Posts Tagged ‘Donald Marron.’

Tax Roundup, 3/23/16: “Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers.” And more!

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 by Joe Kristan

norcal logoNo Scandal here. The IRS has long history of hiding behind taxpayer confidentiality rules to avoid accountability. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals called the IRS on this yesterday in a harshly-worded opinion.

The case arose from the Tea Party scandal. NorCal Tea Party Patriots sued the IRS after the scandal emerged. The IRS has used every trick in the book to drag out the case, citing the “confidentiality” of the very taxpayers it abused. From the Sixth Circuit opinion (my emphasis):

The IRS argues that the “names and other identifying information of” organizations that apply for tax-exempt status — along with the applications themselves — are confidential “return information” under 26 U.S.C. § 6103. IRS Petition at 2, 16. The IRS argues further that the district court lacked authority to order disclosure of those names under a statutory provision for disclosure in judicial proceedings where “the treatment of an item reflected on such return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding[.]” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(4)(B). The IRS contends that the district court’s discovery orders threaten to undermine statutory protections for taxpayer privacy, and that a writ of mandamus is therefore appropriate.

A “writ of mandamus” is “an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a district court.” The Sixth Circuit wasn’t buying. They reviewed the IRS foot-dragging:

To that end, the plaintiffs sought discovery in the form of basic information relevant to class certification, including the names of IRS employees who reviewed the groups’ applications for tax-exempt status and the number of applications from similar groups that had been granted, denied, withdrawn, or were still pending. On the record before us here, the IRS’s response has been one of continuous resistance. For example, the IRS asserted that the names of IRS employees who worked on the groups’ applications were taxpayer “return information” protected from disclosure by § 6103. The IRS eventually abandoned that position, but argued instead that § 6103 barred the Department of Justice’s attorneys from even reviewing the groups’ application files to find the names of the IRS employees who worked on them. That was true, the IRS asserted, even though § 6103(h)(2) — entitled “Department of Justice” — expressly allows the Department’s attorneys to review a taxpayer’s return information to the extent the taxpayer “is or may be a party to” a judicial proceeding. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(2)(A). The IRS further objected — this, in a case where the IRS forced the lead plaintiff to produce 3,000 pages of what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information” — that “it would be unduly burdensome” for the IRS to collect the names of the employees who worked on the groups’ applications. The district court eventually intervened and declared the IRS’s objections meritless. Yet the IRS objected to still other document requests on grounds of “the deliberative process privilege[.]” That privilege, the IRS acknowledged, can be waived in cases involving “government misconduct”; but in the IRS’s reading, the IG’s report “does not include any allegation or finding of misconduct.”

Many taxpayers and preparers wish the IRS would use such a generous definition of “misconduct” when the criminal agents come calling.

The Sixth Circuit rejected all of the IRS arguments:

Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers.

Words that should be chiseled over the entrance to IRS headquarters.

Cite: United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots et al.; CA-6, No. 15-3793.

More coverage:

TaxProf, IRS Scandal, Day 1049:  6th Circuit Slams IRS Treatment Of Tea Party Group

Russ Fox, A Bad Day for the IRS in Court

 

Scott Drenkard,New Study on Electronic Cigarettes Released Today (Tax Policy Blog):

To some, vapor products are an exciting innovation that offers a new, less harmful alternative to traditional incinerated cigarette use. By contrast, tobacco control groups are concerned about youth use of the products.

Meanwhile, politicians are concerned about losing their sweet tobacco revenues if people stop gassing themselves with the real thing. Hence the moral panic.

This map is in the study:

20160323-1

“Vapor products are generally found to have a much lower risk profile than traditional incinerated cigarettes.”

 

Paul Neiffer, Expanded Cost Basis Reporting is Here! Are you Ready? “The Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2015 (those two don’t really go together) added new tax laws that require executors to file cost basis information with the IRS.  This is required only when there is a taxable estate.”

Kay Bell, IRS releases Top 10 identity theft, tax fraud cases. 2015 only. 

Jack Townsend, IRS Publicizes Success in Prosecuting Identity Theft Refund Fraud

The IRS’s message from the selected 10 examples is that identify theft is serious and draws serious sentencings, with the principals involved receiving over 70 months (some well in excess of 100 months) incarceration (persons with lesser roles receive lesser, but still significant sentences).

That’s appropriate, but it’s not enough. Even though the thieves highlighted by the IRS report will rot for a long time, the millions they have stolen aren’t coming back. The petty grifters hightlighted in the report are probably not the type of folks who carefully weigh consequences when they can get free money right now. Nor will long sentences aren’t going to bother Russian organized crime networks, who have no intention, and little prospect, of facing U.S. justice.

Improved IRS processes that stop the crimes before they happen are what’s needed.

 

William Perez, How Much Can You Deduct by Contributing to a Traditional IRA? “Updated for 2016 contribution limits.”

Leslie Book, Filing a Day Late Can Be Timely Under Tax Court E-Filing Rules and So is Filing an Income Tax Return Ten Days Later After E-File Rejection. Good to know.

Robert Wood, Does Extending April 15 Deadline Increase Odds Of IRS Audit?. “It is worth saying it again: there is no increased audit risk to going on extension.” But there is definitely an increased risk if you mess up a return by doing it hastily, or by leaving off a late-arriving K-1.

Tony Nitti, Tax Geek Tuesday: Death Or Retirement Of A Partner In A Partnership. “Importantly, when a partner’s interest is to be liquidated by a series of distributions, the interest will not be considered liquidated until the final distribution has been made.”

 

TaxGrrrl, How To Survive Tax Season (Or Any Busy Work Day) In 10 Easy Steps.

Peter Reilly, IRS Bounty Hunters Should Not Waste Time On FBAR Penalties. In too many cases, that’s true of the IRS too.

 

20150326-3

 

Donald Marron, Britain Builds a Better Soda Tax (TaxVox). Better at stupid is still stupid.

Annette Nellen, Taxing Candy and Snacks – That’s a Good Start. At meddling in places where the government has no business.

 

Career CornerAccounting Talent Demanding Everything Shy of the Moon, Your First Born (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern). “If I may speak for myself and many, many other people, I’d be “history” after a few days of being treated like family. The nagging questions, the guilt, the constant phone calls, the passive aggressive suggestions about marriage/kids/life direction/bad habits.”

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/3/16: IRS sets up ID theft victims for another round. And: if you don’t have kids, there’s Craigslist!

Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 by Joe Kristan
This convicted ID thief likely was a first-day filer.

The kind of criminal mastermind ID thief that continually outwits the IRS.

There is no bottom. Every time I think that the John Koskinen’s IRS couldn’t possibly be less competent, they prove me wrong. Identity Thieves Bypass IRS Protections for Previous Victims (Tom VanAntwerp, Tax Policy Blog):

The IRS provides an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN) to victims of identity theft with the goal of preventing it going forward. This IP PIN is mailed to individuals at the start of tax season, and is required to file a return. But the IRS also allows taxpayers to retrieve their IP PIN online by answering the same kinds of knowledge-based authentication questions that let thieves take advantage of the older Get Transcript website.

Computer crime reporter Brian Krebs published this account of Becky Wittrock, a previous identity theft victim whose IP PIN was compromised:

“I tried to e-file this weekend and the return was rejected,” Wittrock said. “I received the PIN since I had IRS fraud on my 2014 return. I called the IRS this morning and they stated that the fraudulent use of IP PINs is a big problem for them this year.”

Wittrock said that to verify herself to the IRS representative, she had to regurgitate a litany of static data points about herself, such as her name, address, Social Security number, birthday, how she filed the previous year (married/single/etc), whether she claimed any dependents and if so how many.

“The guy said, ‘Yes, I do see a return was filed under your name on Feb. 2, and that there was the correct IP PIN supplied’,” Wittrock recalled. “I asked him how can that be, and he said, ‘You’re not the first, we’ve had many cases of that this year.’”

Wittrock noted that the IRS representative said that they would be moving away from using the IP PIN in the near future and replacing it with a different system. No details are known about how this new system might function or if it will avoid the insecure knowledge-based approach to authentication.

Through lax IRS controls, the IRS lets a thief file a return in your name. You go through a long, exasperating process to straighten things out. Meanwhile, the IRS sits on your refund, even though it promptly wired cash to the thief. Then they give you an IP-PIN and assurance that it won’t happen again. And it happens again.

I never thought Doug Shulman would lose his crown as Worst Commissioner Ever. I wish I were right about that. And they think they should regulate preparers because we’re incompetent and out-of-control.

More coverage:

TaxProf, The IRS Is Using A System That Was Hacked To Protect Victims Of A Hack—And It Was Just Hacked

Taxable Talk, The Most Terrifying Words in the English Language Strike Again

 

20150918-3

 

TaxGrrrl, On Dr. Seuss’ Birthday, Oh, The Taxes You’ll Pay!:

More taxes!
Whether you like it or not,
Taxes will be something
you’ll pay quite a lot.

Oh, but the IRS will take such good care of it, you’ll not mind, not one little bit!

 

Peter Reilly, Tax Losses From Genetically Engineered Deer Allowed. “The purpose of the selective breeding is to get deer with really impressive head gear.”

Kay Bell, Doing the weird and wacky tax deduction dance. Yes, deer.

Leslie Book, Follow up On Clean Hands Post: The Imposition of Penalties and How Using a Preparer Does Not Automatically Constitute Good Faith and Reasonable Cause (Procedurally Taxing). “At the end of the day, the opinion is certainly a warning that merely hiring a preparer is not enough, and proving reliance on an advisor requires perhaps a bit more focus than a taxpayer’s testimony that the accountant prepared the return.”

 

20140729-1

 

Scott Drenkard, Philadelphia Mayor Proposes Gigantic Soda Tax (Tax Policy Blog). It’s the tax that’s gigantic, not the pop serving.

Donald Marron, Budgeting for federal lending programs is still a mess (TaxVox). A good reason to not have federal lending programs.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 1029

News from the Profession. Accounting as Performance Art? Sure, Why Not? (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern)

 

You can get anything on Craigslist! Even dependents, it seems. From a Department of Justice press release:

Tammy Dickinson, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced today that an Ozark, Mo., man has been indicted by a federal grand jury for filing false income tax returns after he advertised on Craigslist to purchase identity information for children that he could claim as dependents.

Raheem L. McClain, 37, of Ozark, was charged in a three-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Springfield, Mo., on Feb. 23, 2016. That indictment was unsealed and made public upon McClain’s arrest and initial court appearance on Tuesday, March 1, 2016.

The federal indictment alleges that McClain caused an advertisement to be posted on Craigslist on Jan. 16, 2015, stating:

“WANTED: KIDS TO CLAIM ON INCOME TAXES – $750 (SPRINGFIELD,MO)

IF YOU HAVE SOME KIDS YOU ARENT CLAIMING, I WILL PAY YOU A $750 EACH TO CLAIM THEM ON MY INCOME TAX. IF INTERESTED,REPLY TO THIS AD.”

In a way, it makes economic sense. It would let people whose incomes are too high monetize otherwise useless dependents. But as you might have gathered from the word “indictment,” the tax law frowns on this sort of thing.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 2/1/2016: Caucus day, and other plagues.

Monday, February 1st, 2016 by Joe Kristan

20160131-1Is there such a thing as snow locusts? Today is the last day Iowa will be plagued by presidential candidates and their relentless ads and emails. Tonight, blizzard and winter storm warnings across the state.

Lots of things go into choosing a candidate. We kid ourselves if we think it is all rational. Many voters put as much thought into their political preferences as they do into choosing a favorite sports team. Most voters are much more informed about their sports teams than their votes.

But Tax Update readers are different!  You especially want to know about candidate tax policies. Fortunately, the Tax Foundation has an excellent Comparison of Presidential Tax Plans and Their Economic Effects. I like this chart they provide:

taxplanchart

You’ll notice that only one plan is projected to have positive economic effects while reducing the budget deficit over 10 years. I like that one.

 

Other Caucus-related links:

Tax Policy Center Major candidate tax proposals, a center-left analysis.

TaxProf, Clinton (47%), Sanders (54%) Propose Highest Capital Gain Tax Rates (Now 24%) In History

Tyler Cowen, My favorite things Iowa (Marginal Revolution). “The bottom line: Who would have thought ‘jazz musician’ would be the strongest category here?” Speak for yourself, buddy!

 

20160201

 

Russ Fox, The Liberty to Commit Tax Fraud:

This story does show two things. First, requiring every tax professional to obtain a license won’t stop tax fraud. The alleged fraud here was started by an individual with a PTIN, someone who assuredly could obtain the former RTRP designation or the current AFSP “seal of approval.” Second, the Department of Justice news release notes, “In the past decade, the Tax Division has obtained injunctions against hundreds of unscrupulous tax preparers.” This is absolutely true, and the DOJ should be commended for their work. It also shows that licensing every tax professional isn’t needed to get rid of unscrupulous ones.

Amen.

William Perez, When Does an 83(b) Election Make Sense? 

Paul Neiffer, Pre-1977 Purchases May Get 100% Step-up or Not! Involving old joint interests in property.

Kay Bell, W-2, 1099 forms delivery deadline is here

Jack Townsend, 60 Minutes Exposé on Money Laundering Into the U.S.

Jason Dinesen, Not All Donations to Charity Are Deductible. Time, for example.

Kristine Tidgren, Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit Gets More Complicated (AgDocket)

Peter Reilly, NorCal Tea Party Patriots V IRS – Grassroots Or Astroturf?

Leslie Book, Migraine Caused by Improper IRS Collection Action During Bankruptcy Stay Triggers Damages for Emotional Distress

Robert Wood, Worst Lottery To Win Is IRS Audit Lottery, So Decrease Your Odds

TaxGrrrl, Understanding Your Tax Forms 2016: 1098-T, Tuition Statement

Tony Nitti, IRS Rules On Whether Trade-In Of Private Jet Qualifies For A Tax-Free Like-Kind Exchange

Happy Blogiversary! to Hank Stern for 10 years of Insureblog.

 

20160131-2

 

Matt Gardner, International Speedway Reaps Benefits of Revived “NASCAR Tax Break” (Tax Justice Blog). In which the Tax Justice people sctually make a lot of sense: “In the context of our growing budget deficits, the annual cost of the NASCAR giveaway is a drop in the bucket at less than $20 million, making it a small part of the $680 billion extenders package. But because its benefits are narrowly focused on a few privileged companies, the damaging effects of this tax break go way beyond its fiscal cost.”

Donald Marron, What Should We Do with the Money from Taxing “Bads”? (TaxVox)

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 996Day 997, Day 998. Day 997 links to  IRS’s New Ethics Chief Once Ordered Records Be Illegally Destroyed. These are the people who think they need to regulate tax preparers to keep us in line.

 

Scott Drenkard, David Bowie: Tax Planning Hero (Tax Policy Blog). “Taxes really matter, especially for an artist like Bowie who had a lot of options for where to reside and earn income.”

Robert D. Flach, THE TWELVE DAYS OF TAX SEASON

 

Finally, in honor of the Iowa Caucuses I quote the great Arnold Kling, who captures my feelings about these proceedings perfectly:

To me, political campaigns are not sacred events, to be eagerly anticipated and avidly followed. They are brutal assaults on reason. I look forward to election season about as much as a gulf coast resident looks forward to hurricane season.

Only the beginning of a wise and profound post. Read it all.

Share

Tax Roundup, 12/15/15: Is today the day we see an extender bill? And: carrybacks and other legends.

Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 by Joe Kristan
This happened in 2008. It's raining again.

It’s flooding again!

We may see extender legislation today. Or tomorrow. Or maybe never. Congressional negotiators haven’t given up on passing a “permanent extension” of some of the perpetually-expiring tax breaks. The breaks died at the end of 2014, and Congress needs to re-enact them to enable taxpayers to claim them on 2015 returns.

The only people who really know the status of negotiations are in Washington back rooms. The Hill, a publication whose business is to haunt those back rooms, reports that negotiations on a permanent extender package are coming to conclusion at the same time as a trillion-dollar “omnibus” spending bill:

The debate has become intermingled with the battle over the separate tax extenders proposal. After a series of short-term extensions, lawmakers in both parties want to make many of those tax breaks permanent. But Pelosi and House Democrats say the tax package, in its current form, is both too big and tilts too heavily in favor of corporations at the expense of individuals and federal revenues.

Pelosi has pushed to index the child tax credit to inflation, which Republicans oppose. Even then, Pelosi has warned, the package would have trouble finding support among House Democrats.

Tax Analysts reports ($link)

Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, told reporters December 14 that the omnibus bill and the extenders bill could pass Congress by December 18 — or December 17, “if we are lucky.” He added that he thinks the two will remain separate, but that ultimately, that is up to congressional leadership.

Hatch said he was still hoping for a permanent extenders deal. “We are assiduously working on it. I think we will get it done. I think it will be fair to both sides,” he said. “And hopefully it will be a very important bill.”

According to The Hill, House Speaker Ryan promises to offer legislative language three days before any vote. The report that may see such language today, with a vote Thursday or Friday. If a bill becomes available, I will update this post with a link.

Failure is always an option. There seem to be many ways to sink a permanent extender bill. A two-year extender bill has been introduced as a Plan B, but even that isn’t a sure thing. A Senate staff member was at the Ames tax school yesterday, and he said he expects a two-year extender bill, for what that’s worth. I still think that is the most likely result, but I would sure prefer to be proved wrong by a permanent bill.

Related: Paul Neiffer, One Year Later:

We are hearing from various sources that the tax extender bill will not be done until likely this Saturday which will be December 19.  Last year, the bill was signed on December 19, so if Congress passes it on the 19th and heads home, the tax extender bill this year will be even later than last year.  However, the good news that we continue to hear that it will be a two-year extension for both 2015 AND 2016.

A one-year bill is plan C. Complete failure is Plan D.

 

Jared Walczak, Corporate Net Operating Loss Carryforward and Carryback Provisions by State (Tax Policy Blog):

Net operating loss deductions are important because many businesses operate in industries that fluctuate greatly with the business cycle. They might experience considerable profits one year, but then be in the hole the next year. Net operating loss carryforwards and carrybacks help those businesses to “smooth” their income, so that the tax code is more neutral with respect to time.

20151215-1

Iowa unfortunately doesn’t allow carrybacks. This increases the possibility that a corporation could pay state taxes in excess of its income over its lifetime. An easy example would be a corporation that makes $1 million in year 1, loses $2 million in year 2, and closes. The corporation would have paid around $100,000 to IOwa in year 1 and would never get it back, even though its lifetime income was negative.

Iowa does allow a 20-year loss carryforward, if the loss corporation lives that long.

 

buzz20150827Buzz! Today’s Buzz roundup from Robert D. Flach covers extenders and reasonable comp, and offers a trivia challenge and a Trumpian devotion.

William Perez, Moving? How to Tell the IRS about a Change of Address

Russ Fox, If a Professional Prepares Your Return, Are You Exempt from the Accuracy-Related Penalty? “If you’re signing a return with $1 million of income, isn’t it worth more than a few seconds to review it? I would certainly think so.”

Jason Dinesen, The EIC Isn’t the Only Place Tax Fraud Happens. “EIC clients who are trying to commit fraud are indeed dangerous to us tax pros … but so is the small business client who’s trying to commit fraud.”

 

Robert Wood, Foreign Banks Pay To Avoid Tax Evasion Charges As More Americans Disclose Offshore Accounts.

Peter Reilly, Solid Due Dilgence Shields Trucking Heirs From IRS Attack. “The Tax Court decision in the case of the John Alterman Trust  is one of the best positive examples I have seen of Reilly’s Fourth Law of Tax Planning – Execution isn’t everything, but it’s a lot – in a while.”

Christine SpeidelReview of the First Tax Year of the Affordable Care Act and Look Ahead: Part 1 (Procedurally Taxing).

Matt McKinney, 3 key differences between an Iowa LLC and a corporation (IowaBiz.com)

It’s not just Iowa. Another CO-OP foundering. “As the list of failing CO-OPs continues to grow, it’s beginning to seem like the model may, in fact, be fatally flawed.”

21st Century tax problems. Lawsuit Alleges IRS Denied Deduction For Fertility Treatments Because Being Gay Is A ‘Choice’. (TaxGrrrl)

 

20141215-1

 

Donald Marron, Should Governments Tax Unhealthy Foods and Drinks? (TaxVox). “We find that a US tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would be highly regressive, imposing more than four times as much burden, relative to income, on people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution as on those in the top fifth.”

Sin taxes are sacrifices imposed on the poor to flatter the consciences of the nosy rich.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 950

Joseph Thorndike, How Profit Sharing Sent Captain Ahab in Search of Moby Dick (Tax Analysts Blog). While Ahab had his problems, ERISA compliance wasn’t one of them.

News from the Profession. Don’t Worry Tax People, You Have a Lame Hashtag, Too (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern).

Every Bride dreams of this. Tax Profs Christine Allie  And Stuart Lazar Find Love At AALS, Marry At Tax Court (TaxProf)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 6/26/15: Supreme Court saves ACA subsidies — and taxes.

Friday, June 26th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

 

supreme courtThe Supreme Court upholds new punitive taxes on thousands of Iowa employers and uninsured individuals. That’s the flip side of the decision yesterday ruling that tax credits remain available for health insurance purchased on the federal exchanges, despite the language of the Obamacare statute — a ruling characterized by the Des Moines Register as “Obamacare ruling protects 40,000 Iowans’ subsidies.

Here’s what it means to those footing the bill:

– The employer mandates will take effect in all states as scheduled. The “Employer Shared Responsibility provisions” require employers to purchase “adequate” health coverage for employees.  It applied in 2014 to employers with over 100 “full-time equivalent” employees in 2013.  In 2015, it applies to employers who had over 50 full-time equivalent employees in 2014. It applies to government and non-profit employers, as well as to businesses.

Employers who fail to offer coverage to 95% of their FTEs and dependents are subject to a $2,000 penalty, pro-rated for months where coverage is lacking, for non-covered FTEs, with a 30-employee exemption. “Full-time Equivalent” means 30 hours per week.

The penalties kick in only if at least one employee claims the coverage tax credit. Yesterday’s decision ensures the mandate applies in all states — rather than just the 14 with state-run exchanges — because the triggering credits will remain available nationwide.

The individual mandate tax applies fully in all states. The “Individual Shared Responsibility Provision” penalizes individuals who aren’t covered at work and who fail to purchase “adequate” and “affordable” coverage. The penalty for 2015 is the greater of $325 ($162.50 for those under 18) or 2% of “household” income. It is prorated if coverage is obtained for some months and not others.

Yesterday’s decision broadens the reach of the tax because the penalty only applies if available coverage is “affordable.” The tax credits are used in computing “affordability,” so the availability of the credits nationwide broadens the tax to many more taxpayers.

20121120-2The Section 36B tax credit remains available nationwide. This is the refundable credit that was the subject of yesterday’s decision. It is estimated when coverage is obtained and applied against coverage costs for the year. It is “trued up” when the taxpayer files their 1040 for the coverage year — a process that can sometimes mean more credit, but that sometimes triggers a big balance due.  Because the credit phases out in steps, one extra dollar of income can trigger thousands of dollars of additional taxes:

Consider a middle-aged married couple earning $62,040, 400 percent of the FPL for a two-person household ($15,510.) If the second cheapest Silver plan in their area costs $1,200 per month, they would receive a subsidy of $8,506 in order to cap that plan’s price at 9.5 percent of their income. However, if they earned $62,041—only a dollar more—the entire subsidy would evaporate. 

Because the $8,506 would have been applied to health premiums, the household would have to pay it back on April 15.

What do I think of the decision? In March I wrote:

In a less politically-sensitive context, one could expect a 9-0 or 8-1 decision against the IRS. That’s what happened in Gitlitz, where the court ruled that the IRS couldn’t regulate away a perceived misdrafting of the tax code’s S corporation basis rules that allowed a windfall to taxpayers whose S corporations had debt forgiveness income. “Because the Code’s plain text permits the taxpayers here to receive these benefits, we need not address this policy concern.” But because a decision against IRS here would invalidate key parts of Obamacare in most of the country, politics is a big part of the process.

That means I think the Scalia dissent gets it right, but we don’t get to file tax returns based on the dissent. It should give pause to those who write legislation, though — there’s no telling how the Supremes will read their work if they don’t like what it does.

Other coverage:

William Perez, What You Need to Know about the Premium Assistance Tax Credit

TaxGrrrl, Supreme Court Upholds King, Says Obamacare Tax Credits Apply To All States

Kay Bell, Let the Affordable Care Act repeal efforts begin (again)

Hank Stern, SCOTUScare Fallout. “Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges

Andy Grewal, Grewal: King v. Burwell — The IRS Isn’t An Expert? (TaxProf Blog)

Tyler Cowen, King vs. Burwell, and other stuff. “So on net I take this to be good news, although arguably it is bad news that it is good news.”

Megan McArdle, Subsidies and All, Obamacare Stays

Alan Cole, James Kennedy, King v. Burwell: Supreme Court Upholds Subsidies to Federal Exchanges (Tax Policy Blog)

Roger McEowen,  The U.S. Supreme Court and Statutory Construction – Words Don’t Mean What They Say (AgDocket)

 

20150617-2

 

Stuff other than the Supreme Court decision:

Jason Dinesen, Choosing a Business Entity: Sole Proprietor

Joseph Thorndike, Rand Paul’s Tax Plan May Be Radical, But It’s Not Impossible (Tax Analysts Blog) “But radical doesn’t mean impossible. Since proportionality lies at the heart of Paul’s plan, history suggests it might have a shot.”

Ethan Greene, Net Investment Income Tax Handicaps Those Meant to Benefit (Tax Policy Blog). “The irony of the NIIT is it taxes the very demographic it was intended to aid; that is, retirees relying on their savings and investment, and those with disabilities, counting on trust income or estate inheritance to maintain their quality of life.”

Donald Marron, Everything You Should Know about Taxing Carbon. (TaxVox)

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 778

Caleb Newquist, The Accounting Profession’s Murky Future (Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 11/24/14: Report from the Battle of Scottsdale.

Monday, November 24th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

haroldBattle report from a skirmish in the state tax policy wars. I was in Scottsdale Friday to join Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation to talk about state film tax incentives. We were on a panel with three advocates for incentives — two from the film industry and one a retired head of a state film office. Our audience was a panel from the National Conference of State Legislators, mostly legislators heading state taxwriting committees.

Joseph did a nice job explaining that all of the studies not financed by the film industry show tax credits for films to at best an inefficient way to create jobs, and at worst job killers when other possible uses for the funds are considered.

The incentive boosters were big on stories, about all the jobs “created” by taxpayer money, all the happy stories of communities getting together to make a movie, and so on.

My role was to tell a different story — the story of Iowa’s embarrassing and disastrous Film Tax Credit program.  I told how the Iowa legislature enacted the program, with two different 25% transferable credits, with little debate and almost no opposition (three “no” votes out of 150 legislators) in 2007. By 2009, film trucks were everywhere and the local paper was running fanzine-like articles gushing over the “sightings” of celebrities.

But trouble was brewing. By spring 2009 the legislature was realizing that they had enacted an open-ended subsidy that threatened their ability to do anything but fund Hollywood. About the same time a tipster sent a letter to the Department of Economic Development saying a filmmaker was bragging around Los Angeles about how she was making money through the “Half-price Filmmaking” program, using pretend expenditures to get tax credit funding well in excess of her cost in making (bad) movies. An audit was commissioned, and soon the program collapsed in disgrace when the audit revealed amazing mismanagement and breathtaking looting of the program. A follow-up audit by the state auditors office showed that 80% of the credits that had been granted were either improper or fraudulent.  Good times.

The Tax Foundation crew was impressive. Joseph and his Tax Foundation colleague Elizabeth Malm seemed to know every legislator. Joseph seemed to be aware of every detail, even correcting my posture as I sat listening to the questions. I think he was a little concerned I might be a loose cannon and go off on the legislators; I can’t deny the temptation, but I knew that wasn’t my place.

The legislators agreed to set up a panel on setting standards for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of tax incentives. That’s a better response than I expected, and I hope something comes of it.

 

Only time for a few quick links today.

 

20140728-1Robert D. Flach starts the short holiday week with a special Monday Buzz!

Russ Fox tackles the important question: Would the Proprietors of “I Married an Idiot” Commit Tax Fraud?

Peter Reilly, Should President Obama Offer Amnesty For Legal Residents Behind On Taxes? I think he should offer a blanket amnesty for Americans abroad enmeshed in the FATCA/FBAR nightmare.

Paul Neiffer, Take Advantage of Low Rates! Low IRS minimum interest rates, that is.

 

Robert Goulder, Magnum Opus: “Paying Taxes 2015: The Global Picture” (Tax Analysts Blog)

Hauqun Li, An Introduction to Forms of Business Organization and Taxation (Tax Policy Blog)

Donald Marron, Bigger, Cleaner, and More Efficient: A Carbon-Corporate Tax Swap

 

TaxGrrrl, Those Not-So-Lost IRS Emails: Up To 30,000 Lerner Emails May Have Been Recovered

Kay Bell, Possible break in hunt for Lois Lerner’s lost IRS emails

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 564

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 11/18/14: The ACA and filing season. Be afraid.

Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2Megan McArdle, Reality Check on Obamacare Year Two:

Another thing to keep in mind, however: This open enrollment period isn’t the biggest test for Obamacare in the next 12 months.  The biggest test will be what happens on or around April 15th.  That’s the first time all the people who didn’t buy insurance will get hit with the individual mandate penalty, and the ones who thought that it was a nominal $95 fee are in for a nasty shock .  April 15th will also be the first time that people who got too much in subsidies are going to be asked to pay back some of that money.  I do not have hard figures on this, but my basic experience in personal finance and tax reporting suggests that approximately zero percent of those affected will be expecting the havoc it will wreak on their tax refund.  Brace for a wave of taxpayers angrily complaining to congressmen and their local newspapers.  

After completing the first six sessions as a panelist in continuing education for tax preparers around Iowa, I completely agree. Preparers learning about the process of computing the individual mandate penalty and the tax credit adjustments are appalled.

The first question we receive is: how are we going to get people to pay for this? The taxpayers who will have the biggest issues here will be the ones who formerly had the simplest returns and who will not be excited about paying for an extra 1-4 hours of preparer time.  A chart prepared by the ISU Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation to guide preparers through the client interview process for ACA return issues looks like this:

20141118-1

 

Courtesy Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation. Full-size version available to TaxPlace subscribers.

 

But it’s worse than even Ms. McArdle knows. It’s not just individual taxpayers who look to get clobbered by this. Based on what I’ve seen at our sessions, dozens or hundreds of Iowa small businesses are starting to figure out that they have had non-compliant health insurance plans so far in 2014 as a result of the ACA “market reforms.”  Non-compliance carries a penalty of $100 per day, per employee. At $36,500 per employee per year, it doesn’t take too much of this to bankrupt a small business. And it’s not as though these employers are doing something abusive; they have just continued funding employee insurance the way they always had, but in ways the “Departments” that run Obamacare no longer like. Or they just might have done all the right things, except for properly notifying employees of their coverage options in writing. Trivial violations, crushing penalties.

While there is a provision to have the penalty waived for reasonable cause, that’s not very comforting in a state where the IRS is willing to loot a restaurant’s bank account without any indication of wrongdoing.  In addition to dealing with a parade of irate individuals with sticker shock from their return fees, let alone their new taxes and penalties, preparers also have to tell noncompliant business-owning clients that they suddenly have a potentially devastating tax liability.

If taxpayers are upset after tax season as practitioners are before it, Obamacare will be about as popular as Ebola by April 15.

 

 

Today in Red Oak.Kay Bell, IRS offers tax relief in certain Ebola situations

Robert D. Flach discusses TAX EFFICIENT INVESTING

Leslie Book, Living With Your Decisions: Delinquent Mortgage Debt (Procedurally Taxing). “Courts and IRS put the kibosh on deductions when the new loan comes from the same lender as the old delinquent loan; the theory in those cases is that the taxpayer has not really gone out of pocket and that there is just a shuffling of papers.”

 

Martin Sullivan, Why the Upcoming Battle Over Expiring Tax Provisions Matters — A Lot (Tax Analysts Blog). “Extenders legislation is not just about the fate of a grab bag of miscellaneous tax provisions this year. If Republicans can get expensive expiring provisions permanently extended, the chances for enactment of tax reform will be significantly improved.”

Steve Warnhoff, New CBO Report: Yes, the Rich Are Paying “a Bit” More (Tax Justice Blog). How much more, Steve?  “New CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay their ‘fair share,’ they pay almost everybody’s share.” (Via Instapundit):

20141118-2

 

Kyle Pomerleau, CBO: Overall Federal Taxing and Spending is Progressive (Tax Policy Blog)

 

Donald Marron, Spin Alert: DOE Loans Are Losing Money, Not Making Profits (TaxVox). Of course they are losing money. If they were profitable, they wouldn’t need the feds to make the loans.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 558

 

News from the Profession. You’re Not Really as Busy as You Claim (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 10/21/14: Gander gets sauced! And: IRS Commissioner’s prophecy of tax season doom.

Tuesday, October 21st, 2014 by Joe Kristan
Flickr image by Sage under Creative Commons license

Flickr image by Sage under Creative Commons license

Gander, Meet Sauce. An alert reader points out something wonderful I had missed — a ruling awarding attorney fees and costs of $257,885 to the return preparers who successfully challenged the IRS preparer regulations. It’s a rare and welcome example of the IRS being held accountable for being unreasonable with taxpayers. And the court said the IRS was being unreasonable (all emphasis mine; some citations omitted):

In the present case, the reasonableness of the government’s position can be measured by the familiar guideposts of statutory interpretation: text, legislative history, statutory context, and congressional intent. In each of those dimensions, the interpretation of § 331(a)(1) advocated by the government was deficient. Indeed, on several key points, such as the proper meaning of the word “representatives,” the IRS offered no support whatever for its interpretation. The Court therefore finds that the government’s position was not substantially justified.

Losing the battle over whether its position was justified, the IRS dipped into its seemingly bottomless supply of chutzpah to challenge the amount:

As an initial salvo, the IRS argues that it was unreasonable and excessive for Plaintiffs to request compensation for over 1,700 hours spent advocating an interpretation of the statute that Plaintiffs themselves contend is obvious.

Our position was reasonable! OK, it was so unreasonable that even a cave man could litigate against it!

The Court declines the IRS’s request for across-the-board cuts to Plaintiffs’ award. The choice of a hatchet is particularly inappropriate here for several reasons. First and foremost, Plaintiffs prevailed at every stage of this litigation and achieved the entirety of their requested relief. Degree of success is “the most critical factor” in evaluating the reasonableness of a fee award.  Second, the IRS understates the complexity of this case. To be sure, this Court and the D.C. Circuit both concluded that Plaintiffs’ was the only reasonable interpretation of 31 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1). That conclusion, however, was apparent largely as a result of Plaintiffs’ thorough research and well-reasoned briefs.

Hah.

The only thing that would make it better would be if the IRS were assessed a penalty for taking a frivolous or negligent position. Maybe someday. But congratulations to the plaintiffs and the Institute for Justice for pulling off a legal end-zone dance.

 


Cite: Loving, Civil Action No. 12-385 (DC-District of Columbia)

And if you think that preparers can now do whatever they please, read Tax preparation business owner sentenced for tax fraud:

Charles Lee Harrison has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson along with Lucy Cruz, special agent in charge of Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). Harrison, the owner of a tax preparation business in Houston and Navasota, pleaded guilty June 16, 2014.

Today, U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, who accepted the guilty plea, handed Harrison a 36-month sentence to be immediately followed by one year of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay $396,057 in restitution.

I’m confident Mr. Harrison feels quite regulated at the moment.

 

Oh, Goody. “So we have right now probably the most complicated filing season before us that we’ve had in a long time, if ever. ”

-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in an interview with Tax Analysts October 17 ($link)

The Commissioner also had an interesting idea for large partnerships ($link):

Our position is the most significant thing we can do to break that bottleneck — and I think it’s supported by a lot of people in the private sector — would be to say we need to amend [the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act] and say we can audit a partnership,” Koskinen said. “And when we make an adjustment to the tax quantities, the partnership will absorb that that year,” he said, adding that the reporting would take place on the partnership’s Schedule K-1 for that year and the adjustment would automatically flow through to the partners.

Koskinen added that even though that statutory change would effectively shift the tax liability from those who were partners in the year under audit (and who benefited from the improper tax position) to the current partners, “that happens with mutual funds all the time. . . . People are used to buying and selling investments, recognizing whatever the tax and investment situation is.

Maybe that makes some sense for large partnerships, but it would be horrible for small ones, as anybody buying a partnership interest would also be buying three open years of audit exposure.

 

buzz20140923It’s Tuesday. That means Robert D. Flach is Buzzing with links from around the tax world!

Jason Dinesen, Iowa Tax Filing Deadline is October 31: Claim Your $54 Credit Before Then

Paul Neiffer, Will ACA Require You To Include Health Insurance as Wages. Spoiler: no.

Matt McKinney, Can I force my Iowa corporation to buy my stock? (IowaBiz.com). A common question from minority owners of closely-held corporations.

Tony Nitti, The Top Ten Tax Cases (And Rulings) Of 2014: #10 – IRA and Qualified Plan Rollovers Are More Treacherous Than You Realize.

TaxGrrrl, Suspected Nazi War Criminals Collected Millions In Social Security Benefits After Fleeing The U.S.

William Perez, Payroll Taxes: A Primer for Employers

Peter Reilly, Taxpayer Barred From Communicating With CPA Still Hit With Late File Penalty. Weird and unjust.

Kay Bell, Jury doesn’t buy ‘vow of poverty’ as excuse for not filing taxes. Well, this tax evasion conviction will help the defendant fulfill the vow.

 

 

20141021-1Martin Sullivan, A Double Bias Against Infrastructure (Tax Analysts Blog)  He doesn’t mention the biggest problem: When most of government spending is just transfers from some taxpayers to others, it squeezes out everything else.

Donald Marron, A “Normal” Budget Isn’t Really Normal (TaxVox): “From 1975 to today, the federal debt swelled from less than 25 percent of GDP to more than 70 percent. I don’t think many people would view that as normal. Or maybe it is normal, but not in a good way.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 530

 

News from the Profession. AICPA Seeks to Better Weed Out Losers, Misfits with Evolved CPA Exam (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern). Good thing I passed the exam before this development.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/12/14: C Corporation can’t kite checks to owner to wash out income. And: a church of strange idols.

Friday, September 12th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2In the misty early days of my tax career, S corporation elections were a big thing. There was a grace period after the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act where you could make the election and avoid having to deal with the built-in gain tax.

I remember calling on a prospect C corporation, thinking I could easily sell the merits of escaping the second layer of corporation tax. They were ready for me. They explained that they didn’t need an S corporation election because, as I remember it, they could always W-2 their income to the owner to zero out their taxable income. They then made an entry to record a “loan” or capital contribution for the same amount from the owner to the corporation, so no actual cash changed hands. That’s what they said they always did, and they’d never been audited.

I sputtered, “that doesn’t work,” but it apparently worked fine, as long as the IRS never called. Needless to say, I failed to land the prospect. I went back to the office determined to find a case with the same facts.  I never did find the perfect case — until now.

Yesterday the Tax Court ruled that a version of this trick didn’t work for a Minnesota C corporation architectural practice.  The stakes are higher for “personal service corporations,” including architects, as they don’t get to use the lower C corporation brackets for their taxable income; they pay 35% from dollar one. Many corporations accept that, assuming they can wipe out their taxable income with year-end bonuses to owner-employees; that way they retain a few tax-free fringe benefits unavailable to S corporation shareholders.

The Tax Court explains how the Minnesota taxpayer went about this (my emphasis, footnotes omitted):

In 2008 Vanney Associates paid Mr. Vanney monthly wages totaling $240,000. At the end of each year, it was the Vanneys’ practice to determine Vanney Associates’ remaining profit after paying any outstanding bills and paying bonuses to employees. After determining this amount, Ms. Vanney would prepare a check on behalf of Vanney Associates and pay the remaining profit to Mr. Vanney as a yearend bonus. The Vanneys testified that their intent behind the yearend bonus was only to pay out the remaining profit; it was not to zero out the tax liability of Vanney Associates even if that was the effect.

On December 30, 2008, Vanney Associates paid Mr. Vanney a yearend bonus totaling $815,000. After withholding and paying to the IRS the appropriate Federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, Vanney Associates wrote a check to Mr. Vanney for $464,183. Mr. Vanney signed the check on behalf of Vanney Associates and then endorsed the check in his own name and made it  payable to Vanney Associates. He never attempted to cash the check. Ms. Vanney recorded the payment on the books as a loan from Mr. Vanney, and Vanney Associates repaid Mr. Vanney in March 2009.

Tax Court Judge Buch found that the check was never cashed for good reasons:

Mr. Vanney testified that he “believe[d]” he knew that Vanney Associates did not have the funds necessary to honor the check. However, he maintained that Vanney Associates could have gotten a loan to cover the check.

20131206-1The IRS disallowed the $815,000 bonus expense, and it ended up in Tax Court. The court sided with the IRS:

Mr. Vanney was the sole shareholder of Vanney Associates. Ms. Vanney, as Vanney Associates’ bookkeeper, knew or should have known that Vanney Associates did not have the funds to cover the bonus check to Mr. Vanney, and Mr. Vanney testified to having at least some idea of this as well. Vanney Associates argues that the payment was unconditional and payment occurred when Mr. Vanney took possession of the check. Vanney Associates cites O’Connor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1954-90, where this Court held that “[t]he essential element is that the control of property distributed by way of a dividend must have passed absolutely and irrevocably”. The Court in O’Connor also relied on the fact that the payee had “unrestricted use” of the money and the “amount was unqualifiedly his, to do with as he wished.” That is not the case before us. If anything, Mr. Vanney had only restricted use of the check. He could not cash it at the bank, use it to pay a debt, or use it to make a loan to someone other than to Vanney Associates. In fact, Mr. Vanney’s only option to make use of the money at that time was to lend it back to Vanney Associates because the check could not be honored. Additionally, we have previously held that although a taxpayer maintains possession of a check, the amount of the check may not be treated as a distribution or may not be included in gross income when the account has insufficient funds to honor the check.

Accordingly, respondent’s disallowance of a portion of the deduction for officer compensation is sustained.

I can’t time travel to the 1980s to show this case to my now-defunct prospect corporation, but I suspect there are plenty of other C corporations that still do this. It only works if the IRS never calls, and if they do, the value of the C corporation fringes is unlikely to cover their additional C corporation taxes.

Cite: Vanney Associates, Inc., T.C. Memo 2014-184.

 

Christopher Bergin, The Church of Corporate Inversions (Tax Analysts Blog): “I never thought I’d miss stories about Lois Lerner. But if we are going to talk about fairness in our tax system and raising enough revenue to support the people’s government, dealing with the increasingly dysfunctional IRS is just one of the problems we face that are far more important than corporate inversions.”

Speaking of worshipping at The Church of Corporate Inversions: New CTJ Report: Congress Should Require Inverting Corporations to Pay Up Taxes They Owe on Profits Held Offshore (Steve Warnhoff, Tax Justice Blog)

 

20140728-1Kay Bell, Tax relief for terrorist attack victims and their families

Paul Neiffer, How Do We Plan For Section 179 in 2014. “Now, we are fairly confident that Section 179 will be increased, but we probably will not know until the last week of the year and we may get 50% bonus depreciation back too.”

Russ Fox, Cash & Carry.  A restaurateur discovers that all receipts are taxable, even if the customer doesn’t use a credit card.

Peter Reilly, Parsonage Supporters Encouraged By Seventh Circuit Oral Arguments

Leslie Book, Technology and Tax Administration: The Appeals Virtual Service Delivery Program (Procedurally Taxing)

 

Amber Athey, House September Agenda Includes Potential Tax Changes (Tax Policy Blog). Mostly extenders, none of which seem to be going anywhere until after the elections.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 491

 

Donald Marron, Does the Export-Import Bank Make or Lose Money? (TaxVox). Both. It makes money for Boeing, but loses money for those of us not on the corporate welfare rolls.

 

Career Corner. The Obvious Link Between Inadequate Staffing and Stress Explains Why You Hate Your Life (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern).

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 4/10/14: Still plenty of time for an IRA! And Iowa Tax Freedom Day looms.

Thursday, April 10th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

IRAWhen the tax deadline is looming, taxpayers looking for the Tax Fairy to wish away their tax problems often overlook the old-fashioned IRA.  You can still make 2013 IRA contributions through April 15.  An Individual Retirement Account contribution may be able to score you a 2013 deduction (or even a tax credit) for 2013; even if you don’t qualify for current tax savings, they are a nice and cheap way to build-up tax-sheltered savings.

IRAs come in two flavors: “traditional” and “Roth.”  Traditional IRAs build up their income tax-free, but earnings on them are taxable when they come out.  If you meet certain conditions, your traditional IRAs come with sprinkles: – a tax deduction.  If you don’t get the deduction going in, your principal is tax-free going out.

Roth IRAs never offer a deduction, but they leave a sweeter aftertaste: if you hold them long enough, income on Roth IRA assets is never taxed.  And unlike traditional IRAs, you are never forced to start withdrawing funds from the IRA, so the tax-free build-up can go on indefinitely.

Both traditional and Roth IRAs require you to have wage or self-employment net income.  The limits for contributions are the lesser of your taxable compensation or $5,500 ($6,500 if you were 50 by December 31, 2013).  You can contribute to a traditional IRA at any income level, but deductions phase out at higher income levels if you (or your spouse) are covered by a retirement plan at work.  The availability of Roth IRA contributions phases out at higher income levels regardless of whether you participate in another retirement plan.

One very useful way to use Roth IRAs is for teenagers and young adults.  A parent can fund a Roth IRA for them based on part-time job income — no matter what parent income is.  This starts a tax-free retirement fund for the young earner at a very age, giving the power of compound interest lots of time to do its magic.  And from what I’ve seen, parental Roth funding is much appreciated by the recipients.

While time is short, you can still fund a 2013 IRA if you make your contribution no later than April 15.  You can set one up at your friendly community bank or online with a mutual fund company on you lunch hour.  No, it probably won’t make your 2013 taxes go away, but it can be a nice step towards financial security for you or your kids.

This is the latest of our 2014 Filing Season Tips — a new one every day thorugh April 15!

Russ Fox, Bozo Tax Tip #4: Honey, You Don’t Exist!: “Perhaps it’s something in the water, but this year Aaron and I have seen multiple cases of individuals who have ignored that marriage license and filed as single if married.”

 

Kyle Pomerleau, When is My State’s Tax Freedom Day?  (Tax Policy Bl0g) Iowa’s is this Sunday.

 20140410-1

 

Kristy Maitre, How to Report National Mortgage Settlement Payments

TaxGrrrl, Taxes From A To Z (2014): X Is For XD   

Paul Neiffer, Trusts Can Get You in Trouble

Jason Dinesen, Tax Court Case Involving Radio DJ Strikes Close to Home for Me, Part 2 

 

Hey, preparers: are you ready to trust the IRS to regulate your livelihood?  A Week Before Tax Day, IRS Misses Crucial Windows XP Deadline (Washington Post, via the TaxProf)

Kay Bell, Computer problems for IRS, Canadian tax agency

 

20140401-1Alan Cole, Mainstream Economics Support Low Taxes on Capital Income (Tax Policy Bl0g): “The overwhelming bulk of the evidence is that taxes have a negative effect on economic growth, and that the effect is particularly strong on tax bases that include capital income.”  But, the rich!  Inequality!

Donald Marron, Seven Tax Issues Facing Small Business (TaxVox): “America’s tax system is needlessly complex, economically harmful, and often unfair.”

Cara Griffith, Guidance Today, Gone Tomorrow (Tax Analysts Blog).  “A recent Arkansas court opinion points out what might be a troubling trend in state taxation: the inability of taxpayers to rely on administrative guidance because the state can retract or supersede it on a moment’s notice.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 336.  It was a big day, with evidence that Lois Lerner was working behind the scenes with the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee to harass the opposition.

Tax Justice Blog, Is the Obama Administration Blocking International Efforts to Address Corporate Tax Avoidance? 

William Perez, Tax Reform Act of 2014, Part 4, Tax Credits

 

Hank Stern, The ObamaTax Domino Effect.  “While we’ve all seen the horrendous rate increases caused by the ObamaTax (including on our 1040’s), thee are other victims.”

“Pro-business” isn’t “pro-market,” a distinction utterly lost on Iowa officials.

David Brunori: I’ll Raise a Glass to Lower Booze Taxes (Tax Analysts Blog) “Jack Daniels is not bourbon, by the way, but Tennessee whiskey. There is apparently a difference, but frankly, after the first glass, I can never tell.”

Next: legislators are terrible at legislating.  GAO Went Undercover to Discover Tax Preparers Are Terrible at Tax Preparing (Going Concern)

 

Share