Posts Tagged ‘Roger McEowen’

Tax Roundup, 9/25/15: IRS: Post-2007 CRP payments remain self-employment income unless you collect Social Security.

Friday, September 25th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

binIRS says not farming is just like farming, for self-employment tax purposes. Last year the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that non-farmers are not subject to self-employment tax on conservation reserve program payments received for not planting land. The IRS yesterday announced (AOD 2015-02) that it disagrees with the decision. It said that it will follow the decision only within the Eighth Circuit, and even there only for pre-2008 payments.

The Eighth Circuit panel said that CRP payments are properly treated for non-farmers as rentals from real estate, which are not subject to SE tax. The IRS says it still disagrees, and it said that a 2008 law change “clarified” things (my emphasis):

In addition, the 2008 amendment to section 1402(a)(1) to treat CRP payments made to Social Security recipients as rentals from real estate effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2007, served to clarify that other CRP payments are not excluded as rentals from real estate. Congress neither enacted a blanket exclusion with respect to CRP payments (or CRP payments made to non-farmers) nor evidenced any disagreement with the analysis of the Sixth Circuit in Wuebker. Although the statutory amendment does not apply to the years at issue in Morehouse, the implication is that prior to the amendment, CRP payments to farmers and non-farmers alike are not excludible from self-employment income as rentals from real estate. If these payments were already excluded as rental payments then the amendment would have been unnecessary. After the amendment, the implication is that CRP payments to farmers and non-farmers alike are not excludible from self-employment income unless made to Social Security recipients.

That conclusion may not go unchallenged. Roger McEowen of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation had a different take after the Eighth Circuit decision came down:

For CRP rents paid after 2007, the question is whether the recipient is a materially participating farmer.

That means the IRS can be expected to reject refund claims for SE tax paid by those not receiving Social Security payments. From the AOD:

We recognize the precedential effect of the decision in Morehouse to cases appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Accordingly, we will follow Morehouse within the Eighth Circuit only with respect to cases in which the CRP payments at issue were both (1) paid to an individual who was not engaged in farming prior to or during the period of enrollment of his or her land in CRP and (2) paid prior to January 1, 2008 (i.e., the effective date of the 2008 amendment to section 1402(a)(1)). We will continue to litigate the IRS position in the Eighth Circuit in cases not having these specific facts. We will also continue to litigate the IRS position in all cases in other circuits.

This means the whole issue will assuredly end up back in the courts sooner or later. For now, though, we are on notice that the IRS considers current CRP payments to be subject to SE tax in all circuits.
20150925-1

Robert D. Flach has a fresh Friday Buzz roundup of tax bog posts, with items including the awfulness of the coming tax season, state tax fairness, and the savers tax credit.

TaxGrrrl, 7 Budget & Tax Related Reasons We May Be Headed Towards A Government Shutdown.

Kay Bell, Bartering is a great — and taxable — way to buy and sell. A lack of cash doesn’t mean a lack of tax.

Jim Maule, In What Year Should a Prize Be Reported as Gross Income?. “The question is simple. When a person wins a prize, in what year should the person report the income on the federal income tax return?”

Sheldon Kay, “Judging Litigating Hazards – Another View” (Procedurally Taxing). “He [Keith Fogg] also suggests that Appeals officers “with little or no knowledge of litigation” cannot properly analyze evidentiary questions or properly evaluate hazards of litigation. I respectfully disagree with his assessment.”

Annette Nellen, Challenges of base broadening

 

Alan Cole, Cadillac Tax Working as Planned on Auto Workers (Tax Policy Blog). ”

The situation above is not a mistake in the Affordable Care Act; rather, it is the Cadillac tax fulfilling both of its intended goals.

The first goal is to encourage substitution from employer health benefits back towards ordinary compensation, like wages and salaries…

The second goal of the Cadillac Tax is to raise revenue.

By delaying the painful parts, the bill fooled enough people long enough to get enacted. Now the rubes are catching on, but it’s too late.

Robert Wood, Bernie Sanders And Republicans Both Urge Cadillac Tax Repeal

 

20150925-2

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 869

Norton Francis, The Trouble with State Tax Triggers (TaxVox). “Here’s how a tax trigger works: A state cuts taxes over a period of years. There may be an initial tax cut that takes effect right away but future reductions are tied to some other benchmark, typically (but not always) achieving an overall revenue target.”

Sebastian Johnson, Maine Republicans Double Down on Tax Cut Fervor (Tax Justice Blog).

 

If only he had been regulated by the IRS. Oh, wait… IRS Agent Busted for Extorting Money From Marijuana Dispensary Owner (High Times, Via the TaxProf)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/21/15: If you step away from the Iowa business, Iowa rules say sell within five years.

Monday, September 21st, 2015 by Joe Kristan

20150811-1When you get out of the business, Iowa wants you to really get out.  Iowa has a tough tax environment for business, consistently ranking in the bottom 20% in the Tax Foundation’s Business Tax Climate Index. But there’s a pot of gold at the end of the road for entrepreneurs tough enough to stick it out for at least ten years.

The Iowa Capital Gain Deduction excludes from Iowa tax the capital gains on the sale of the assets of a business, or on real estate used in a business, if the business was held for at least ten years and the taxpayer “materially participated” in the business for ten years at the time of sale. And that’s the catch.

This rule tripped up a Johnson County, Iowa couple this month in the Iowa Court of Appeals. The couple ran a rooming house in Iowa city and ran it full-time from 1981 to 1994 — safely longer than ten years. In 1994 they contracted out the daily operation of the business. The couple continued to pay bills, approve major expenditures and renovations, and perform some maintenance activities. They sold out in 2005.

The “material participation” rules are the same as the federal “passive loss” rules under Section 469. Most of these rules are based on time spent in the business during the year. For example, if you spend 500 hours working in a non-rental business during a year, that means you materially participate.

Several material participation rules apply when a taxpayer retires from the business. One applies only to farmers: if you retire at the time you start collecting social security, and you have materially participated otherwise in at least five of the prior eight years, you are considered to materially participate for the rest of your life. Once you participate in a “personal service” business for three years, your material participation is set for life.

For all other businesses, you are considered to materially participate if you have met one of the hour-based requirements in five of the prior ten years. As a practical matter, that means a retiring entrepreneur who continues to own the business is still materially participating for five years after stepping down.

That’s where the taxpayers here failed the material participation tests. While they easily met the requirement to hold the property for ten years, they were not material participants at the time of the sale. The court held that they failed to prove material participation after 1994. That would mean they would have until 1999 to sell and still be material participants. After that, they failed the five-of-the-last-ten-years test.

The Moral: Taxpayers who step back from an Iowa business shouldn’t wait too long to sell if they want to avoid Iowa capital gains tax. If you meet the ten-year holding period and material participation requirement, you have five years to find a buyer.

Cite: Lance, Iowa Court of Appeals No. 14-1144 (9/10/2015).

Roger McEowen has an excellent discussion of this case for Tax Place subscribers. If you practice Iowa tax regularly, the $150 annual subscription is a great bargain.

Related:

Iowa Capital Gain Deduction: an illustration

MATERIAL PARTICIPATION BASICS

 

20150921-1

 

Hank Stern of Insureblog discusses some Dubious 105 Tricks:

Here’s the concept in a nutshell (emphasis on “nut”):

My employer claims that signing up for this “105 Classic Plan” will allow me to make %30+ of my income tax free. The jist [sic] of it is that they will take $560 per (bi-weekly) pay period out of my check, somehow “make it tax free” and refund most of it back through some vague “loan” that I apparently don’t have to pay back.

This will reduce my income taxes pretty massively… but not only that, the company making my money untaxable claims it will pay 75% of all my out of pocket medical expenses up to $12,000.

It’s sort of an underpants gnome tax plan:

  1. Take money out.
  2. ?
  3. Tax free!

It of course doesn’t work. There is no Tax Fairy.

 

Russ Fox, A 0% Chance of Success Didn’t Deter Him! “Well, one fact that I’ve mentioned in the past is that IRS Criminal Investigations looks at all allegations of employment tax fraud. The reason is obvious: The IRS doesn’t like the idea of people stealing from them.”

Kay Bell, How do fantasy sports differ from gambling? As far as I can tell, gambling takes less time.

Robert D. Flach, REQUIRED NEW YORK STATE CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR TAX PREPARERS. “To be perfectly honest all of the four-hours of sessions were a total waste of my time.” Senators Hatch and Wyden want to spread the time-waste nationwide.

Peter Reilly, Presidential Race – Let’s Talk Religion Politics And The IRS.

Robert Wood, IRS Delays FATCA To Help Banks, But Offshore Account Disclosures Continue

 

20150921-2

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 863864865

 

TaxGrrrl, Coca-Cola Says IRS Wants $3.3 Billion In Additional Tax Following Audit

Caleb Newquist, Coca-Cola Can’t Beat the Feeling That Its Taxes Are Just Fine (Going Concern). “Coca-Cola Co. is learning that the IRS side of life includes a challenge to its transfer pricing method.”

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/3/15: How to cut the IRS in on your foreign inheritance. And more!

Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 by Joe Kristan

20150903-1Uncle Heinrich from the old country left you a bundle. Congratulations! Make sure to tell the IRS.

Why, you ask, should I tell them? Inheritances are tax-free, after all.

Well, yes. But the IRS still wants to know about them. And if you don’t tell them, you may be cutting the IRS in on 25% of the gift.

The tax law requires you to file Form 3520 to report gifts or bequests from a foreign source if they exceed $100,000 (or $13,258 if received from a foreign corporation or partnership). This return is due at the same time as your income tax return, including any extensions, but it is filed separately. The penalty for not reporting is 5% of the unreported amount per month, up to 25%.

What if Uncle Hans gives you $75,000, and his wife Aunt Anne-Sophie gives you another $75,000? Then the gifts are counted together and exceed the reporting threshold.

I will be talking about these and other easy-to-overlook  international reporting requirements that can arise in estate planning and administration at the ISU Center on Agricultural Law and Taxation September Seminars. They are September 17 (Agricultural Law Seminar) and September 18 (Farm Estate and Business Planning Seminar). My talk is on the 18th.  Register by September 10 for an early-bird discount!

 

20150903-2Robert D. Flach, AICPA CONTINUES TO PROMOTE THE URBAN TAX MYTH. “There is absolutely nothing about possessing the initials CPA that in any way, shape, or form guarantees that the possessor knows his or her arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to 1040 preparation.”

TaxGrrrl, Owner Of ITS, Formerly Fourth Largest Tax Prep Biz In Country, To Face Criminal Charges. “Readers sent me numerous emails advising that ITS was still in business for the 2014 tax season, despite the court order.”

Robert Wood, Report Cites Flawed IRS Asset Seizures, And Ironically, Sales Are Handled By ‘PALS’

Kay Bell, Tax moves to make in September 2015. Worth visiting for the accompanying autumn leaves picture alone, but lots of other sound advice too.

Stephen Olsen, Summary Opinions for August 1st to 14th And ABA Tax Section Fellowships (Procedurally Taxing). Recent happenings in the tax procedure world.

Jack Townsend, Ninth Circuit Affirms False Claim Convictions for Tax Preparer. “The false claims statutes involved, however, are not complex statutes.  All that is required is that the defendant know that the claims are false.”

Annette Nellen, 50th Anniversary of Willis Commission Report. “This is likely the most comprehensive study and report ever done on state and multistate issues covering income tax, sales and use tax, gross receipts tax, and capital stock tax.”

 

20150903-3

 

Scott Greenberg, Every Tax Policy Proposal from the 2016 Presidential Candidates, in One Chart (Tax Policy Blog). “While some presidential candidates have issued tax reform proposals that touch on almost all of these areas of the tax code, other presidential candidates are not listed as having offered any tax policy proposals at all.”

Renu Zaretsky, The Case of the Unreturned Call for Tax Code Simplicity (TaxVox)  “Are taxpayers clamoring for a simpler, faster, and cheaper filing experience? Well, they are, and they are not.”

Richard Phillips, Ben Carson’s 10 Percent Flat Tax is Utterly Implausible (Tax Justice Blog)

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 847. Today’s installment links to an update on the status of the scandal by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal: “In any case, it’s unreasonable for government officials to expect us to trust their assurances when they take such pains to prevent their verification.

 

News from the Profession. Here’s a Guy Wearing a PwC T-Shirt Giving Weird Street Massages (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/2/15: Contract manufacturer deduction to sleep with the fishes? And: IRS can’t monitor ACA tax credit claims, and more!

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 by Joe Kristan

No Walnut STTreasury puts out a contract on some Sec. 199 deductions. In a new post at TaxPlace, Roger McEowen covers the New Domestic Production Activities Deduction Temporary Regulations. Unfortunately it is available only to TaxPlace subscribers right now (TaxPlace subscriptions are a fine bargain for practitioners, by the way). He covers a key aspect of the proposed rules: the way they make it impossible for firms who contract out their manufacturing to claim the deduction. From the article:

Contract Manufacturing Activities.  The proposed regulations change the test for determining which taxpayer is eligible for a DPAD.  The proposed regulations eliminate the “benefits and burdens” test of Treas. Reg. §1.199-3(f)(1) and replace it with a requirement that the taxpayer actually perform qualifying activity under the contract.  In other words, the DPAD is to be tied to the taxpayer that actually produces the property.  The IRS views the rule change one of administrative ease that would bar more than one taxpayer from being allowed a DPAD with respect to any qualifying activity.  The IRS is requesting comments on whether there are narrow circumstances that would justify an exception to the proposed rule, particularly with respect to cost-plus or cost-reimbursable contracts. 

Example:  Tex places his hogs in the Swine Place feedlot.  The question is whether the fees that Swine Place collects on Tex’s pigs are DPGR.

Result:  Under the existing regulations, the fees would not constitute DPGR because only income attributable to pigs owned by Swine Place would generate DPGR because Swine Place bore the benefits and burdens of ownership of the QPP (hogs) during the period of the MPGE activity in order for the applicable gross receipts to qualify as DPGR. Under the proposed regulations, the fees that Swine Place collects would appear to qualify as DPGR because Swine Place performed the qualifying activity under the contract with Tex.  

These rules are not yet in effect. Hearings are scheduled on them in December.

 

The income tax, the Ultimate Swiss Army Knife of public policy. Flickr Image courtesy redjar under Creative Commons license.

The income tax, the Ultimate Swiss Army Knife of public policy. Flickr Image courtesy redjar under Creative Commons license.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has issued a report on IRS monitoring of the premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act:

Because of incomplete or unreported data from the Exchanges, the IRS is unable to ensure that:

  • Taxpayers claiming the PTC met the key eligibility requirement of purchasing insurance through an Exchange.
  • Taxpayers who received the APTC properly reconcile the APTC on their tax return.

It was always a bad idea to make the IRS a key part of the nation’s health finance system. It’s hard enough to measure taxable income, determine the tax, and collect it. But politicians see the tax agency as their public policy multi-tool.

 

David Brunori, Messing With the Markets: Using the Tax Laws to Influence Economic Behavior (Tax Analysts Blog). David notes the inequities illustrated in the new Tax Foundation report, Location Matters: The State Tax Costs of Doing Business:

The report says that tax incentives mostly benefit new firms, while disadvantaging (I suspect greatly in many cases) established firms. This is something I have been pointing out since the Mercedes-Benz deal in Alabama. States give a company tax dollars in return for building a new plant or hiring a certain number of people. Sometimes the state gives millions of dollars, but recently it’s been billions of dollars. But what of the companies that have already opened a plant, made investments, and hired workers? They often receive no state gifts. That is patently unfair. Of course, all this often provides an incentive for mature firms to go to the legislature for their own breaks. That may even things up sometimes, but it’s a horrific way to run the government.

That’s just a taste; David’s whole post is well worth reading. This observation should be read aloud every time a legislature considers a new incentive tax credit:

There are a lot of winners in the state tax world but many more losers. And our leaders are picking them.

I made some related Iowa-centric observations yesterday.

 

7-30 fountain

 

Kay Bell, IRS awards tax whistleblower $11.6 million. If you are considering a questionable tax move, consider also how lucrative it can be for an accomplice to rat you out.

Jack Townsend, Whistleblower Award of $11.6 Million; Areas of WBO Emphasis Includes Offshore Accounts.

 

Paul Neiffer, 8 Digits Do Not Make an EIN – Extends Gift Tax Statute. Details matter.

Jason Dinesen, Choosing a Business Entity: What is Basis?

Jim Maule, When Tax Maneuvering Goes Bad. “According to this story, a gerrymandering stunt has backfired, leaving the outcome of a vote on a local sales tax increase in the hands of one person.” A bunch of insiders got together to carve themselves a special deal. And it would have worked if it wasn’t for that darned kid!

Peter Reilly, Billion Dollar Ball By Gilbert Gaul And The Unlikely Charity Known As College Football.

Robert Wood, Bartender Finds $20, Buys Lottery Ticket, Wins $1M, Pays IRS.

TaxGrrrl, Citing Budget Woes, State Won’t Pay Up (Yet) On Big Lottery Winnings. The happy bartender doesn’t live in Illinois, fortunately for him. But if Illinois can’t pay its lottery winners, how should that make its bondholders and pensioners feel?

Tony Nitti, You May Soon Be Able To Use Your HSA Money To Pay For Gym Dues, Spin Class. I would like to use it for groceries. After all, I wouldn’t be very healthy if I didn’t eat.

 

IMG_1395

 

Scott Hodge, Fifteen Years of Tax Policy (Tax Policy Blog). The leader of the estimable Tax Foundation reflects on his 15th anniversary there.

Howard Gleckman, Could a Carbon Tax Prevent The Catastrophic Consequences of Climate Change That Obama Fears? (TaxVox) Does he? If he was really worried, would he be flying a  jet with a carbon footprint the size of Alaska to the tundra to tell us how concerned he is?

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 846. Today’s link covers the IRS’s habitual obstruction of its monitors.

 

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, 4/10/15: The Iowa tax credit that breaks hearts. And: IRS budget cut crocodile tears!

Friday, April 10th, 2015 by Joe Kristan
Flickr image courtesy Alexander Marie Guillemin under Creative Commons license

Flickr image courtesy Alexander Marie Guillemin under Creative Commons license

Stimulate them young. By my count, Iowa’s tax law has at least 31 tax credits designed to stimulate economic activity in one way or another. There’s another tax credit with stimulative potential that Iowans tend to forget: the tax credit that encourages you to send your high-schooler to the prom.

Any prom parent, or anybody who has gone to one, knows that proms require a flurry of economic activity, from dresses and tuxes to the cost of a nice dinner out. While those items don’t get a tax break, the Iowa tax law at least helps buy the ticket to the great event itself.

Iowa’s “Tuition and Textbook Credit” is a 25% credit on up to $1,000 of qualifying K-12 expenses. Yes, tuition and textbooks count. So do activity costs (my emphasis):

Annual school fees; fees or dues paid for extracurricular activities ; booster club dues (for dependent only); fees for athletics; activity ticket or admission for K-12 school athletic, academic, music, or dramatic events and awards banquets or buffets; fees for a physical education event such as roller skating; advanced placement fees if paid to high school; fees for homecoming, winter formal, prom, or similar events; fees required to park at the school and paid to the school  

Just as many young men today neglect some of the little things that can make a difference on a prom date between happiness and heartbreak, many taxpayers neglect to keep track of the little school fees that can add up to a $250 savings on their Iowa income tax. In addition to prom tickets, instrument rentals, school district drivers education fees, fees for field trips and transportation, band uniform costs and some athletic equipment costs also qualify. Click here for a more complete list.

Related: Prom tickets, rentals qualify for state tax credit (KCCI.com, in which you can see me sort of explain this on actual video).

This is another of our daily 2015 Filing Season Tips running through April 15. Six more to go!

 

"Nile crocodile head" by Leigh Bedford. Via Wikipedia

“Nile crocodile head” by Leigh Bedford

Christopher Bergin, Crocodile Tears for IRS Budget Cuts (Tax Analysts Blog):

Don’t get me wrong — I personally disagree with recent IRS budget cuts. They are not sound tax policy. They also strike me as being politically motivated payback for the Lois Lerner episode. That’s myopic on the part of congressional Republicans. It’s as if they’re demanding their pound of flesh regardless of the adverse consequences to millions of taxpayers.

But I’m equally disappointed with how the IRS has chosen to respond. Rather than rise to the occasion, it has resorted to a blame game. Congress didn’t give us the budget we wanted, so the first things to go are taxpayer service and enforcement. Conflict over agency funding is nothing new in Washington. What’s remarkable here is the blatant manner in which American taxpayers are being held hostage.

Commissioner Koskinen has only himself to blame. His tone-deaf and intransigient response to the Tea Party scandal gave GOP appropriators only more reasons to distrust the agency. Only a new Commissioner can start to repair the damage.

Howard Gleckman, What Will Happen To Voluntary Tax Compliance If a Budget-constrained IRS Is Not Fixed? (TaxVox)

 

20140507-1Russ Fox, Bozo Tax Tip #2: The Eternal Hobby Loss. “If your business loses money year-after-year, and you’re not making any efforts to change it, and you get a lot of personal enjoyment out of the business, beware!”

William Perez, 7 Ways to Pay the IRS

Kay Bell, 10 tax sins of commission that could be quite costly

Sean AkinsDark Matter: When to Seal the Tax Court Record (Procedurally Taxing)

Robert Wood, Best And Worst Tax Excuses To Fix IRS Penalties, “Relying on a professional tax adviser is one of the classic excuses.”

 

Roger McEowen, The Perils of Succession Planning (ISU-CALT). “Most U.S. businesses are family-owned, but statistics show that only about 30 percent of them survive to the next generation and only about 12 percent to the third generation.”

I firmly believe there is no need for a heavy estate tax to break up dynastic wealth. All you need are beneficiaries.

 

Alan Cole offers A Friendly Reminder That Pass Through Businesses Exist (Tax Policy Blog):

Every once in a while we see blog posts from other tax research organizations, or even congressional offices, puzzled over the low collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP or relative to other tax revenues. Today we have another such post, from Citizens for Tax Justice. I believe I can allay that confusion.

It’s not confusion, it’s political mischief.

 

IMG_1395

Tony Nitti, Rand Paul Announces Presidential Bid, Favors Flat Tax. “Flat tax proposals come in many forms, and range from exceedingly simple to nearly as complex as the current law.”

Richard Phillips, Rand Paul’s Record Shows He’s a Champion for Tax Cheats and the Wealthy. (Tax Justice Blog). I’ll translate that: he thinks taxpayers are entitled to keep some of their money, and to a little due process. To the “tax justice” crowd, anything that keeps the government out of your pocket for any reason is cheating.

 

Caleb Newquist, #TBT: The Failed Merger of Ernst & Young and KPMG. I remember the abortive merger between Price Waterhouse and Deloitte Haskins & Sells. Price Sells would have been an awesome firm name.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 4/7/15: Dealing with that long-awaited K-1. And: IRS, beacon for Millenials?

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

My K-1 finally showed up. Now what? Many Tax Update visitors arrive here when they ask their search engines something like “understanding K-1s” or “deducting K-1 losses on 1040.” As more business income is now reported on 1040s via K-1s than on corporation returns, these aren’t trivial questions.

k1corner2014It helps to understand what a K-1 does. “Pass-through” entities — partnerships, S corporations, and trusts that distribute their income to beneficiaries — generally don’t pay tax on their income. The owners pay. The tax returns of the pass-throughs gather the information the owners need to report the pass-through’s tax results properly. Because many different tax items are required to be reported differently on 1040s, the income, deductions and credits of the business have to be broken out on the K-1. That’s why there are so many boxes and so many identification codes on the K-1.

The challenge for the return preparer is to take the information off the K-1 and to report it properly on the 1040. It can get especially complicated when losses are involved.

While anything short of a full seminar will oversimplify the treatment of pass-through items, there are three main hurdles a loss deduction has to clear. They are, in order (follow the links for more detail):

You have to have basis in the pass-through to take losses. Basis starts with your investment in the entity. It includes direct loans to the entity. If you have a partnership, it includes your share of partnership third-party debt. It is increased by earnings and capital contributions and reduced by losses and distributions. If you don’t have basis, the loss is deferred until a year in which you get basis.

There is no official IRS form to track basis, but many pass-throughs track basis for their owners. Check your K-1 package to see if includes a basis schedule.

Flickr image courtesy  Grzegorz Jereczek under Creative Commons license.

Flickr image courtesy Grzegorz Jereczek
under Creative Commons license.

Your basis has to be “at-risk” to enable you to deduct losses. While the at-risk rules are a very complex and archaic response to 1970s-era tax shelters, the basic idea is that you have to be on the hook for your basis, especially basis attributable to borrowings, to be able to deduct losses against that basis. Special exclusions exist for “qualified non-recourse liabilities” arising from third-party real estate loans. Losses that aren’t “at-risk” are deferred until there is income or new “at-risk” basis. At risk losses are computed and tracked on Form 6198.

You can only deduct “passive losses” to the extent of your “passive” income. A loss is “passive” if you fail to “materially participate” in the business. Material participation is primarily determined by the amount of time you spend on the business activity. Real estate rental losses are automatically passive unless you are a “real estate professional.”

Passive losses are normally deductible only to the extent of passive income. The non-deductible losses carry forward until a year in which there is passive income, or until the activity is disposed of to a non-related party in a taxable transaction. You compute your passive losses allowance on Form 8582.

Even if you have income, instead of losses, be sure to use any carryforward losses you might have against it. And consider visiting a tax pro if you find the whole process perplexing.

This is another of our 2015 Filing Season Tips. There will be a new one every day here through April 15!

20150407-2

 

Russ Fox, Bozo Tax Tip #5: Ignoring California

TaxGrrrl, Taxes From A To Z (2015): Y Is For Years Certain Annuity

William Perez, Opportunity to Increase Charitable Donations for 2014 under a New Tax Law. “Individuals who donate cash by April 15, 2015, to certain charities providing relief to families of slain New York City police officers can deduct those donate on their 2014 tax return.”

Robert Wood, Beware Tax Mistakes IRS Calls Willful. “Even a smidgen of fraud or intentional misstatements can land you in jail.”

Have a nice day.

I’m from the IRS, and I’m here to help! IRS Agent Causes Grief For Taxpayer’s Spouse By Being Helpful (Peter Reilly)

Kay Bell, Don’t bet on fooling IRS with bought losing lottery tickets.

Leslie Book, District Court FBAR Penalty Opinion Raises Important Administrative and Constitutional Law Issues. “Taxpayers should not be forced to sue in federal court to get an explanation as to the agency’s rationale or the evidence it considered in making its decision.”

Jason Dinesen, It’s Pointless for EAs to Attack CPAs. And vice-versa.

20150407-3

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 698

Roger McEowen, Rough Economic Times Elevate Bankruptcy Legal Issues (ISU-CALT)

Martin Sullivan, How Much Did Jeb Bush Cut Taxes In Florida? (Tax Analysts Blog). “So was Jeb Bush a pedal-to-the-metal tax slasher in Florida?”

Renu Zaretsky, It’s Spring Break, and “Everything’s Coming Up Taxes…” (No Daffodils). The TaxVox headline roundup covers IRS budget cuts, reefer madness, and online sales taxes in Washington State today.

 

Career Corner. Do Any Millennials Want to Work at the IRS Non-ironically? (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern). Not very hipster.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/26/15: Not every project is an “activity,” and why that’s a good thing. And: starting Iowa’s tax law fresh.

Thursday, March 26th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

What’s an activity? The tax law’s “passive loss” rules limit business losses when a taxpayer fails to “materially participate” in an “activity.” Whether an “activity” is “passive” is mostly 20150326-2based on the amount of time spent in the activity by the taxpayer. That can raise a tricky question: just what is an “activity?”

Many businesses do multiple things. Take a CPA firm that does tax and auditing. If those feckless auditors lose money, is that a separate “activity” from the hard-working tax side? Or consider a convenience store owner with two locations; is each a separate activity, or are they one big activity?

The Tax Court addressed this problem yesterday in a case involving a South Florida developer. Greatly simplifying a complex story of real estate backstabbing and inter-family rivalry, the problem was whether an S corporation was the same “activity” as a partnership with the same owners set up for s specific development project. If so, family patriarch Mr. Lamas could cross the basic 500-hour threshold for participation in the combined activity, making his losses deductible.

Judge Buch explains the IRS regulation (1.469-4(c)) governing this issue:

This regulation sets forth five factors that are “given the greatest weight in determining whether activities constitute an appropriate economic unit for the measurement of gain or loss for purposes of section 469”:

(i) Similarities and differences in types of trades or businesses;

(ii) The extent of common control;

(iii) The extent of common ownership;

(iv) Geographical location; and

(v) Interdependencies between or among the activities (for example, the extent to which the activities purchase or sell goods between or among themselves, involve products or services that are normally provided together, have the same customers, have the same employees, or are accounted for with a single set of books and records).

This regulation further instructs that taxpayers can “use any reasonable method of applying the relevant facts and circumstances” to group activities, and that not all of the five factors are “necessary for a taxpayer to treat more than more activity as a single activity”.

Equality in action in the Soviet Union on the Belomor Canal

The judge said that Shoma (the S corporation) and Greens (the partnership) met these requirements, considering they had the same control and both were in the same general business. Also:

Finally, Shoma and Greens were interdependent. Greens operated out of Shoma offices, used Shoma employees, and consolidated its financial reporting with Shoma’s. Greens was formed by Shoma as a condominium conversion project. The shareholders intended that Greens be dissolved after the project was completed and the capital returned to its shareholders.

Because Shoma and Greens meet these five factors, we find that they are an appropriate economic unit and should be grouped as a single activity.

The taxpayer was able to satisfy the court through witness testimony and phone records that he met the 500-hour requirement.

This case is good news for developers, as this structure is common in that business: a permanent S corporation sets up new LLCs for each development project. This case correctly concludes that they are all part of the same development business.

Cite: Lamas, T.C. Memo 2015-59.

 

If Iowa's income tax were a car, it would look like this.

If Iowa’s income tax were a car, it would look like this.

Me, What an Iowa income tax might look like with a fresh start. My new post at IowaBiz.com, the Des Moines Business Record Business Professionals’ Blog, on what Iowa’s tax system might look like if we could start over. A taste:

A system designed from scratch would apply the ultimate simplification to Iowa’s corporation income tax: it wouldn’t have one. Iowa’s corporation income tax is rated the very worst, with extreme complexity and the highest rate of any state. 
 
Eliminating the corporation income tax would eliminate the justification for almost all of the various state incentive tax credits, all of which violate the principles of neutrality and simplicity in the first place. For its astronomical rates and complexity, it generates a paltry portion of the state’s revenue, typically 4-7 percent of state receipts.
 
For S corporations, a from-the-ground-up tax reform might tax Iowa resident shareholders only on the greater of distributions of S corporation income, or interest, dividends, and other investment income earned by the S corporations. The investment income provision would prevent the use of an S corporation as a tax-deferred investment. The effect would be to put S corporations on about the same footing as C corporations.

I have little hope in the legislature actually doing something sensible, but we have to start somewhere. I’d love to hear any thoughts readers may have.

 

 

Roger McEowen addresses the Tax Consequences When Debt is Discharged (ISU-CALT): “There are several relief provisions that a debtor may be able to use to avoid the general rule that discharge of indebtedness amounts are income, but a big one for farmers is the rule for ‘qualified farm indebtedness.'”

Russ Fox, A Break in my Hiatus: Poker Chips and Tax Evasion. Russ lifts his head from his tax returns to tell of the tax problems of a poker chip maker that he has personal experience with. “A helpful hint to anyone wanting to emulate Mr. Kendall: Just pay employees in the normal way, on the books, and send the withholding where it belongs.”

TaxGrrrl, Taxes From A To Z (2015): N Is For Nonrefundable Tax Credits

Robert Wood, Tax Fraud Draws 6 1/2 Year Prison Term Despite Alzheimer’s. Specifically, a dubious claim of Alzheimer’s.

Peter Reilly, Did Andie MacDowell’s Mountain Hideaway Require Tax Incentives? To listen to some people, you’d believe nothing good ever happened until tax credits were invented.

 

20150326-3

 

Jason Dinesen, Financing a Small Business, Part 5 of 5: Know When to Keep Quiet With the Banker. “Here are a couple of real-world examples I’ve seen where business owners got hung up with the bank because the owner wouldn’t stop talking.”

This has lessons for IRS exams, too.

Kay Bell, Obamacare, bitcoin add twists to 2014 tax filing checklist

Annette Nellen, Another Affordable Care Act Oddity. “Perhaps the problem is more tied to the “cliff” in the PTC that causes someone to completely lose the subsidy once their income crosses the 400% of the FPL (more on that here).”

William Perez, How Much Can You Deduct by Contributing to a Traditional IRA?

 

Alan Cole, Richard Borean, Tom VanAntwerpWhich Places Benefit Most from State and Local Tax Deductions? (Tax Policy Blog):

20150326-1

 

The short answer? Places with high state tax rates and high-income earners. Note the purple spot right in the middle of Iowa.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 686

Renu Zaretsky, Sense and Sensibilities. Today’s TaxVox headline roundup covers the House GOP budget, a Texas tax cut, and tax-delinquent federal employees.

 

Richard Phillips, How Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz Would Radically Increase Taxes on Everyone But the Rich (Tax Justice Blog). A taste:

On the flat tax, Cruz has not yet spelled out a specific plan that he would like to see enacted, but it’s unlikely that any plan he proposed will be significantly better than the extremely regressive flat tax proposals that have been offered in the past.

Or, “we don’t know what he will do, but it will be terrible!”

 

Caleb Newquist, Big 4 Gunning for Big Law. To steal a cheap line: who wins if the Big 4 and Big Law fight to the death? Everybody!

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/25/15: Why the casino may not be the place to invest those millions from that Chinese guy.

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

In the movies, an American who is entrusted with millions from a Chinese shipping magnate, but blows it at casinos, would face unimaginably dire consequences. In real life, he faces the IRS.

20120511-2That’s the story in a weird Tax Court case decided yesterday. The shipping magnate, a Mr Cheung, had fared poorly as an investor. He met a Mr. Sun from Texas and decided that he might be better at investing. He shipped the money to a C corporation and an e-Trade account owned by Mr. Sun, under a handshake deal with fuzzy terms. Judge Paris explains:

The only part of the arrangement that both Mr. Cheung and Mr. Sun consistently agreed on was the general structure of the investment. Mr. Cheung would transfer sums of money through his shipping companies’ bank accounts to Mr. Sun, who would then invest the money in the United States. Mr. Cheung would decide how much money he wished to send, and Mr. Sun had discretion on which investments to pursue with Mr. Cheung’s money.

The remaining terms of the verbal agreement were not memorialized and are unclear. Specifically, Mr. Sun and Mr. Cheung inconsistently described the investment term, the expected return, and enforcement provisions. Mr. Sun believed the term was a minimum of 5 years and did not give a maximum period, whereas Mr. Cheung believed the term was 7 to 10 years. The expected return is also unclear; Mr. Sun believed the return on investment would be a 50-50 split of the net profit with a minimum 10% gain annually, but the return might not be paid annually. Mr. Cheung believed the return would be 10% to 15%, but was uncertain whether that return was annual or total.

Not the sort of investment arrangement Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey would embrace. Nor would they embrace some of the “investments” described in the Tax Court case.

The funds sent to Mr. Sun’s C corporation went into an “officer loan account” for Mr. Sun. And then… well, again from Judge Paris (emphasis mine):

Mr. Sun would either pay his personal expenses directly from the officer loan account or he would remove money and use it at his discretion. For example, in 2008 Minchem paid $135,874.43 for home automation, $158,517.80 for a new Mercedes Benz, and $49,598.81 for personal real estate tax. In total, Minchem’s officer loan account was debited $4,116,414.43 in 2008 and $1,811,127.65 in 2009 for expenses that Mr. Sun identified as personal during his trial testimony.

Some of the personal expenditures included gambling expenses. In 2008 $4,800,100 was transferred to casinos from the officer loan account and $2,394,550 was returned. In 2009 $1 million was transferred to casinos and $1,300,000 was returned. Thus between 2008 and 2009 Mr. Sun transferred $5,800,100 from the officer loan account to casinos and received back $3,694,550; i.e., over the two years in issue Mr. Sun lost $2,105,550 from gambling from the officer loan account.

20120801-2Judge Paris said that the funds never belonged to the C corporation because it was a mere conduit for the cash; that meant the corporation was not taxable on the amounts.

Mr. Sun didn’t get off so easy. Judge Paris said that the funds became income to Mr. Sun when he began spending them for his own purposes (citations omitted):

Whether funds have been misappropriated is a question of fact, but facts beyond “dominion and control” must be considered. More specifically, an individual misappropriates funds when money has been entrusted to the individual for the sole purpose of investing and the individual instead uses the money for personal activities.

Mr. Sun undisputedly treated as his own money held for Mr. Cheung’s benefit and specifically earmarked for investment purposes. For example, Mr. Sun used some of the funds to purchase a personal automobile and a home automation system. Perhaps the most obvious example of Mr. Sun’s misappropriation of the funds is his gambling activities.

The opinion dismissed the idea that the funds were loans because there was no documentation of any sort of loan agreement or terms. The court said that the amounts weren’t gifts because no Form 3520, where U.S.  taxpayers report large foreign gifts, was filed, and because there was no evidence of an intent to make a gift.

While the Tax Court ruled that Mr. Sun misappropriated the money, it ruled that the IRS failed to prove fraud. That meant the penalties were only 25% of the roughly $4.7 million of additional tax, rather than the 75% under the civil fraud rules.

The Moral? Hard to say. Don’t squander millions of dollars entrusted to you for investment at casinos? You didn’t need the Tax Court to tell you that. Maybe it’s a handy reminder to file Form 3520 if you receive large foreign gifts, lest the IRS get the wrong idea (and lest they hit you with a $10,000 penalty for not filing it). And if you have had bad luck with your investments, maybe index funds are a better way to go than a handshake deal with some guy in Texas.

Cite: Minchem International, Inc., et. al., T.C. Memo 2015-56.

 

Kyle Pomerleau, U.S. Taxpayers Face the 6th Highest Top Marginal Capital Gains Tax Rate in the OECD (Tax Policy Blog):

20150325-1

 

The United States currently places a heavy tax burden on saving and investment with its capital gains tax. The U.S.’s top marginal tax rate on capital gains, combined with state rates, far exceeds the average rates faced throughout the industrialized world. Increasing taxes on capital income, as suggested in the president’s recent budget proposal, would further the bias against saving, leading to lower levels of investment and slower economic growth. Lowering taxes on capital gains would have the reverse effect, increasing investment and leading to greater economic growth.

But, but, the rich!

 

IMG_1388William Perez covers Various Types of Individual Retirement Accounts.

Paul Neiffer, Tax Court Allows $11 Million Horse Loss to Stand. “Now, though this is a victory for the taxpayer in Tax Court, they are still out over $11 million in losses (or more).  I am not sure if it really is an overall win for the taxpayers.”

TaxGrrrl, Taxes From A To Z (2015): M Is For Municipal Bonds.

Jason Dinesen discusses Recordkeeping Considerations for a Startup Business.

Roger McEowen, USDA Releases Proposed Definition of “Actively Engaged in Farming” That Would Have Little Practical Application. Sounds useful.

Kay Bell, $42 million Montana mansion owner loses property tax fight. Looks like a nice place.

Jim Maule, When Social Security Benefits Aren’t Social Security Benefits: When They Meet Tax. “By reducing social security benefits on account of the state retirement system benefit payments, the Congress causes the portion of the taxpayer’s overall retirement receipts that is treated as taxable pension payments to increase, which in turn not only increases gross income on its own account but generates gross income from a portion of the social security benefits.”

Joni Larson, Proposal to Amend Section 7453 to Provide that the Tax Court Apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (Procedurally Taxing)

 

Tony Nitti, Ted Cruz To Run For President: Why His Plan For A Flat Tax May Doom His Candidacy:

Whether a move to a much more regressive system than the one currently in place is ultimately in the best interest of the economy and country is irrelevant; the Democrats will seize on the shift in the tax burden and continue to paint Republican candidates as seeking only to placate the rich.

I think Hillary Clinton, or whoever the nominee is, will do that to any Republican opponent, regardless of any actual policy positions. The question is whether they will be able to more successfully deal with the issue than Mr. Romney.

Robert Wood, Taxing Stephen King, Taylor Swift And Phil Mickelson

 

IMG_1431b

 

Renu Zaretsky, Tax Struggles and Tax Sneaks. Today’s TaxVox headline roundup has stories about how Orrin Hatch wants tax reform and John Koskinen wants more money.

David Brunori, Louisiana Tax Reform: Some Smart Guys Worth Listening To (Tax Analysts Blog)

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 685.  Today’s post features Media Matters, living proof that the IRS concern over political activity was rather selective.

 

Career Corner. Confirmed: Golf More Difficult Than CPA Exam (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern). But almost as much fun!

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/23/15: ACA is five years old today. How’s that working out?

Monday, March 23rd, 2015 by Joe Kristan

Productivity wins! All three Iowa teams are out of the men’s NCAA basketball tournament. Back to those 1040s, fans!

 

obamasignsaca

President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act. Image via wikimedia.org

Five years. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was signed into law five years ago today. Thanks to many delays — some part of the original law, others done in spite of the law to get past the elections — taxpayers and preparers are just beginning to cope with key portions of the law.

This is the first year for returns with the individual mandate — officially, and creepily, the “Individual Shared Responsibility Provision.” While many taxpayers thought this would only amount to $95, taxpayers hit with the penalty are learning that their refunds will get dinged for up to 1% of their AGI over a relatively low threshold.

This is also the first year that taxpayers have to true up overpayments of the advance premium tax credit.  Many taxpayers who bought policies on the ACA exchanges had their monthly premiums reduced based on their estimates of 2014 earnings. This subsidy is actually a tax credit, and it has to be reconciled at year end with the actual earnings.  Taxpayers with earnings in excess of what they estimated are now learning from their preparers that they need to write checks.

20121120-2The premium tax credit is horribly designed, with a stepped, rather than gradual, phaseout. One additional dollar in income can result in a loss of thousands of dollars in premium tax credits, which then have to be repaid with the tax return. H&R Block reports that most taxpayers who claimed the credit have to repay an average of $530. The IRS has tried to patch over some of the unpleasantness, unilaterally waiving penalties this year for taxpayers who have to repay the credits.

Here in Iowa, smaller employers who want to offer ACA-approved health insurance can’t, in the wake of the failure of the heavily-subsidized CoOportunity health insurance carrier. The IRS will still allow Iowa businesses to claim the convoluted credit for small employers for 2015. It required carriers who had signed up with CoOportunity to scramble to find new coverage, and it required many families who had already reached their out-of-pocket limits to start them over with a new carrier.

 

Looming over all this is the Supreme Court’s impending decision in King v. Burwell. The IRS decided to allow the premium tax credit in the 34 states using federal exchanges, in spite of statutory language limiting the credits to exchanges created “by the states.” If the court goes with the way the law is drafted, the premium tax credit will be gone for those 34 states, including Iowa. Employers in those states will be suddenly exempt from the “employer mandate” that begins to take effect in 2015. Millions of taxpayers will also be free of the individual mandate penalty because their insurance will no longer be “affordable.”

If you want to celebrate, head over to Insureblog, where they are always updating the latest developments and unintended consequences of the ACA.

 

 

20150312-1William Perez, Did You Pay Interest on Student Loans? It May be Tax Deductible

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

Roger McEowen, Are Payments Made to Settle Patent Violations Deductible? (ISU-CALT)

Kay Bell, Tax returns on hold while IRS asks ‘Who Are You?’

Peter Reilly, Ninth Circuit Rules Against War Tax Resister

Jim Maule, Tax Credit for Purchasing a Residence Requires a Purchase. “Nothing in the opinion explains why the taxpayer thought she had purchased the residence. Nor does it explain why the taxpayer, if not thinking that she had purchased the residence, would claim that she did.”

Peter Hardy, Carolyn Kendall, Between the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Courts: Steering a Middle Course to Define “Willfulness” in Civil Offshore Account Enforcement Cases Part 1 (Procedurally Taxing). “The OVD programs have netted many people who may have inadvertently failed to file FBARs, and who are not wealthy people with substantial accounts.”

In other words, shooting jaywalkers while giving international money launderers a good deal.

 

Robert Goulder, When All Else Fails, Blame a Tax Pro (Tax Analysts Blog) “OK, the tax code is a disgrace. I get it. But a member of Congress is blaming tax professionals? Really?”

Congress is sort of like the guy who leaves his food plate on the floor, falls asleep, and then blames the dog for eating it.

 

IMG_1429a

 

Joseph Henchman, 10 Remaining States Provide Tax Filing Guidance to Same-Sex Married Taxpayers. “After the IRS decision to allow gay and lesbian married couples to file joint federal tax returns, we noted that a number of states would have to provide guidance because they require two contradictory things: (1) if you file a joint federal return, you must file a joint state return, and (2) same-sex married couples cannot file jointly.”

Renu Zaretsky, Budget Battles and Filing Follies: The Sagas Continue. Today’s TaxVox headline roundup tells of abundant ACA tax filing headaches and more tax nonsense from the only avowedly-socialist senator, Bernie Sanders.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 683Day 682Day 681. “Commissioner John Koskinen, testifying before the House Appropriations subcommittee this week, admitted that nearly a dozen grassroots conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status are still awaiting determination.”

Robert Wood, Report Says Former IRS Employees–Think Lois Lerner–Can Still Peruse Your Tax Returns. Well, that’s reassuring.

 

Career Corner. Going Concern March Madness: More #BusySeasonProblems (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern). Brackets asking important work life questions like Which is the bigger busy season problem? Working Saturdays (#1 seed), or Colleagues who heat up smelly leftovers (16 seed).”

I’ll take the underdog.

 

Share