Posts Tagged ‘Lynnley Browning’

Tax Roundup, 9/18/2013: No, the rich guy still isn’t buying. And non-phony scandals.

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

taxanalystslogoJoseph Thorndike gets a lot wrong in Two Cheers for a Government Shutdown (Tax Analysts Blog), but he gets one important thing exactly right (my emphasis):

 Democrats have been much less willing to defend discretionary government spending — the kind of spending that will grind to a halt during a shutdown. The discretionary portion of the federal budget has been slashed to the bone in recent years, and it’s slated for more slashing in the years ahead.

Those cuts are bad for the country in any number of ways. But until Democrats make the case against them, they’ll keep coming.

And here’s the most important point: Defending the value of discretionary spending also means defending the taxes that pay for it. Yet Democrats have been unwilling to defend taxation for decades. Ronald Reagan really was a transformative president — he changed not only the way Republicans talked about taxes, but the way Democrats talked about them, too.

Democrats have always liked taxing the rich. But for decades, they understood that you couldn’t tax only the rich. Anyone who thinks seriously about solving our long-term budget problems comes to the inescapable conclusion that taxes are going up for everyone. At least they will be going up if we hope to continue with a federal government that looks anything like the one we have today.

20121226-1Democrats have to embrace that fact. They have to defend the value proposition of progressive government, not just the feel-good politics of progressive taxation. 

I don’t buy for a moment that discretionary spending has been “slashed to the bone.”  Just visit your friendly money-bleeding post office, airport TSA line, high-speed rail boondoggle, solar subsidy disaster…  But he is exactly right when he points out that the rich guy isn’t buying.

 

Chart by the Tax Foundation

 

When the “Rogue Agents in Cincinnati” defense of the IRS in the Tea Party scandal was discredited, those attempting to minimize the scandal fell back to new defensive positions:

There is no evidence of partisan bias, and

Progressive groups were targeted too.

These assertions appear in a USA Today Story (via Instapundit), IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’.

 Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 “political advocacy case” list were conservative, but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011, including Progressives United, Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.

Progressive outfits are unlikely to be caught by a screener looking for “anti-Obama” rhetoric. Given that “over 80%” of the groups picked for extra screening are right-side, it’s hard to accept that there is no political bias in the screening process.  Prior revelations have shown that the few left-side groups that were picked for extra scrutiny got very gentle treatment compared to their right-side counterparts:

7-30-13-irs-targeting-statistics-of-files-produced-by-irs-through-july-29-2-

Nothing phony about this scandal, no matter how much some people devoutly wish otherwise.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 132

Russ Fox,  IRS Scandal: Lerner, Others Re-Enter Spotlight

 

 

Lynnley Browning, Complying With U.S. Tax Evasion Law Is Vexing Foreign Banks (via the TaxProf).   It’s one more reason why foreign banks are closing their doors to U.S. expats, and why Americans abroad are turning in their passports.

 

Paul Neiffer,  IRS Has Two Sets of De Minimis Rules.  He is discussing final regulations issued last week on what purchases need to be capitalized, rather than written off as expenses:

The first set applies to companies with applicable financial statements (i.e. an audit) and allows the company to expense any fixed asset purchase that does not exceed $5,000.  The second set allows any other taxpayer to expense any fixed asset purchase that does not exceed $500.  Personally, I would have hoped this number would be closer to $2,500, but $500 is better than none.

The Regulations also provide for guidance to IRS agents that they can reach an agreement with a taxpayer during audit to use a de minimis number higher than the ceiling in the Regulations.

I think the distinction between audited financial statements is nonsensical, but at least taxpayers know where they stand.

 

Jason Dinesen: Having a Side Business in Multi-Level Marketing Doesn’t Make Personal Expenses Deductible.  It’s amazing how many people believe that it does.

 

Kay Bell,  Tax deadlines extended to Dec. 2 for Colorado flood victims

Tony Nitti, IRS Provides Tax Relief To Victims Of Colorado Storms   

Trish McIntire,  Disasters and Chutes and Ladders

TaxGrrrl,  2014 Tax Brackets, Exemption Amounts Likely To Save Tax Dollars   

William Perez,  Top Tax Rate Paid by Sole Proprietors by State

Brian Mahany,  Do You Have The Right To Rely on IRS Forms? Court Says “Maybe”

David Brunori, The Conundrum of Taxing Lots of Kids (Tax Analysts Blog)

 

20120924-1

Phil Hodgen, Simplicity:

Reaching for $1,000X of tax savings frequently costs you $2,000X in accounting and legal fees to make the IRS all warm and fuzzy on your tax returns. We saw this last week where a prior year tax election was made that saved $5,000 (!) of tax, but so far has cost $40,000 to fix. Not to mention the time distraction for the principal of the venture.

That’s why I don’t care for things like C corporations that try to manipulate their income to use the lower tax rates when income is under $100,000.  You can save maybe a few thousand in taxes if you do it just right, but at the cost of professional fees and management time best spent elsewhere.

 

The Critical Question: Is the Spies Element for Evasion (i) Tax Deficiency or (ii) the Criminal Tax Number? (Jack Townsend)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/9/2013: Gotta start somewhere edition.

Thursday, May 9th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

rand paulGotta start somewhere.  The Hill reports “Rand Paul introduces bill to roll back parts of tax evasion law“:

“FATCA’s harmful impacts cover the spectrum,” Paul said. “It is a violation of Americans’ constitutional protections, oversteps the limits of Executive power, disregards the mutual respect of sovereignty among nations and drains money from the federal treasury under the guise of replenishing it, and discourages overseas investment in the United States.”

“Tax evasion is a problem that should be addressed, but not in such an egregious way,” Paul added.

FATCA has made normal financial life difficult or impossible for many Americans abroad.  Too bad politicians didn’t think of these things before they voted.

Probably related: Lynnley Browning, U.S. Citizens Ditch Passports in Record Numbers (via the TaxProf).  Also this from Phil Hodgen.

Jack Townsend, HSBC India Reported to be Cooperating with DOJ and IRS and Projecting Significant Penalty

 

TaxGrrrl,  Sanctions May Be Least Of ‘Copyright Troll’ Worries As Matter Is Referred To Feds, IRS.  A great article telling the story of an attorney/copyright troll who annoyed a judge enough to get him to call in the IRS to investigate his taxes.  Hilarity ensues.

Cara Griffith, Pot Calling Kettle Black? (Tax.com):

Good Jobs First is just hiding the ball a little bit by trying to get rid of reports on business climate. The Good Jobs First report says that the real issue we should be focusing on is “how to build a tax system that is fair, modern and relevant.” Yes, that’s exactly what needs to be done, but I would argue that reports on business climate add to the debate. And while I do think that such reports must be examined with a critical eye, “business climate” matters.

Related Tax Update coverage here.

 

Tyler Cowen

“When economists are not listened to, that often means strong special interests and/or strong voter sentiment stand on the other side of the equation.  The numerous special deductions in the tax code, most of which have no efficiency justification, are examples.”

True of both federal and Iowa tax laws.

 

Brian Strahle,  MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT:  IMPACT ON NON-INTERNET REMOTE RETAILERS?

Hence, it appears that this Act would apply to any business (not just Internet Retailers) that makes sales into a state in which it does not have nexus.  Therefore, manufacturers or other non-Internet retailers who sell directly to retail customers who do not have sales representatives or any other physical connection with a state may (under this Act) be required to collect sales tax on its remote sales.

It’s not just the e-Bay sellers who would have to deal with this.  If you really want to create “market fairness,” there are two ways that are much simpler: either a straight national sales tax collection regime with uniform rules and rate where the proceeds are allocated to the states based on the sales to the state, or a sales tax based on shipping location.

 

Janet Novack,  Reverse Showrooming: Best Buy, Amazon And The Internet Sales Tax:

Traditional bricks and mortar retailers squander their immediacy edge with indifferent/uninformed sales help, who look even worse compared to the information now available on the web. But they can do well if they integrate their online and in-store services, carry enough inventory and price competitively.

 

Christopher Bergin, No Use for Useless Stances (Tax.com)

Linda Beale,  Senate did the right thing–will the House?

 

Tony Nitti, Boxer Manny Pacquiao Ducks U.S. Taxes, Will Return To Ring In China

Paul Neiffer,  Make Sure to Coordinate Estate Documents with Ag Laws

Kay Bell,  It’s property tax appraisal, and scam, time

 

It’s great to waste money, as long as it’s wasted here.  I dust off my old personal rant blog in response to this.

Going Concern, Groundbreaking CFO.com Survey Reveals Accounting Professionals Desperately Need Communication Skills.  All I can say to that is, pprdrhnt.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 1/4/2013: How many seconds of federal spending do you cover? And more debris from the bottom of the Fiscal Cliff.

Friday, January 4th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

20130104-1Spending, by the numbers.  Local radio guy Brian Gongol asks, Why do we baffle ourselves with huge numbers instead of talking about budgets in per-person terms?  Why, indeed?  You could ask 100 people on the street how much money the government spends and how big the deficit is, and you would be lucky to get the size of the budget within a trillion dollars.  The numbers are hard to comprehend.

The ability of the politicians to get away with talk about “millionaires and billionaires” proves this — a billion is 1,000 million, and while there are likely people on your street with a net worth of $1 million, you probably haven’t met anybody worth $1 billion.  They aren’t remotely the same thing.

In doing year-end tax projections for a client with a once-in-a-lifetime gain from a business sale and a huge resulting tax liability, I wondered how long his enormous (to me) liability would keep the government running.  Dividing the 2012 fiscal year spending of $3.796 trillion by the 31,536,000 seconds in a 365-day year, I figure that the federal blob spends $120,370.37 per second.  The biggest tax liability I’ve ever seen comes well short of funding 2 minutes of government operations.  I probably will never cover a second.  Where do you fit?

 

Fiscal Cliff Webinar!   I will be appearing with Roger McEowen on the “Tax Notes From the Fiscal Cliff” webinar at Noon January 14.  We will be covering the new legislation and the proposed 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax” regulations.  Register today!

 

The IRS has published new withholding tables for the Fiscal Cliff Legislation (Accounting today)

 

Fiscal Cliff Notes:

Wall Street Journal:  Cliff Fix Hits Small Business; Many Small Entities or Firms May Face Higher Taxes This Year After the Deal

David Henderson, Pssst:  Someone tell the Republicans they won:

So here’s the big news: the anti-tax side won.  Sure, Obama would love
to raise taxes even more, especially on people making between $200K and $450K.  But now he has almost zero leverage to do that. 

I think that’s about right.  And now the President has lost his ability to distract attention from the ongoing fiscal calamity with arm-waving about “millionaires and billionaires.”

Derek Thompson, Sorry, Middle Class: In a Few Years, Your Taxes Will Have to Go Up, Too (via Going Concern).  You know, we could try spending less.  In any case, the rich guy isn’t buying.

Tim Carney: How corporate tax credits got in the ‘cliff’ deal

Katrina Trinko, Hollywood, Electric Scooters Benefit From Tax Breaks in Fiscal Cliff Bill (The Corner)

Brad Plumer, From NASCAR to rum, the 10 weirdest parts of the ‘fiscal cliff’ bill (Wonkblog, via Tyler Cowen).

Chris James, Fiscal Cliff Deal Adjust Capital Gain Rates and Qualified Dividend Rates (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog)

Paul Neiffer, Some More Goodies Buried in the Fine Print

Kay Bell, Redefining ‘wealthy’ for tax purposes

Tax Trials, Fiscal Cliff Legislation – American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Patrick Temple-West, Cliff fix hits small business, and more

Nick Kasprak, 2013 Tax Brackets (Tax Policy Blog)

Roberton Williams, TPC Tax Calculator Shows What Avoiding Fiscal Cliff Means for Taxpayers (TaxV0x)

Howard Gleckman,  What the Fiscal Cliff Deal Really Means for Taxes and Spending

TaxProf,  More Fiscal Cliff Tax Commentary

 

In other news…

Jack Townsend, Wegelin & Co. Pleads Guity to Conspiracy

Lynnley Browning, Swiss bank Wegelin to close after guilty plea.  They opened in 1741.

Jason Dinesen, Tax Predictions for 2013

Trish McIntire, Disclosing Prisoner Returns

Taxdood, Intrastate iGaming: Federal Reporting and Withholding Tax Obligations

Robert D. Flach, WTF IS THIS AMT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT?

News you can use: “Have Fun and Don’t Be Bored” (Brian Strahle)

Share