Photo of Elnaz Manoucheri

Elnaz Manoucheri

Elnaz Manoucheri is special counsel in the firm's Tax Practice Group and advises clients on a variety of international and domestic tax issues. Elnaz’s practice focuses on advising multinational companies on tax-efficient structuring of cross-border acquisitions, dispositions, restructurings, financings, and internal reorganizations. Most recently, Elnaz has advised on the application of the subpart F and the foreign tax credit rules.

Prior to law school, Elnaz worked for five years in the financial accounting industry as a financial statements assurance associate in a “Big Four” accounting firm. In that role, she advised on the compliance of accounting principles, and analyzed and audited financial statements and other regulatory filings.

Prior to joining the firm, Elnaz gained experience as an intern at the Office of the International Tax Counsel of the U.S. Treasury.

Contact:Read more about Elnaz ManoucheriEmail

Last July, the IRS announced its Virtual Currency Compliance Campaign, designed to intensify the IRS’s efforts to counter the underreporting of income related to cryptocurrency use. Through the campaign, the IRS will address noncompliance through taxpayer education, increased audits and initiations of criminal investigations.

This past week the IRS began sending “educational” letters to more than 10,000 taxpayers who either potentially failed to report income and pay the tax from cryptocurrency transactions, or did not report their transactions properly. The IRS sent out three variations of the letters — Letter 6173, Letter 6174, or Letter 6174-A — depending on the severity of the perceived violation. Letters 6174 and 6174-A ask taxpayers to review their returns and file an amended return if necessary; Letter 6173 is a more serious warning that also requires a signature under perjury from the taxpayer affirming U.S. tax law compliance.Continue Reading IRS Ramps Up Efforts to Target Taxpayers Who Deal in Cryptocurrency

In our first post regarding the proposed section 1446(f) regulations, we addressed the rules regarding which party is the withholding agent for purposes of section 1446(f). Sections 864(c)(8) and 1446(f) were adopted as part of tax reform. Section 864(c)(8) was enacted to reverse the holding of the Tax Court in Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commissioner, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In our second post, we addressed the amount required to be withheld. In this post, we discuss the general reporting requirements for the transferor, the transferee, and the partnership. Further, we provide an overview of the new “backstop withholding” rules that will end the suspension of the partnership withholding requirement under section 1446(f)(4). The IRS suspended partnership withholding under section 1446(f)(4) under Notice 2018-29.
Continue Reading IRS Proposes Regulations under Section 1446(f) — Reporting Requirements and the “Backstop Withholding” Rules (Post 3 of 3)

In our first post on the proposed regulation under section 1446(f), we discussed which party is the withholding agent and outlined the various exceptions to withholding that could apply. Sections 864(c)(8) and 1446(f) were adopted as part of tax reform. Section 864(c)(8) was enacted to reverse the holding of the Tax Court in Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commissioner, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. This post addresses the amount the transferee is required to withhold. Our third post on the proposed regulations under section 1446(f) addresses the withholding requirements and “backstop withholding” rules.
Continue Reading IRS Proposes Regulations under Section 1446(f) — Determining the Withholding Amount (Post 2 of 3)

This post is the first of three installments providing an overview of recent proposed regulations under section 1446(f) that address withholding on certain sales of partnership interests by foreign partners of a partnerships engaged in the conduct of a U.S. trade or business (a “U.S. trade or business”). Sections 864(c)(8) and 1446(f) were adopted as part of tax reform.  Section 864(c)(8) was enacted to reverse the holding of the Tax Court in Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commissioner, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.  This post focuses on which party is required to withhold under section 1446(f). The second post focuses on determining the appropriate amount to withhold. Finally, the third post focuses on the withholding requirements and the “backstop withholding” rules.
Continue Reading IRS Proposes Regulations under Section 1446(f) — Which Party is Required to Withhold? (Post 1 of 3)