David Foster represents clients in federal tax litigation and administrative controversies before the IRS. Mr. Foster represents a broad range of clients, including large corporations, private equity firms and hedge funds, estates, exempt organizations and individuals, many of whom are subject to the IRS’ global high wealth initiative.
His practice covers a diverse range of tax issues, including international tax, taxation of financial products, estate and gift taxes, proposed exempt status revocations, voluntary disclosures and criminal tax. Mr. Foster’s representations have included:
- Ingersoll Rand Co. v. Commissioner, Tax Court Docket No. 25769-13. Resolution by settlement of IRS treaty-shopping claims regarding withholding tax issues arising out of intercompany debt structure;
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 782 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appellate victory affirming timing of insurance company’s deduction of nearly $250 million in policyholder dividend payments;
- numerous prominent estates in some of the largest Tax Court gift and estate tax cases in history. Cases include favorable resolutions of asserted deficiencies in excess of $2.8 billion and $500 million;
- Hewlett Packard Co. and other large corporations in trial and administrative proceedings involving billions of dollars of claimed foreign tax credits;
- five former IRS commissioners in a D.C. Circuit amicus brief in Loving v. IRS in support of licensing standards for tax return preparers; and
Many of Mr. Foster’s most significant representations involve administrative proceedings before the IRS, where the taxpayer’s privacy is closely guarded, including:
- prominent individuals in global high wealth examinations and before IRS Appeals with more than a billion dollars of proposed deficiencies;
- individuals in connection with voluntary disclosures of offshore tax issues; and
- exempt organizations in exam and IRS Appeals proceedings in successful defense of proposed revocations of exempt status.
Mr. Foster assists clients in these administrative proceedings in seeking to achieve favorable negotiated resolutions, while also positioning their controversies for success if litigation is necessary.
- J.D., Harvard Law School, 2005 (Supreme Court Chair of the Harvard Law Review)
- A.B., Harvard University, Harvard College, 2000
- District of Columbia
Rate : $$$$