has escaped the death sentence by paying the family of his victim $100,000 (£65,000), court documents reveal.

The former Australian soldier was handed the death sentence last January after a Kabul court found him guilty of shooting an Afghan colleague before making a crude attempt to make the crime look like a Taliban attack.

But it emerged this week that Robert William Langdon persuaded two supreme court judges that he should be allowed to live after the family of the dead man, who was known as Karimullah, accepted a large compensation payment raised by Langdon’s relatives in Australia.

However, the payment, known in sharia law as ibra, was not enough to commute the whole sentence, so Langdon will face 20 years in Kabul’s notorious Pol-e-Charki prison, home to Taliban and al-Qaida inmates as well as criminals. The jail term is thought to be the longest given to a westerner in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban regime in 2001.

At the time of the killing in May 2009, Langdon was working for Four Horsemen International, a private firm which works with the US military and specialises in protecting military supply convoys.

(more…)

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Legal News: Fitzsimons Goes On Trial In Iraq Charged With Killing Two Colleagues

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 5:24 AM

     Who knows how this case will go?  If any legal folks out there have an idea on how this might go down, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this. –Matt

Briton goes on trial in Iraq charged with killing two colleagues

Wednesday 29 December 2010

A British security contractor charged with killing two of his colleagues after an argument in Baghdad’s Green Zone has gone on trial in Iraq.

Danny Fitzsimons, 29, from Middleton, Manchester, is charged with shooting dead another Briton, Paul McGuigan, and an Australian, Darren Hoare, in August 2009 and wounding an Iraqi guard while fleeing.

All were working for the British security firm ArmorGroup Iraq.

He is the first westerner to go on trial in an Iraqi court since a 2009 US-Iraqi security agreement lifted immunity for foreigners, and faces the death penalty if convicted.

Fitzsimons, a former soldier who served in the Parachute regiment, was in court as the guard, Arkan Mahdi Saleh, told a three-judge panel he saw Fitzsimons with a pistol before he was shot.

“I was standing at a guard post when I heard some movements behind me,” said Saleh, 33. “When I turned back to check, I saw Fitzsimons with a pistol in his hand and aiming at me.”

Fitzsimons stood behind a wooden fence with two security guards closely watching him.

At one point he asked a judge for permission to speak, but the request was refused. “I’ve got a lot to say,” Fitzsimons told his lawyer after the court adjourned.

Written testimonies from three foreign security contractors said they saw the three men drinking and quarrelling inside one of the caravans where they lived.

The case was adjourned until 23 January.

Story here.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Legal News: Senate Passes Key Defense Policy Bill Filled With Contractor Oversight Mechanisms

     The key thing here is that this bill was passed just in time to deal with DynCorp’s billion dollar contract.  Which is great.  I would certainly hope that the government would actually care about how this money is spent and that they get their money’s worth.  Although my view on the thing is that actions speak louder than words, and I will believe it when I see some actual adult supervision on this stuff.

     I really liked the last provision listed which “prohibits small arms contracts from being awarded on a sole source basis and require those contracts be awarded based on full and open competition in order to get the best weapons for our troops in combat.” Wow, that is cool! Hopefully this will open up things a little to all companies out there, and contribute to a truly innovative and vibrant competition that would result in getting the best possible weapons into the hands of the troops. –Matt

Senate Passes Key Defense Policy Bill with McCaskill Provisions

December 22, 2010

Senator’s provisions will improve healthcare and benefits for military, increase contracting oversight, and address F/A-18 shortfall.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill applauded the passage of a major defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, which was passed unanimously by the Senate this morning. The NDAA outlines funding levels for the Department of Defense (DoD) for the coming fiscal year and addresses major defense policy matters. When the bill passed the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCaskill, who serves as a member of the committee, was able to win inclusion of several important amendments in the bill that will help improve access to healthcare for the military and improve oversight of DoD contractors. Despite fairly significant changes to the bill before final passage, many of her measures were included in the final bill.

(more…)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Industry Talk: USTC Holdings Buys Xe Services For Estimated $200 Million

     This post by AM Law Daily had everything that I thought was pertinent to the story.  So Xe has finally been sold, and for an estimated 200 million dollars.

     I think what is really interesting with this acquisition is all the national security related stuff that goes along with buying a company like this.  When you buy Xe, you are buying all the really complex and sensitive government contracts they are involved with.  And like the article below pointed out, Michael Chertoff’s company (former Homeland Security Secretary) was heavily involved in making sure this was done correctly.

     So what will USTC Holdings do with Xe, now that they bought it?  Good question, but I am sure you won’t see a lot of change right off the get go. Matter of fact, you probably won’t see anything new with the company, other than it just having new owners. –Matt

Bingham, Mayer Brown Advising on Sale of Blackwater/Xe Services to Private Equity Group

December 17, 2010

By Brian Baxter

Xe Services, the private military contractor formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, announced on Friday that it had been sold to a group of private equity investors with ties to company founder Erik Prince.

Terms of the transaction were not disclosed, but The New York Times puts the value of the deal at around $200 million. USTC Holdings, the investment group taking control of Xe, said in a statement that the deal includes all Xe companies that provide domestic and international security services, including the target’s training facility in Moyock, N.C.

Bloomberg reports that USTC is comprised of private equity firms Manhattan Partners and Forté Capital Advisors, whose managing partner, Jason DeYonker, has close ties to the Prince family. (Aaron Kanter serves as Forté’s chief compliance officer and in-house counsel.)

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress