ATT: What got you interested in tax in the first place?
ZZ: It’s actually an interesting story. One of my biggest fears in life is professional boredom. I cannot fathom having a career where I would do the same thing day in and day out. To me, that would be death by a thousand cuts. As a result, I attended NYU Tisch School of the Arts, majoring in screenwriting and playwriting. My thought was that by working in film, television, or theater, one constantly works on different projects and there is no stagnation. But several years after graduation, I also realized that steady employment was also hard to come by, and I needed professional stability. I considered getting a masters degree or a Ph.D. in comparative literature, but I ultimately decided to attend law school.
When I was a 2L, I took my first tax course: it was love at first sight. Having a career in tax law checked all of my boxes. There was no stagnation or boredom. There was so much to learn, and one never knew which corner of the tax code you would visit when working on the next project. It allowed the logical and analytical part of my brain to live in harmony with my creative side. It was fast paced and constantly evolving. It was and still is perfect.
ATT: What, if anything, surprises you most about the practice of tax law?
ZZ: I am not sure anything surprises me. But what fascinates me is how vast it is. There is always something new to learn and just when you get comfortable with a certain topic, the rules change.
ATT: How did you first get involved in the Tax Section?
ZZ: My colleagues were very active in the Tax Section and encouraged me to get involved. I think once I attended my first meeting, I was a true believer.
ATT: Any significant mentors/influences in the profession?
ZZ: There are a number of people who contributed in various ways to my development. But there are several that I think contributed the most to my professional development. Mark Allison took me under his wing when I was just starting out as a baby lawyer and contributed tremendously to the kind of attorney I became. Scott Michel helped me find my voice and confidence and encouraged me to vocalize my opinions--although I am sure he regretted it more than once in the years since! Rich Sapinski gave me my first speaking spot at the Tax Section and has been a great friend and mentor ever since. And Caroline Ciraolo and Frank Agostino both were and still are tireless champions for young lawyers. They were both instrumental to my professional growth as a tax lawyer. There are so many others. I have to also mention Niles Elber, Megan Brackney, Rachel Partain and my formidable partner, Guinevere Moore. All of them contributed to who I am as an attorney and a person.
ATT: Having seen various swings in IRS enforcement activity over the past decade, are there any constants in the life of controversy work?
ZZ: The one constant is the disagreement between the IRS and taxpayers about the amount of taxes that should be paid.
ATT: What do you enjoy most about tax controversy work?
ZZ: Helping taxpayers resolve the issues. For an average taxpayer, IRS is shrouded in mystery and resolving tax issues with the IRS is a confusing and frankly terrifying process. And the world of television and cinema fosters the misconception about how the dispute resolution works and options available to taxpayers. Being able to shepherd taxpayers through it and, in the process, alleviate the fears and concerns, is my favorite part.
ATT: If you could change one aspect of tax controversy, what would it be and why?
ZZ: That’s a tough one. In a perfect world, I would like the IRS held to the same standards as taxpayers.
ATT: You’ve been very active over the years in issues involving foreign bank accounts. On the enforcement side, the IRS has taken penalty positions that many tax advisers think are overly aggressive and perhaps unconstitutional. Do you think taxpayers have a shot at forcing IRS reconsideration of these type of penalties? If a federal court were to curtail the IRS position on these penalties, would it create compliance issues?
ZZ: I actually believe it is the opposite. I think the majority of taxpayers want to be compliant. Particularly in the area of international information reporting penalties, IRS’s aggressive penalty position is discouraging taxpayers from fixing prior mistakes. Our tax system is based on self-reporting and voluntary compliance. For this to work, taxpayers must believe that the IRS is fair in how it enforces the law and that penalties are proportionate to delinquencies. It is a delicate balance, which seems to be absent in connection with the international penalties. The applicable standard for assessing (and sustaining) staggering penalties is divorced from everyday life. The facts and circumstances that the government relies on to support the penalties are common to many taxpayers and, as a result, often inadvertent mistakes are penalized as severely as intentional omissions. I sure hope that the courts will curtail the IRS’s aggressive position with respect to these penalties and draw the line between taxpayers who made a simple mistake or were just not aware of the law and those who intentionally sought to disregard it. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bittner v. United States, which limited the number of non-willful penalties to one per FBAR form, was a significant win for the taxpayers in the international penalty arena. I hope this is just a start of the necessary correction in this area of law. I am proud to have been a part of a stellar group of attorneys who advocated this issue before the Supreme Court. Moore Tax Law Group represented the Center for Taxpayer Rights as amicus curie in this case and I was honored to have had the opportunity to work on the amicus briefs for the Center alongside my partner, Guinevere Moore, Ajay Gupta and Aaron Esman.
ATT: You’ve worked in all sizes of law firms—large, medium and entrepreneurial. Young lawyers always have questions about what type of firm might best suit their personalities. Can you share with us what have been some of the benefits and drawbacks of each type of firm that you have seen in your work?
ZZ: There are certainly benefits to all. Large law firms are great for developing research skills. But it typically may take longer to get direct client exposure and hands-on experience. Smaller firms offer more responsibilities sooner, but efficiency is even more necessary. It certainly at times can feel like trial by fire, which may not be the right fit for some. I think it greatly depends on the individual’s personality.
ATT: When you’re not busy thinking about tax, what do you do to unwind? How important is it to maintain balance for mental health?
ZZ: I like to travel, although it is not always easy with children and the pandemic in the last few years certainly curtailed that. In the winter I like to snowboard. I certainly think balance is necessary—the legal profession is demanding and having another outlet is necessary, at least for me, to decompress.
ATT: Do you have a favorite depiction of a lawyer in a movie or book?
ZZ: Interesting question. I used to love watching movies or shows about lawyers and in particular Law & Order. So of course, Jack McCoy would be at the top of the list. But the longer I practiced, the less I wanted to spend my “free” time watching legal dramas. So if I had to pick my current favorite fictional lawyer, I would say Matt Murdock. Not because it is a favorite depiction of a lawyer, which it certainly is not, but because he is an interesting character who just happens also to be a lawyer.
