Posts Tagged ‘tax court’

Tax Roundup, 10/17/14: If they don’t want the money back, it’s not a loan. And: the state of your IRS “rights.”

Friday, October 17th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2Loans aren’t income. But income isn’t loans either. A Tennessee woman struggled with the difference, but the Tax Court straightened her out yesterday.

The taxpayer did consulting work for the medical practice of a Dr. Quisling. Somehow linked to this, she got payments over an eight-year period from around $25,000 to $56,000 annually.  She didn’t file tax returns for any of these years.

The taxpayer took a strange approach to the payments. We’ll let Judge Kerrigan explain (my emphasis):

Petitioner sent Dr. Quisling a memorandum entitled “Memorandum of Understanding on Loan Terms and Conditions”. This memorandum states:

    It has been revealed to me that the action of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Inc., * * * has created a financial burden upon your medical practice, because the medical services rendered by your medical practice rely upon payment(s) received by BCBST. Therefore, I am willing to develop a loan package * * * for the short-range and long-range impact upon the delivery of medical services by the “in-network-provider” as well as the “out-of-network provider” * * *.

The memorandum further states “[a] reasonable expectation of this Memorandum of Understanding on Loan Terms and Conditions is that the loan proceedings will be based upon a) your ability to loan and b) the completion of the research which will result in profit to the undersigned in order that the loan can be repaid.”

This memorandum, dated April 1, 2003, includes the signature of petitioner but not the signature of Dr. Quisling. Petitioner sent Dr. Quisling a followup letter to the memorandum requesting a memorandum of acceptance. The memorandum of acceptance includes a signature alleged to be Dr. Quisling’s, but this signature is not his.

20120801-2See, loans aren’t income, so we don’t have to tell IRS! But Judge Kerrigan notes a flaw in this cunning plan:

Petitioner did not make payments to Dr. Quisling. Neither Dr. Quisling nor Mrs. Quisling demanded payment from petitioner.

Yes, repayment is a key part of a loan agreement. You give me money, I give it back later. Without the second part, it’s either a “gift” or “income.”

The doctor wisely did not play along, but unwisely failed to issue 1099s.. The doctor terminated the consulting relationship in 2011 when she refused belated requests for her Social Security number.

The taxpayer denied performing services. She said the money was given her for other things:

Petitioner contends that payments made by Quisling were loans. Petitioner testified that she needed the money to fund the research for a book that she was writing. However, petitioner produced no evidence of the book including the potential for publishing the book or any other evidence of her ability to repay. Dr. Quisling testified that the payments were not loans and that he did not expect to be repaid.

On February 5, 2011, petitioner faxed Dr. Quisling a letter referencing an alleged purchase of medical equipment that Quisling made from petitioner’s deceased husband. On February 25, 2011, Dr. Quisling’s attorney and the attorney for Quisling, Vincent Zuccaro, sent petitioner a letter stating that Quisling had not purchased any equipment from her husband or received a gift of property from her or her husband.

The Tax Court had little trouble finding that the taxpayer received income, rather than loans, upholding the tax assessment and various penalties.

The Moral? If you get income, calling it a “loan” doesn’t make it one. Especially when the “lender” doesn’t think it’s a loan and never asks for repayment.

Cite: Fisher, T.C. Memo 2014-219.

 

20130419-1Amber Athey, Is the IRS Upholding Your Taxpayer Rights? (Tax Policy Blog). Some better than others:

2. The Right to Quality Service:

While the opportunities for outreach seem robust, in 2012, only 66 percent of taxpayers trying to call the IRS reached a representative, and callers waited on average of 17 minutes, up from 12 minutes in 2011. An article from April of 2014 stated the wait time was up to 30 minutes, largely due to budget cuts.

And:

8. The Right to Confidentiality

Any information disclosed to the IRS may not be shared with anyone else unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law. The IRS struggles with protecting the confidentiality of taxpayers. Numerous information scandals have plagued the IRS, including the posting of 100,000 names and social security numbers on their website and an unencrypted thumb drive loaded with social security numbers being taken home by an employee.

In the first six months of 2013, 1.6 million taxpayers were affected by identity theft, compared to 271,000 in 2010. Thefts have resulted in billions of dollars in potentially fraudulent refunds, as the IRS issues refunds before they’re sure the filing was done by the person whose name is on the form. In 2011, fraudulent refunds totaled $3.6 billion.  Serious improvements in security measures need to occur in order for taxpayers to feel confident that the IRS can protect their information.

But Amber Athey still thinks the IRS “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” is a good thing:

The IRS has room to improve in protecting the rights of taxpayers, but the implementation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a great first step in this process. A clear outline of rights is also highly beneficial to the IRS and taxpayers as a means setting expectations for the function of the IRS.

I suppose having something to aspire to is a good thing, but it would be a lot better if there was somebody who would actually enforce these rights and impose costs on the IRS for falling short.

 

buzz20141017buzz20141017Robert D. Flach has a friday “Buzz Light,” linking to tax things.

Jason Dinesen, Updated Wisconsin Tax Guidance for Same-Sex Married Couples

Kay Bell, Are you willing to pay more to cover Airbnb taxes?

Paul Neiffer invites you to an Ag Summit in Chicago on December 7 with Andy Biebl and Lance Woodbury on “Farm Retirement and Transition Planning.”

 

Kyle Pomerleau, The Pease Limitation on Itemized Deductions Is Really a Surtax (Tax Policy Blog). It’s also a lie. It works like a rate increase, but more complicated and without the honesty.

Howard Gleckman, Taxes and Spending Return To “Normal”– But Not For Long (TaxVox)

Robert Goulder, Early Results Are In: Inversions Aren’t Going Away (Tax Analysts Blog) “It’s too early to draw a definitive conclusion here, but it seems the world’s multinationals haven’t yet thrown in the towel on inverting to low-tax jurisdictions.”

Richard Phillips, Ireland’s Soft Pedaling Tax Avoidance Crack Down (Tax Justice Blog)

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 526

Me, IRS Issues Applicable Federal Rates (AFR) for November 2014

Career Corner. A Quick and Dirty Guide to Getting Away With Insider Trading (Leona May, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 10/10/14: Tax Court: consolidated return, consolidated determination of professional corporation status. And more!

Friday, October 10th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2

Accounting Today visitors, click here for the pile of clothes.

Professional Services Corporation in consolidated return not subjected to flat rate tax. When a professional business – law, medicine, consulting, engineering, architecture, actuarial science, performing arts, or accounting – is operated as a C corporation, the “professional service corporation” rules tax its income at a flat 35%. It is denied the use of the 15, 25 and 34% brackets otherwise available.

A corporation is a Qualified Personal Service Corporation (QPSC) subject to the flat 35% rate if it passes (or fails, depending on how you look at it) two tests:

– Substantially all of its activities involve the performance of personal services, and

– 95% of the shares are held by employees who performed such services.

An engineer and his wife operated an engineering practice in a C corporation. This C corporation owned 100% of the stock of a ranching business. The tax law allows C corporation parent corporations to file consolidated returns with their subsidiaries, reporting all of the income on one return. On a consolidated bases, the ranch activity caused the company to not have “substantially all” of its activities involve performing personal services.  As a result, it filed its return using the lower brackets.

The IRS came in with a novel argument. It said the QPSC tests had to be applied separately to each group member — not to the consolidated return as a whole. On that basis, the engineering business would have to pay up its taxes at a flat 35% rate. Tax Court Judge Jacobs explains:

Respondent asserts that where one member of an affiliated group is a qualified personal service corporation and another is not, the consolidated taxable income of the affiliated group must be broken up into two separate baskets. Respondent argues that section 448 requires that the determination as to whether a corporation is a qualified personal service corporation is to be made at the entity level, not at the level of the affiliated group. Further, respondent posits that the Code provides for treating qualified personal service corporate members of an affiliated group differently from other members.

The Tax Court decided that the tax law fails to support the IRS here:

Although section 448(d)(4) provides special rules by which members of an affiliated group may determine their status as a qualified personal service corporation in electing whether to use the cash method of accounting, it provides no illumination as to the rate of tax to be applied to the consolidated taxable income of the entire group. Nor does section 448(d)(4) provide support for the proposition that the consolidated taxable income of an affiliated group is to be broken up into separate baskets.

The court also found that the consolidated return regulations don’t provide for a breakout of QPSC income from other income:

In computing the proper tax liability of an affiliated group, we begin with section 1.1502-2, Income Tax Regs. Section 1.1502-2(a), Income Tax Regs., does not distinguish between taxable income under section 11(b)(1) and (2), and we find no authority to permit the breakup of an affiliated group’s consolidated taxable income into separate baskets. We look to the affiliated group as a whole, i.e., the entity which generated the consolidated taxable income, to determine the characterization of the consolidated taxable income. And in this regard, the parties agree that, when viewed as a whole, Applied Research’s affiliated group is not a qualified personal service corporation.

To conclude, we hold that in the situation involved herein, graduated rates set forth in section 11(b)(1) should be applied to the affiliated group’s consolidated taxable income. I

I’m surprised the IRS even made this argument. To me, it doesn’t even seem like a close issue. It’s the sort of assertion the IRS can make without risk, because it isn’t subject to the same penalties for taking unsupported positions that apply to taxpayers. A sauce for the gander rule, allowing taxpayers to collect the same penalties for bad positions asserted by IRS that they can assert against taxpayers, is overdue.

Cite: Applied Research Associates, Inc., 143 T.C. No. 17.

 

 

20120906-1Yes, Smith’s tax break does take money out of Jones’s pocketFans of corporate welfare tax credits sometimes argue that nobody gets hurt when a favored business gets a sweetheart deal. But their competitors who don’t get the sweet deal may not agree. An Iowa City grocer sure doesn’t:

New Pioneer Food Co-op is crying foul over the idea of the city of Iowa City providing $1.75 million in tax-increment financing assistance to attract a national grocery chain.

New Pioneer’s board of directors sent a letter to the Iowa City Council’s Economic Development Committee this week saying that using TIF money to bring an out-of-state company to Iowa City would hurt local grocers.

These tax breaks — like the state income tax credits the Governor likes to hand out — take money from existing taxpayers to lure and subsidize their competitors — a point not lost New Pioneer:

New Pioneer’s board said if the city were to approve the TIF assistance, it would be at the expense of existing local businesses that would lose customers and be essentially subsidizing a competitor with their tax dollars.

“The market for groceries in the Johnson County area is fixed, and already very competitive,” the board said in its letter. “Bringing in an additional competitor in this category will not drive economic development in the city. It will not increase the size of the market, nor will it increase employment in Johnson County since one or more other stores likely will be forced to eliminate jobs to match their reduced market shares.”

But that’s no concern of the politicians handing out the breaks:

[Iowa City Economic Development Administrator] Davidson said although he respects New Pioneer’s perspective, it’s appropriate for the city to get involved because the project would have a significant impact on the taxable value of the Iowa City Marketplace and properties in the surrounding commercial district.

In other words, screw you guys who are already here paying taxes. We want to give away your money because we think it will enable us to collect more somewhere else in town.

 

buzz20140905Fresh Friday Buzzfrom Robert D. Flach, including word on the upcoming extender train wreck.

Paul Neiffer, Time Running Out on Late Portability Elections. If a taxpayer wants to carry over a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion, they have to file an election by December 31 for deaths in 2012 or 2013.  This filing requirement is, of course, stupid.

Kay Bell, Tax extenders delay could delay 2015 filing season

Jason Dinesen, Move Up the W-2 Filing Deadline to Combat ID Theft? “Moving up the W-2 deadline should be done and it might be a partial fix to the problem of identity theft … but it’s one piece of a solution, not a cure-all.”

Peter Reilly, Teresa Giudice’s Surprise Sentence And Possible Better Ways To Motivate Compliance. “What I found interesting in this piece by Kelly Phillips Erb was that Ms. Giudice was surprised when she was sentenced to some prison time.”  Me too.

TaxGrrrl has more guest posts: “Tisha,” Giving Up Citizenship Because Of Taxes; and Matthew Litz, The Inverted Talk About Tax Inversions — They’ve Got it All Upside-Down.

Keith Fogg, Unrecorded Conveyances and the Attachment of the Federal Tax Lien or Innocent Spouse Once Removed (Procedurally Taxing)

 

A map of per-return Iowa Earned Income Credit by Iowa School District, courtesy  Iowa Taxpayers Association and the Legislative Services Agency:

Iowa EITC map

Click image for full-size map.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 519

Andrew Lundeen, The Tax Code Isn’t Good at Fighting Inequality (Tax Policy Blog):

A recent article on Vox, How Sweden Fights Inequality—Without Soaking the Rich, notes that countries with the most success in fighting inequality do not have highly progressive tax systems, such as the United States’ tax code.

Inequality is just something our politicians use as a distraction from their own failure to improve the lot of the poor.

 

News from the Profession. Deloitte So Desperate to Populate Its LinkedIn Group They’ve Resorted to Bribery (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern). So where’s my bribe?

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 10/9/14: Tax-exempt now, tax-exempt forever! And: Real Housewife, real plea deal.

Thursday, October 9th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

 

Accounting Today visitors, click here for the pile of clothes.

 

20120511-2Maybe somebody has tried this before, but as far as I know, this is a new bad idea.  Mr. Lundy, a Florida man, received a non-taxable disability settlement. The IRS didn’t dispute that the settlement was exempt. But then things went to another level.  Tax Court Judge Armen explains (my emphasis):

Rather, petitioners contend that they invested Mr. Lundy’s disability retirement income (which respondent does not challenge as nontaxable) in Mrs. Lundy’s sole proprietorship and that, as a consequence, income generated by that proprietorship is nontaxable. Or, in petitioners’ words: “[A]ny thing we funded with those funds were completely tax free also.”

interesting argument. Once you get a tax-free dollar, anything that grows from that dollar is tax-free forever. That would be awesome. You could invest in municipal bonds, and then anything you buy with the exempt interest would be tax-free too!  If only it worked that way…

Alas, it doesn’t.  Judge Armen elaborates:

In arguing as they do, petitioners fail to distinguish between an item that is excludable from income and the income that such an item may produce once it is invested. Many items are statutorily excluded from gross income. For example, gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift or inheritance. Sec. 102(a). In contrast, income generated from property acquired by gift or inheritance does not come within such statutory exclusion.

Dang.

Cite: Lundby, T.C. Memo 2014-209.

 

Russ Fox, It’s Not As If Anything Is Happening Right After This…:

And there is. For reasons that only the bureaucrats at the IRS can fathom, every year over Columbus Day weekend the IRS shuts down their computer systems. This includes processing of returns and IRS e-services.

Well, it’s not like there’s a deadline coming up or anything. Oh, wait…

 

The “Real Housewives” casting department apparently didn’t test reading comprehension. TaxGrrrl reports: Real Housewives’ Teresa Giudice Claims She Didn’t Know That Jail Was A Possibility:

The sentence came as a shock to Teresa who claimed, in the interview, that her lawyer did not tell her jail time was a possibility under the plea. She said about the plea, “I didn’t fully understand it. I thought my lawyer was going to fight for me. I mean, that’s what lawyers do. I don’t know. That’s why you hire an attorney. You put it in their hands.”

This shows the importance of reading legal documents before you sign them. She signed a plea agreement with the language excerpted here:

20141009-1

I’m not sure how you can sign something that says “the sentencing judge may impose any reasonable sentence up to and including the statutory maximum term” and feel safe. But then again, I’m not a real housewife.

 

harvestPaul Neiffer, Taxable is Taxable -Whether a 1099 or not! “The bottom line is any income received on the farm is taxable income whether there is a form 1099 or not.”

Jack Townsend, IRS Grants Automatic Treaty Relief for Canadian RRSPs and RRIFs

Kay Bell, Don’t overlook tax breaks in your rush to file by Oct. 15

 

Liz Malm, How Does Your State Score on Property Tax Administration? Probably Not Very Well (Tax Policy Blog). Iowa gets a C.

 

Cara Griffith, Is the Maryland Tax Court Hiding Its Opinions? (Tax Analysts Blog)

Here’s the problem: The Maryland Tax Court publishes a small fraction of its decisions online. It published a single decision in 2013 and has yet to publish a decision in 2014. The court has, of course, issued far more decisions; it simply chooses not to make them publicly available. One would presume, then, that the court retains all decisions and that if a taxpayer or practitioner wanted to review those decisions, a copy could be requested. But it is not that simple in Maryland. 
According to the court’s most recent retention schedule, decisions are to be permanently retained and periodically transferred to the Maryland State Archives. In reality, however, the tax court retains them for three years, but then the decisions are “shredded.” They are not sent to the archives.

Strange. If decisions aren’t public, they are of no use for taxpayers and practitioners trying to follow an often uncertain tax law. The shredding can also provide cover for favoritism or incompetence on the bench. Outrageous.

 

Howard Gleckman, Ryan and Lew Both Object to JCT Scoring of Future Tax Reform (TaxVox). “Like a couple of baseball managers working the umpires before a big World Series game, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), who wants to be the next chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, are looking to change the way Congress scores tax reform even before Congress begins a rewrite.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 519.

News from the Profession. Comcast: Let It Be Known That We Did Not Ask PwC to Fire That Guy (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, October 3, 2014: A gold mine, or just a pile of old clothes? And: economic self-development!

Friday, October 3rd, 2014 by Joe Kristan
Flickr image courtesy Jen Waller under Creative Commons license.

Flickr image courtesy Jen Waller under Creative Commons license.

Is that basement full of clothes really a gold mine? Gold, if you believe the values a Maryland man used for donations of old clothes to charity. Unfortunately for him, the Tax Court yesterday ruled that sometimes all you get for your donation is a clean basement.

Many taxpayers use donations of clothing and household items as a gimme deduction.  They always write “$500 to Goodwill” on their tax information — or sometimes, a lot more.  While you can deduct the value of used clothes, the tax law imposes some limits, as Judge Lauber explains (citations omitted, emphasis added):

The nature of the required substantiation depends on the size of the contribution and on whether it is a gift of cash or property. For all contributions of $250 or more, the taxpayer must obtain a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee.  Additional substantiation requirements are imposed for contributions of property with a claimed value exceeding $500. Still more rigorous substantiation requirements are imposed for contributions of property with a claimed value exceeding $5,000.


Section 170(f)(8)(A) provides that an individual may deduct a gift of $250 or more only if he substantiates the deduction with “a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization.” This acknowledgment must: (1) include “a description (but not value) of any property other than cash contributed”; (2) state whether the donee provided any goods or services in exchange for the gift; and (3) if the donee did provide goods or services, include a description and good-faith estimate of their value. . The acknowledgment is “contemporaneous” if the taxpayer obtains it from the donee on or before the earlier of: (1) the date the taxpayer files a return for the year of contribution; or (2) the due date, including extensions, for filing that return. Petitioner obtained blank signed forms from AMVETS and later filled them out himself by inserting supposed donation values. Because these forms were signed before the property was allegedly donated, we question whether they constitute an “acknowledgment” by AMVETS that it received anything.

 

20120511-2For contributions over $5,000,  a “qualified appraisal” is required unless the gift is of marketable securities.

The Marylander had cleaned out the house of his deceased mother, and he had a lot to give away:

These items allegedly included seven sofas, four televisions, five bedroom sets, six mattresses, a kitchen set, a dining room set, a china cabinet, and three rugs. For charitable contribution purposes, petitioner placed a value of $11,730 on these items.

Petitioner testified that he also donated to AMVETS during 2009 numerous items of clothing belonging to him and his children. These items allegedly included 180 shirts, 63 pairs of slacks, 153 pairs of jeans, 173 pairs of shoes, 51 dresses, 35 sweaters, nine overcoats, and seven suits. For charitable contribution purposes, petitioner placed a value of $14,487 on these items.

While no individual item exceeded $5,000, the appraisal rule still applied:

For contributions exceeding $500, “similar items of property” are aggregated in making this determination. Sec. 170(f)(11)(F) (“For purposes of determining thresholds under this paragraph, property and all similar items of property donated to 1 or more donees shall be treated as 1 property.”); . The term “similar items of property” is defined to mean “property of the same generic category or type,” such as clothing, jewelry, furniture, electronic equipment, household appliances, or kitchenware.

Because the value of the claimed contribution exceeds $500, we must aggregate “similar items of property” to determine what substantiation was required. Petitioner’s self-created spreadsheet shows three categories of similar items: clothing with an alleged value of $14,487; household furniture with an alleged value of $11,730; and electronic equipment with an alleged value of $1,550.

That knocked out the clothes and furniture right there, because there was no appraisal. It would be interesting to see if you could even find an appraiser to value old clothes like that. If you could, though, the appraisal expense would be a miscellaneous itemized deduction.

Who was the preparer? One odd twist is that the clothing deductions were claimed on an amended return prepared by a third party, after the IRS had already examined the taxpayer and assessed tax for unsubstantiated itemized deductions. I hope he didn’t pay that preparer too much.

The moral? 

When you have make a clothing donation (or any donation, for that matter) over $250, you need to get a written receipt meeting IRS rules to support your donation — a cancelled check or blank slip with detail of donation doesn’t cut it. If your donation goes over $5,000, and it’s not a traded security, you must have a qualified appraisal.  No appraisal, no deduction.

Oh, and the deduction for used clothing isn’t really just an additional standard deduction by another name.

Cite:  Smith, T.C. Memo 2014-203.

 

20140826-1Robert D. Flach has fresh Friday Buzz, including what he promises is a final reference to the Jersey Shore guy’s tax problems.

TaxGrrrl, Updated: ‘Real Housewives’ Reality Stars Joe & Teresa Giudice Sentenced To Jail. “Joe Giudice has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for financial and tax fraud. His wife, Teresa, will serve 15 months.”

William Perez, How to Calculate the Premium Assistance Tax Credit (With an Example). This will be a big deal on 2014 returns.

Jason Dinesen, Using a Line of Credit to Purchase Investments

Kay Bell, Tax moves to make during October 2014

Annette NellenLogical sales tax ruling on a web-based business

My fact check of a fact check is cited in a fact-check debunking.

 

Howard Gleckman, Pass-Through Firms Report $800 Billion in Net Income, Can’t Be Ignored in Business Tax Reform (TaxVox). “These firms have engaged in self-help tax reform by avoiding double taxation with the stroke of a pen.”  You’re welcome.

 

Jack Townsend, Penalties and Corporate America’s Shenanigans. “Instead of focusing the fire where far more revenue is involved and apply penalties in a way that will discourage misbehavior, the IRS goes after the small fish when there are bigger fish to fry.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 512

 

20141003-2Steve Warnhoff, Former CBO Director Holtz-Eakin on Dynamic Scoring: Revenue Estimating Is Already a Big Guessing Game So Why Stop Now? (Tax Justice Bl0g).

 

Career Corner. It’s Not All About the Big 4 (No Further Proc, a presumably pseudynomous Going Concern contributor). “So at your next recruiting event, when you witness the hordes amassing at the B4 tables, take a minute and visit other firms for a chat.”

Darn straight. Especially check out the Roth and Company table.

 

Economic development begins at home. Former Economic Development Director Charged With Tax Evasion:

 The one-time economic development director for the City of Columbia was arrested on multiple counts of income and property tax evasion.

Wayne Emerson Gregory, Jr. was arrested by investigators from the SC Department of Revenue on 3 counts of income tax evasion and 14 counts of property tax evasion.

Previously, Gregory was arrested in April of this year on embezzlement charges stemming from his time as Georgetown County’s Director of Economic Development from 2005 until September of 2013.

Silly rabbit.  When you’re an economic development director, you help other people loot the government.

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/18/14: The $14.8 million suitcase squeeze. And: Koskinen visits the Hill.

Thursday, September 18th, 2014 by Joe Kristan
Flickr image courtesy Sascha Kohlmann under Creative Commons license

Flickr image courtesy Sascha Kohlmann under Creative Commons license

Accounting Today visitors: click here for the item from the September 17 “In the Blogs.”

When tax-free merger isn’t. Working with family-owned businesses, a common misunderstanding arises: if a deal is tax-free, like an “A” merger or a partnership contribution, there can’t be gift tax, right?  Very wrong, as a New Hampshire couple’s experience in Tax Court shows.

The parents, Mr. and Mrs Cavallero, had a successful S corporation known as Knight Tool Co. Their son Ken set up another business to make liquid dispensing machines, Camelot.  As part of their estate planning, the two companies merged in an income tax-free deal.  From the Tax Court summary:

Ps and their sons merged Knight and Camelot in 1995, and Camelot was the surviving entity. Valuing the two companies in accordance with the advice their professionals had given, Ps accepted a disproportionately low number of shares in the new company and their sons received a disproportionately high number of shares.

It turns out that the estate planners “postulated” a technology transfer earlier in the lives of the companies that would have resulted in most of the value already being in the second generation. One planner explained to a skeptical attorney that “History does not formulate itself, the historian has to give it form without being discouraged by having to squeeze a few embarrassing facts into the suitcase by force.”

The trouble with doing that is that when the latches break, the suitcase spills all over the place. But the planners persisted.  From the Tax Court decision:

As a result of Mr. Hamel’s correspondence campaign, however, the previously separate tracks of advice — one from the accountants at E&Y and Mr. McGillivray, and the other from the attorneys at Hale & Dorr — now came together for the first time. The contradiction was evident to all the professionals: The accountants had assumed no 1987 transfer (and thus believed there was a need for a means to transmit value to the next generation), but the attorneys postulated a 1987 transfer (and subsequent transfers) pursuant to which that value had already been placed in the hands of the next generation. The attorneys eventually prevailed, however, and the accountants acquiesced. Eventually all of the advisers lined up behind Mr. Hamel’s suggestion that a 1987 transfer be memorialized in the affidavits and the confirmatory bill of sale. They provided a draft of the documents, which Mrs. Cavallaro read aloud to Mr. Cavallaro. After they reported a few typographical errors, the attorneys prepared final versions, which Mr. Cavallaro and Ken Cavallaro executed on May 23, 1995.

So in 1995 they executed documents for a 1987 transaction.  What could go wrong? Well, perhaps the IRS could come in and assess $27.7 million in gift taxes, plus fraud penalties.  And they did. The dispute ended up in Tax Court.  The IRS won the main issue — its argument that the valuable technology was not in fact transferred in 1987 — and with that win, predictably also won the battle of appraisers.  The IRS appraiser at trail asserted a $29.6 million gift, which would result in a gift tax of about $14.8 million at 1995 rates. Because of the involvement of the outside experts, the Tax Court declined to uphold penalties.

This shows how important valuation can be even in a “tax-free” deal.  When doing business among family members at different generations in estate planning, you don’t have the conflicting interests that unrelated buyers and sellers have, so you have the possibility of creating a taxable gift if you are careless. It’s natural for family members to believe numbers that help their estate planning, so it’s wise to get an independent appraiser in to provide a reality check.  And if the facts, or values, don’t fit into the suitcase, don’t squeeze; get a bigger suitcase.

Cite: Cavallero, T.C. Memo 2014-189

 

This Koskinen isn't the IRS commissioner

This Koskinen isn’t the IRS commissioner

Instapundit, IRS COMMISSIONER: Our Story On The IRS Scandal Isn’t Changing. It’s Just, You Know, Evolving Now And Then.  “I’ve taken a dislike to this Koskinen fellow. He seems sleazy even by DC standards.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 497. Mostly coverage of another slippery appearance by Commissioner Koskinen before House investigators.

 

TaxGrrrl, Back To School 2014: American Opportunity Credit

Kay Bell, Private and often untaxed home rentals under fire

Peter Reilly, Need To Show Rental Effort To Deduct Expenses. “I think the way I would put it is ‘If at first and second and third you don’t succeed, try something different.  Otherwise forget about deducting losses.'”

 

David Brunori, Fairness and the Reality of State Tax Systems (Tax Analysts Blog) “etc. This week WalletHub released a rating of the fairest state and local tax systems… I am not doubting the accuracy of WalletHub’s survey. But the results don’t align with political reality.”

Cara Griffith, Single Sales Factor May Be Inevitable, but Is It Fair? (Tax Analysts):

In the end, if state officials are truly concerned with making their state more attractive to businesses, perhaps they should consider retaining (or returning to) the three factor apportionment method and focus on a less burdensome corporate tax system overall. In the end, if state officials are truly concerned with making their state more attractive to businesses, perhaps they should consider retaining (or returning to) the three factor apportionment method and focus on a less burdensome corporate tax system overall.

No, they are concerned with ribbon cuttings, press releases, and campaign contributions from those seeing tax credits and carveouts.

 

 

20140805-2Renu Zaretsky, A Hail Mary or Two on the Hill.  The TaxVox tax headline roundup covers inflation adjustments and beating up on the NFL with the tax code, among other things.

Alan Cole, Why do I have Four Different Retirement Accounts? (Tax Policy Blog) “Give us one unlimited saving account, tax it properly, like an IRA, and let us use it how we will.”

Russ Fox, Zuckermans Sentenced; No Word on Fido & Lulu “Unfortunately, members of a board of directors must be human: Fido and Lulu don’t qualify.”

Adrienne Gonzalez, Mad Scientist Gets Prison Time for Using His Dog and Cat in a Tax Avoidance Scheme (Going Concern). PETA couldn’t be reached for comment.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/17/14: Is 30 years long enough to find a tenant? And more!

Wednesday, September 17th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20140325-1If you can’t get a tenant in 30 years, maybe you’re doing something wrong.  A Minnesota architect named Meinhardt bought a farmstead in 1976.  He  rented out the cropland to neighboring farmers. He looked for a tenant for the farmhouse, too.  He was still looking in 2007, but never managed to find a cash-rent tenant for the house.

Though he never reported any rental income on the house, he paid for house expenses, including repairs, insurance supplies and utilities, deducting them on Schedule E on a joint return.  The deductions totaled $42,694 from 2005 through 2007.

The IRS decided that the architect failed to demonstrate enough of a profit motive to take the deductions.  The taxpayer argued that the expenses were actually part of renting the farmland, which the IRS agreed was a for-profit enterprise. The taxpayer also argued that he really tried to rent the house, but it just didn’t work out.

The Tax Court sided with the IRS, and now so has the Eighth Circuit.  First addressing the argument that the house expenses should be lumped in with the land rental:

They offered no evidence they ever tried to rent or lease the farmhouse and farmland together. Donald testified the farmhouse could be parceled off and sold separately from the crop and pasture land. The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that the Meinhardts treated the farmhouse separately from the leased farmland, which was admittedly a business activity, and therefore expenses related solely to the farmhouse could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary expenses of the leased farmland activity.

The hard-luck landlord defense didn’t fare any better:

The Tax Court found that the Meinhardts did not prove the farmhouse was held for the production of income during the tax years in question because they “did nothing to generate revenue during the years in issue [and] had no credible plan for operating it profitably in the future. There was no affirmative act (renting or holding for appreciation in value) to demonstrate that the property was held for the production of income.” (T.C. Memo. citations omitted.) This finding, too, was not clearly erroneous. Without question, the Meinhardts’ expenditures for substantial repair and improvement of the farmhouse over many years, including the tax years in question, increased the value of that property. But they failed to prove that they were holding and improving the property to profit from its rental or its appreciation, as opposed to improving it for personal use.

The clincher:

The reasonableness of this alternative personal-use explanation for the expenditures in 2005-2007 was rather dramatically confirmed when they sold their home in suburban Minneapolis and moved into the farmhouse in 2010. 

Oops.

The Moral? If you hold property for years without generating income, you better have pretty good evidence that you have worked hard to rent it if you want to deduct the costs on your Schedule E. If it’s a rental home that you also use on weekends, you’ll have to work harder. If you hold it for 30 years without a cash tenant and then move in, your battle to convince a judge of your profit motive might be hopeless.

Cite: Meinhardt, CA-8, No. 13-2924 

Tax Court case: Meinhardt, T.C. Memo. 2013-85.

ISU Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation Annotation: No Deduction For Farmhouse-Related Expenses.

 

IMG_1944TaxGrrrl, Back To School 2014: Deducting The Cost Of Playing Sports

William Perez, Repaying the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. The first misbegotten version of the misbegotten First-Time Homebuyer Credit was actually more a loan than a credit, and it must be repaid over 15 years. Some of them will be repaying long after the home was sold, or foreclosed

Kay Bell, Spousal abuse: physical, financial and tax-related

Jason Dinesen, Will Software Really Replace Accountants?  I suppose it’s possible, but not with a tax system anything like we have.

Peter Reilly, Montana Catches Non-filer With Property Tax Break. When you claim a homestead exemption on your property taxes somewhere, that place might just decide that you should pay resident income taxes.

Phil Hodgen ponders the Valuation date for expatriate’s balance sheet. When you expatriate, there’s a tax for that.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 496.

20140729-2Lyman Stone, New S&P Report Shows Income Taxes Are Volatile, Sales Taxes Need Reform (Tax Policy Blog) “This closely relates to our previous findings on state revenue volatility, where we found that states with high reliance on income taxes, excise taxes, or natural resource taxes experienced some of the highest volatility.”

Howard Gleckman, Congress Cries Wolf Over Internet Access Taxes (TaxVox). “Unable to do anything important before its election season recess, Congress is about to knock down a favorite digital straw man—It will extend for a few months the about-to-expire federal ban on state taxation of Internet access.”

 

It’s campaign season, everything is a lie. PolitiFact: Democrats Are Recycling False Accusation That Republicans Support Tax Breaks for Companies That Ship Jobs Overseas (TaxProf)

Looking forward to after campaign season.  Obamacare 2.0, Outlook Not So Good (Bob Vineyard, Insureblog)

Tony Nitti, Whether You Like The Government Or Not, The IRS Expects Its Tax Revenue.  They sure do.

 

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, 8/21/14: IRS says saving the company still “passive;” Tax Court says otherwise And: the $105.82 c-note!

Thursday, August 21st, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Programming note: No Tax Roundup will appear tomorrow, August 22.   I will be up in Ames helping teach the ISU Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation class “Affordable Care Act (ACA): What Practitioners Need to Know in the morning.  Webinar registration is closed, but you can still  attend as a walk-in.

 

S imageS imageS-SidewalkYou saved the company.  Big deal.  Apparently pulling the company you started from the brink of failure wasn’t enough to convince the IRS that a taxpayer “materially participated” and could deduct losses on his tax return.

Charles Wade was a founder of Thermoplastic Services, Inc. and Paragon Plastic Sheeting, both S corporations.  After his son Ashley took over daily management of the business, he still owned a significant stake in the company.  He never really retired, though.  From the Tax Court (my emphasis, footnotes omitted in all Tax Court quotes):

With Ashley there to handle day-to-day management, Mr. Wade became more focused on product and customer development. He did not have to live near business operations to perform these duties, so petitioners moved to Navarre, Florida. After the move he continued to make periodic visits to the facilities in Louisiana and regularly spoke on the phone with plant personnel.

In 2008 TSI and Paragon began struggling financially as prices for their products plummeted and revenues declined significantly. Mr. Wade’s involvement in the businesses became crucial during this crisis. To boost employee morale, he made three trips to the companies’ industrial facility in DeQuincy, Louisiana, during which he assured the employees that operations would continue. He also redoubled his research and development efforts to help TSI and Paragon recover from the financial downturn. During this time Mr. Wade invented a new technique for fireproofing polyethylene partitions, and he developed a method for treating plastics that would allow them to destroy common viruses and bacteria on contact. In addition to his research efforts, Mr. Wade ensured the companies’ financial viability by securing a new line of credit. Without Mr. Wade’s involvement in the companies, TSI and Paragon likely would not have survived.

Slacker.  At least according to the IRS, who said that this participation failed to rise to the level of “material participation” and disallowed over $3 million in pass-through losses on Mr. Wade’s return.

The Tax Court took a different view.  Judge Goeke explains :

A taxpayer materially participates in an activity for a given year if, “[b]ased on all of the facts and circumstances * * * the individual participates in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during such year.” A taxpayer who participates in the activity for 100 hours or less during the year cannot satisfy this test, and more stringent requirements apply to those who participate in a management or investment capacity.  The record reflects that Mr. Wade spent over 100 hours participating in TSI and Paragon during 2008, and his participation consisted primarily of nonmanagement and noninvestment activities. Ashley managed the day-to-day operations of the companies; Mr. Wade focused more on product development and customer retention.

Although Mr. Wade took a step back when Ashley became involved in the companies’ management, he still played a major role in their 2008 activities. He researched and developed new technology that allowed TSI and Paragon to improve their products. He also secured financing for the companies that allowed them to continue operations, and he visited the industrial facilities throughout the year to meet with employees about their futures. These efforts were continuous,  regular, and substantial during 2008, and we accordingly hold that Mr. Wade materially participated in TSI and Paragon. 

20120801-2It’s notable that the judge did not require Mr. Wade to produce a daily log.  Apparently there was enough testimony and evidence to show that his participation crossed the 100 hour threshold.

The 100 hours might not have been considered enough under some circumstances.  Usually the IRS holds taxpayers to the default 500-hour test for material participation.  This case is unusual in its use of the fall-back 100-hour “facts and circumstances” test. It’s good to see the Tax Court use it, as the IRS seems to think this test never applies.

It’s also interesting that the efforts at “customer retention” were counted.  This could be useful in planning for the 3.8% Obamacare Net Investment Income Tax.  The NIIT taxes “passive” income, defined the same way as the passive loss rules.  A semi-retired S corporation owner who still calls on some of old accounts after turning daily operations over to successors might be able to avoid the NIIT under the logic of this case.  If so, though, it would be wise to keep a calendar to prove it.

Cite: Wade, T.C. Memo. 2014-169

Related:

Russ Fox, A Passive Activity Case Goes to the Taxpayers.  “Hopefully the IRS can get more of these cases right at audit and appeals–they’ll be dealing with many more of these over the coming years.”

Paul Neiffer, More than 100 but Less than 500.  “It is nice to see that a subjective test went in the taxpayer’s favor.”

Material participation basics.

 

How far does $100 go in your city?  Last week the Tax Foundation issued a map showing how far $100 goes in different states.  Now they have issued a new map in The Real Value of $100 in Metropolitan Areas (Tax Policy Bl0g).  It is wonderful — just scroll your cursor over your town.

In Des Moines, $100 is good for $105.82.  In New York, it gets you $81.83.

 

TaxGrrrl, Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate Loses Yet Another Run At The Marshall Fortune

Tony Nitti, Could The IRS Disallow Ice Bucket Challenge Charitable Contributions?  Go ahead, IRS, just try it.  You’re just too popular.

William McBride, Earnings Stripping, Competitiveness, and the Drive to Further Complicate the Corporate Tax (Tax Policy Blog)

Roberton Williams, One Downside Of Inversions: Higher Tax Bills For Stockholders (TaxVox)

Kay Bell, How does the U.S. corporate tax rate compare to other countries?  Poorly.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 469

 

David Brunori, Using Local Cigarette Taxes for Schools Is Silly (Tax Analysts Blog).  Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.  For the children!

Cara Griffith, Was Oregon’s Tax Incentive Deal With Intel Unnecessary? (Tax Analysts Blog).  No, it was absolutely necessary to enable the Governor of Oregon to issue this press release and YouTube announcement.  That’s the point, after all.

 

Quotable:

The United States gets little tax from Americans overseas today. Most of them live in high-tax countries and have no U.S. income tax in any event because of FTCs and the section 911 foreign earned income exclusion. But as we all know, Congress couldn’t care less about this subject, and this is all a non-starter. Better to place your money on a genetically modified flying pig.

Robert L. Williams in Tax Analysts ($link)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/20/14: Keeping time reports isn’t just for CPAs anymore.

Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2Track your hours now, not when you get audited.  Doing time reports is no fun.  If I had a nickel for every CPA who left public accounting and told me how fun it is to not do time reports, I’d have multiple nickels.

Unfortunately, the tax law might make time sheets necessary for people who don’t charge by the hour.  The passive loss rules disallow losses if you don’t spend enough time on a loss activity to “materially participate.”  Obamacare uses the same rules to impose a 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax” on “passive” income.

It’s up to the taxpayer to prove they spent enough time to “materially participate,” as a Mr. Graham from Arkansas learned yesterday in Tax Court.

The taxpayer wanted to convince Judge Nega that he met the tax law’s stiff tests to be a “real estate professional,” enabling him to deduct real estate rental losses.  If you are not a “professional,” these losses are automatically passive, and therefore deferred until there is passive income.  To be a real estate professional, the taxpayer has to both:

– Work at least 750 hours in real estate trades or businesses, and

– performs more than one-half of all personal services during the year in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.

That’s a high bar to clear for a taxpayer with a day job.  Mr. Graham gave it a good try, providing a judge with spreadsheets to show that he did that work.  The judge remained unconvinced:

Mr. Graham did not keep a contemporaneous log or appointment calendar tracking his real estate services. His spreadsheets were created later, apparently in connection with the IRS audit. 

There were other problems:

Furthermore, the entries on the spreadsheets were improbable in that they were excessive, unusually duplicative, and counterfactual in some instances. As all petitioners’ rental properties were single-family homes, reporting 7 hours to install locks or 30 hours to place mulch on a single property (amongst other suspect entries) are overstatements at best. Performing maintenance for a tenant that did not pay rent for an entire year with no record of “past due rent” or any attempt to collect rent (as Mr. Graham would note on entries for other rental properties) seems dubious.

The judge ruled that the taxpayer failed to meet the tests.  Worse, the court upheld a 20% penalty: “We conclude that the exaggerated entries in petitioners’ spreadsheets negate their good faith in claiming deductions for rental real estate losses against their earned income.”

The Moral?  Maintain your time records now.  When the IRS comes calling, it’s too late.  And play it straight; the Tax Court didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

Cite: Graham, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-79. 

 

20130426-1Russ Fox, FBAR Filing Follies:

Joe Kristan reported last week that you cannot use Adobe Acrobat to file the FBAR; you must use Adobe Reader. In fact, if you have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer and use Adobe Reader it won’t work either. Well, I have some mild good news about this.

Mild is right.

 

Peter Reilly, Robert Redford’s New York Tax Trouble Provides Lessons For Planners.  “You dodge non-resident state taxes, either on purpose or by accident, at the peril of missing out on a credit against the tax of your home state.”

Jason Dinesen, S-Corporation Compensation Revisited.  “But what should the salary be? And what if the year has ended and the W-2 deadlines have passed, but the corporate tax return still needs filed?”

Keith Fogg, Postponing Assessment and Collection of the IRC 6672 Liability (Procedurally Taxing).  Issues on the “trust fund” penalty imposed for not remitting withholding.

TaxGrrrl, Flipping Through History: Online Retailers Owe Popularity And Tax Treatment To Mail Order Catalogs:

Online shopping is again changing the way that we look at nexus but for now, more or less the same kinds of principles that ruled in the day of mail order catalogs are still good law. The law remains settled that in states that impose a sales tax, retailers that have established nexus must charge sales tax to customers in that state.

And just like in the old days, states want to extend their reach no matter how flimsy the nexus.

20140729-1Lyman Stone, New Upshot Tool Provides Historical Look at Migration (Tax Policy Blog):

Prominent changes in the data suggest that taxes may have a role in affecting migration, though certainly taxes are just one of many important variables, and probably not even the biggest factor. As always, talking about migration isn’t simple: migration data is challenging to measure and represent, and even more difficult to interpret.

I will be seeing Mr. Stone speak at the Iowa Association of Business and Industry Tax Committee this morning.  I’m geeking out already.

 

Jim Maule, “Give Us a Tax Break and We’ll Do Nice Things.” Not.  It seems the subsidized Yankees parking garages don’t stop with picking taxpayer pockets.

Kay Bell, Is it time for territorial taxation of businesses and individuals?  “Territorial taxation advocates hope that long local journey has at least now started.”

 

Howard Gleckman, Is Treasury About to Curb Tax Inversions on Its Own? (TaxVox).  If the law is whatever the current administration says it is, I look forward to the $20 million estate tax exclusion next time the GOP takes power.

Daniel Shaviro, The Obama Administration’s move towards greater unilateral executive action.  “And the conclusion might either be that one should tread a bit lightly after all, or that we are in big trouble whether one side unilaterally does so or not, given the accelerating breakdown of norms that, as Chait notes, are no less crucial than our express constitutional and legal structure to ‘secur[ing] our republic.'”

20130422-2The best and the brightest in action.  TIGTA: ObamaCare Medical Device Tax Is Raising 25% Less Revenue Than Expected, IRS Administration of Tax Is Rife With Errors (TaxProf)

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 468

 

News from the Profession.  AICPA Celebrates 400,000th Member Just Because (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern)

I can verify that a Kindle absorbs less coffee than paper.  Do readers absorb less from a Kindle than from paper? (Tyler Cowen)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/13/14: Tax Fairies in the graveyard? And: another payroll service goes bad.

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Funeral home signOf course cemetery lots are shooting up in value.  People are dying to get in!  Taxpayers seek the Tax Fairy in the strangest places.  The Tax Fairy is the mythical spirit who can make taxes go away magically, for a reasonable price to a tax wizard who claims to be able to summon her.  A Tax Court case yesterday found taxpayers looking for her in cemeteries (Emphasis mine; slightly edited for readability).

Judge Nega’s overview:

Heritage Memorial Park Associates 1995-2, Heritage Memorial Park Associates 1995-3 , and Heritage Memorial Park Associates 1995-4 (collectively, partnerships) are Maryland general partnerships. The partnerships were established to acquire cemetery sites, to hold the sites for over one year, and then to contribute the sites to qualified charitable organizations, with the aim to provide individuals who invested in the partnerships with charitable contribution deductions equal to the appraised values of the sites as of the times of the contributions. Glenn R. Johnston and his colleagues promoted the partnerships to wealthy individuals as a way for them to receive a return of tax benefits in the form of passthrough deductions or losses worth significantly more than the amounts invested. 

What sort of deductions?

…(petitioner) invested $37,500 in each partnership. He made these investments to increase the amounts of his charitable contributions for the subject years and, more particularly, to receive promoted tax benefits worth significantly more than his investments. He expected that his investments would return him tax benefits worth $50,000 for each subject year. 

HMPA 1995-2 claimed the $1,864,850 charitable contribution deduction on that return. Petitioner was allocated $135,127 of that deduction, and petitioners deducted the $135,127 on their 1996 individual return as a charitable contribution. HMPA 1995-2 reported on its 1996 Form 1065 that HMPA 1995-2 had no income or expenses for 1996 (but for the charitable contribution deduction).

So: invest $35,000, deduct $135,000, save (conservatively) 1/3 of $135,000, or $45,000.  What could go wrong?

On September 29, 2005, Mr. Johnston was indicted on (1) one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States by selling, claiming, and causing others to sell and claim millions of dollars in false and fraudulent tax deductions for charitable contributions and concealing from the IRS income from the sales of the fraudulent deductions and (2) multiple counts of aiding and assisting in the filing of false returns by investors in the partnerships so that the investors claimed charitable contribution deductions in amounts substantially greater than allowable. These charges involved the partnerships, among one or more other entities. Mr. Johnston pleaded guilty to the first count on April 12, 2007.

Sure, it’s a criminal enterprise, but the deductions are still good, right?  And didn’t the statute run?  Nope.  The court ruled that the IRS met the procedural requirements to keep the statute of limitations open by properly initiating partnership-level proceedings.  The court also ruled that the taxpayer couldn’t claim a business loss for the partnership investments:

tax fairyPetitioners argue secondarily that they may deduct a $37,500 loss for each year as to petitioner’s investments in the partnerships. To that end, petitioners assert, petitioner’s ownership interests in the partnerships were worthless as of the end of the corresponding years in which the partnerships operated, and he knew that the interests were worthless as of those times and abandoned his interests as of those times. Petitioners add that petitioner invested in the partnerships to make a profit and in furtherance of a legislative intent to encourage charitable contributions.

But the court ruled that seeking charitable deductions isn’t a “trade or business,” and that no business loss was available.  $35,000 spent to net a tax savings of nothing.

The Moral?  This thing should never have passed the “too good to be true” test.  The deductions depended on incredible post-contribution appreciation in graves.  Anybody thinking this sort of thing might actually work really needs to get out more.  And there is no tax fairy.

Cite: McElroy, T.C. Memo 2014-163.

Related:  Three Years is the Normal Statute of Limitations, But Not Always (Paul Neiffer).

 

EFTPSAnother payroll service makes off with employers’ payroll tax payments.  From emissourian.com:

 

A Washington man pleaded guilty this week to federal mail fraud and money laundering charges.

Bradley Ferguson, 48, owner of Paymaster Business Solutions in Fenton, is scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court. 

He pleaded guilty to one felony count of mail fraud and one felony count of money laundering before U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber.

Ferguson is accused of withdrawing money from the bank accounts of business clients to pay federal, state and local taxes but did not make the payments, according to a federal grand jury indictment.

While it makes sense for many taxpayers to outsource payroll functions, the tax law still holds the employers responsible for getting withholdings to the IRS.  If you outsource your payroll taxes, you should use Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) online access to make sure your payroll tax remittances are actually hitting your account.  If you use a service that doesn’t allow you to do this — like many “professional employer organizations” who “co-employ” their clients’ workers — you need to make other arrangements, like bonding, to protect yourself.

 

Peter Reilly, Alimony Deduction Requires Good Substantiation.  “It turns out that taxpayers are routinely whipsawing the IRS.”

William Perez, How to Get a Federal Tax Credit for the Cost of Child Care.

Kay Bell, James-Love NBA combo is tax boon to two Cleveland towns.

TaxGrrrl, Think Before You Post: The Dangers Of Seeking Tax Advice On The Internet:

I was pretty shocked at how much information folks were willing to share on the internet about their tax evasion questions, strategies and justifications. Sometimes, these folks are regular forum posters who happily share their location and other identifying information while others clearly try to remain somewhat anonymous.

In case you were wondering, the IRS has internet access.

 

Jason Dinesen, Rare Home Office Deduction Win in Tax Court

Carl Smith, In Some Cases IRS Seeks to Conflict Out Lawyers Who Represented Taxpayers in CDP Hearings (Procedurally Taxing).  CDP stands for “collections due process.”  The IRS is bigger than you, peasant.

 

Tony Nitti, Final IRS Rules On Partnership Technical Terminations Will Surprise Some Tax Pros

 

20140813-1David Brunori: Congress Shouldn’t Make State Tax Systems Worse (Tax Analysts Blog)

As my colleague Maria Koklanaris reported, 29 Democratic members of Congress asked leaders of the California State Legislature to reauthorize and expand the state’s film tax credit. Led by Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., the federal lawmakers asked California to extend a very bad tax policy, saying that if it doesn’t, film jobs will be lost forever to other states. 

Why film credits? Why not some other industry? Politicians are the worst at determining what’s best for the marketplace. Despite the studies funded by the Motion Picture Association of America that say otherwise, film tax credits don’t work. In virtually every state that has them, there’s no discernible economic effect — that is, the tax giveaway did not result in more economic activity than would have occurred without it.

Iowa has some lessons to teach here.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 461

 

There’s only one left? Owner of the Pickle pleads guilty to federal tax fraud.

Because you invited clients?   PwC’s Bob Moritz on Why You Shouldn’t Miss Your Kid’s Birthday Party for Work (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/8/14: Get a Room Edition. And: Koskinen, cronyist.

Friday, August 8th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Flickr image by Ellenm1 under Creative Commons licenseTax Court: Get a room!  If you spend a lot of time on the road, you may have wondered whether it might make sense to buy a Winnebago instead of hopping between motels.  The Tax Court yesterday weighed in on the side of motels.

A California insurance man with an RV found a market for his wares among his fellow tin-can nomads, as the Judge Wherry explains:

Starting in 2004, petitioners began attending RV rallies not just for pleasure but also for business purposes. At or around the same time, they purchased a 2004 Winnebago RV. We reject petitioners’ contentions that they attended RV rallies solely for business purposes from 2004 but instead find that they had mixed purposes. Petitioners would gather sales leads at every rally. To that end, petitioners had a banner that they attached to their RV advertising Dell Jackson Insurance. Petitioners would set up an information table outside of their RV or outside the clubhouse, if the site had one. If they set up a table by a clubhouse, petitioners moved the banner from the RV to the table. Otherwise, the sign remained on the RV from the time they arrived until the time they left. Petitioners would invite potential customers to come to their RV, and they would sit either outside or inside the RV and discuss the prospective client’s insurance needs. It would often take months, if not years, for a relationship with a potential customer, which could begin with a lead, to develop into an actual sale.

Naturally the salesman deducted expenses of his RV in preparing the Schedule C for his insurance business.  The IRS limited his deductions using Section 280A, which limits business deductions for personal residences.  The Court said that the RV was a house, as far as the tax law is concerned (citations and footnotes omitted, emphasis added):

Generally, “a taxpayer uses the dwelling unit during the taxable year as a residence if he uses such unit (or portion thereof) for personal purposes for a number of days which exceeds the greater of — (A) 14 days, or (B) 10 percent of the number of days during such year for which such unit is rented at a fair rental.” “Dwelling unit” is also a defined term and “includes a house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat, or similar property”. Sec. 280A(f)(1)(A). This Court has previously held that a motor home qualifies as a dwelling unit within the meaning of section 280A(f)(1)(A).  Although we use the more modern term throughout this opinion, an RV and a motor home are one and the same thing. Petitioners and counsel used the two terms interchangeably at trial. Accordingly, petitioners’ RV is a dwelling unit for purposes of section 280A. 

The Tax Court said that while the expenses were otherwise legitimate, the Section 280A disallowance of business expenses when a residence, or part of one, isn’t used “exclusively” for business overrides the deductions:

This result may seem harsh, but it is the operation of the statute, which reflects Congress’ desire to prevent taxpayers from deducting personal expenses as business expenses.

While the court admitted the result was harsh to begin with, that didn’t stop it from piling on, adding over $8,000 in “accuracy-related” penalties to the $42,000 in additional taxes assessed by the IRS — another example of the unfortunate tendency of the IRS — with the blessing of the Tax Court — to penalize everything, even when the taxpayer used an apparently reputable preparer.

The moral: RVs may be great for retirement travel, but they aren’t the best thing for business deductions.  If they had rented hotel rooms, the deductions apparently would have been just fine.

Cite: Jackson, T.C. Memo 2014-160

 

This Koskinen isn't the IRS commissioner

This Koskinen isn’t the IRS commissioner

So the IRS Commissioner is just fine with cronyism in tax administration.  John Koskinen Indicates IRS Revolving Door Is A Feature Not A Bug (Peter Reilly).  It will be hard to unseat Doug Shulman as the Worst Commissioner Ever, but John Koskinen is giving it the old college try.

 

Jason Dinesen, From the Archives: Iowa Tuition and Textbook Credit and Back-to-School Shopping

Jack Townsend, It’s So Easy to Say No — The IRS Often Gets to No for Streamlined Transition Relief in OVDP. “The bottom-line is that the IRS is denying the nonwillful certification in far more cases than practitioners thought would be the case.  And, the process of denial is a bit of a black box.”

Leslie Book, Summary Opinions for 7/25/14 (Procedurally Taxing).  A roundup of recent tax procedure happenings.

 

tax fairyKay Bell, FTC sending $16 million to former American Tax Relief clients. Don’t fall for tax relief scams in the first place:

Federal prosecutors first filed charges against ATR in 2010. In August 2012, a federal court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the FTC, finding that the defendants falsely claimed they already had significantly reduced the tax debts of thousands of people and falsely told individual consumers they qualified for tax relief programs that would significantly reduce their tax debts.

The court issued a $103.3 million judgment against the company.

Outfits like ATR, J.K. Harris, TaxMasters and Roni Deutsch pulled in lots of revenue from taxpayers desperate to believe in the Tax Fairy.  There is no tax fairy.

 

 

It’s Friday, the Iowa State Fair is underway, and Robert D. Flach is buzzing!  So it’s a good day three ways.

20140808-1

 

TaxGrrrl, normally the soul of restraint, lets loose on the inversion diversion in Obama Joins Blame Game As Companies Flee U.S. For Lower Tax Rates:

But to point fingers at lawyers and accountants as if they are holding all the cards is plain wrong. If we want to talk about responsibility, let’s talk about responsibility.

Let’s talk about a bloated Tax Code that just keeps getting bigger. Let’s talk about a global tax system that encourages companies (and people) to flee. Let’s talk about stalled tax reform efforts.

The tax code is the instruction manual for taxpayers, and their lawyers and accountants, for tax compliance.  And now the politicians don’t like what happens when we read and follow instructions.

 

20120702-2Andrew Lundeen, To Stop Inversions, Fix the Tax Code (Tax Policy Blog).  “But the lack of competitiveness created by the corporate tax isn’t the only issue: at its core, the corporate tax is inherently not neutral. It is highly distortive, opaque, and economically damaging tax.”

Christopher Bergin, Beware the Individual Income Tax Inversion (Tax Analysts Blog)  “The truth is that our tax system is in trouble – all of it: the corporate side, the administration side, and the individual side. And that means the country is in trouble.”

Kelly Davis, Tax Policy and the Race for the Governor’s Mansion: Illinois Edition (Tax Justice Bl0g).  Political wrangling in a doomed state.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 456.  The scandal has been Voxplained. Keep calm, all is well.

 

Art appreciation tip: “Like the folks who believe that the limits on maritime jurisdiction, explained by a talking salamander, holds the key to beating a federal criminal charge, the full tapestry of wacko tax fraud theories is a lovely thing to behold….” (Matt Kaiser, Above The Law).  He covers a “sovereign citizen” from Omaha who learned that filing a phony $19 million lien on a judge is perhaps not the optimal way to handle a tax controversy.

Related: TaxProf, Nebraska ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Convicted of Filing False Liens Against Federal Officials and Federal Tax Crimes

 

Adrienne Gonzalez, California Might Ditch the Attest Requirement for CPA Licensure.  I’m sure I would have been a better person if I had to waste two years observing inventories and otherwise bothering real auditors.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/5/14: Personal goodwill is the word. And: more inversion diversion!

Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2Word.  Tax Court reduces estate value of stock by executive’s “personal goodwill.”  The courts have recognized that the value of a business depend on the contacts and reputation of a key executive — “personal goodwill.”  That concept has enabled business owners to sell their goodwill separately from other business assets — handy in avoiding the double tax inherent in C corporations.

Yesterday the Tax Court applied “personal goodwill” in valuing stock in a decedent’s estate.  Franklin Z. Adell died in 2006 owning all of the stock of STN.Com, a satellite uplink company.  The company had one customer: The Word Network, a religious broadcaster set up as a non-profit and run by Mr. Adell’s son, Kevin.

The arrangement proved profitable to STN.Com, which generated nearly $16 million in revenues in 2006.  That enabled company executives to travel in style, according to the Tax Court (footnotes omitted):

In addition to rent and compensation, STN.Com made several miscellaneous payments that were primarily for the personal benefit of Mr. Adell and Kevin. STN.Com leased luxury cars, including Bentleys and Rolls-Royces, used for personal and work purposes by Mr. Adell, Kevin, and its other employees. STN.Com also helped Mr. Adell and Kevin purchase and maintain real estate. For example, STN.Com gave money to Mr. Adell and Kevin to purchase a condominium in Los Angeles, California, and guaranteed the mortgage. STN.Com purchased high-end furnishings for the condominium and for Mr. Adell’s home in Michigan and paid all expenses, including the mortgage, interest, and insurance, related to Kevin’s second home in Florida. In 2002 STN.Com paid $300,000 toward Kevin’s home in Florida. From July 2002 through June 2003 STN.Com paid between $300,000 and $400,000 of Kevin’s personal legal fees for litigation involving a dispute with a home contractor. In 2006 Mr. Adell paid a $6 million judgment entered against Kevin using funds from Mr. Adell’s salary at STN.Com.

The estate filed a tax return showing a date-of-death value of $9.3 million.  The IRS thought that number was slightly low, coming up with a value of $93.3 million.  By the time of the trial, the IRS number had come down to $26,341,030, and the estate was arguing for a $4.3 million value.  The trial came down to a duel of expert witness appraisers.

The main difference between the appraisals was the  treatment of “personal goodwill” by the estate’s expert, a Mr. Risius.  From the Tax Court decision:

Mr. Risius also adjusted STN.Com’s operating expenses to include an economic charge for Kevin’s personal goodwill. Mr. Risius explained that the adjustment was appropriate because the success of STN.Com depended heavily on Kevin’s personal relationships with the board of directors of The Word. Moreover, Kevin did not have a noncompete agreement with STN.Com, and as a result a potential buyer would acquire STN.Com only to the extent that the company retained Kevin. The economic charge for Kevin’s personal goodwill ranged from 37.2% to 43.4% of sales over the historical period and from 43.7% to 44.1% of sales over the projection period.

The IRS expert, Mr. Burns, admitted the importance of the son’s personal involvement, but took a different approach:

Instead of applying an economic charge for Kevin’s personal goodwill similar to the one found in Mr. Risius’ first valuation report, Mr. Burns concluded that a hypothetical investor would anticipate retaining Kevin as an officer of STN.Com and would need to compensate Kevin at an acceptable rate of 8.1% of sales. Mr. Burns noted that his assumed compensation level for Kevin of nearly $1.3 million in 2006 was significantly higher than Mr. Risius’ estimate of $528,000 in his first valuation report.

20140321-4Tax Court Judge Paris found the estate’s approach more persuasive:

Kevin’s goodwill was personally owned independent of STN.Com. STN.Com’s success was heavily dependent on The Word because of their symbiotic relationship. To launch The Word, it was Kevin who contacted religious leaders in the Detroit area and Rev. Jackson in Chicago. Along with his notable contacts and his father, he went to Los Angeles to meet with DirecTV representatives about broadcasting The Word. His meeting was successful and it eventually led to the national broadcasting of The Word on cable television. Kevin was the face of the operation because he was the individual soliciting content and pursuing broadcast opportunities.

Yes, that Rev. Jackson.

     Further, Kevin did not transfer his goodwill to STN.Com through a covenant not to compete or other agreement. Kevin was free to leave STN.Com and use his relationships to directly compete against his previous employer. If Kevin quit, STN.Com could not exclusively use the relationships that Kevin cultivated; thus, the value of those relationships should not be attributed to STN.Com.

Accordingly, Mr. Risius properly adjusted STN.Com’s operating expenses to include an economic charge of $8 million to $12 million for Kevin’s personal goodwill at an amount high enough to account for the significant value of Kevin’s relationships. Mr. Burns, on the other hand, not only failed to apply an economic charge for Kevin’s personal goodwill but also gave too low an estimate of acceptable compensation for Kevin, i.e., $1.3 million in 2006. This was especially so because Kevin had stepped into the position of Mr. Adell, who had previously made between over $2 million and $7 million of compensation in each of the five years before his death.

The court went with the $9.3 million value on the original tax return: “…the Court concludes that Mr. Risius’ first valuation report on the STN.Com stock included with the original estate tax return was the most creditable because it properly accounted for Kevin’s personal goodwill and appropriately used the discounted cashflow analysis of the income approach to value the STN.Com stock.”

The moral?  Appraisers working with closely-held businesses need to look closely at important customer and vendor relationships and determine whether they actually belong to the corporation, or if they instead belong separately to executives.  The case also is more support for taxpayers wanting to sell personal goodwill separately from corporate assets.

Cite: Estate of Franklin Z. Adell T.C. Memo 2014-155.

 

20140805-2Robert D. Flach offers fresh Tuesday Buzz! Robert has also started a new monthly newsletter, The Tax Professional.  “The purpose of THE TAX PROFESSIONAL is to discuss and debate issues of interest and importance to the profession of preparing income tax returns – such as certification and credentials, dealing with the IRS and state tax agencies, due diligence requirements, ethics and obligations, regulation, representation, tax law complexity, etc.”  While I often disagree with Robert, he’s a smart and entertaining guy, and both his blog and the newsletter are worth regular visits.

 

Kay Bell, August to-do list: Vacation, shopping, school and taxes

 

Peter Reilly, Homeowner Association IRS Ruling Highlights Schizophrenic Nature Of Associations.  “Unless they have vast reserves earning significant investment income, homeowners associations can avoid any significant tax liability by filing Form 1120H, which allows the organization to exclude assessments.  Despite that option, some homeowners associations go to the trouble of applying to be 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.”

Annette Nellen, Marijuana businesses and ethical issues for tax practitioners.  Can you get in trouble for helping a pot store pay its taxes?

 

Frank Agostino, a veteran Tax Court litigator, guests posts in Procedurally Taxing with Procedural Challenges to Penalties: Section 6751(b)(1)’s Signed Supervisory Approval Requirement.  “In view of the fact that the IRS (and the Tax Court) have so strictly adhered to the Code’s substantiation requirements, one is hopeful that a similar strict compliance standard will be applied when interpreting a statutory provision clearly intended to protect taxpayer’s procedural due process rights.”

Jack Townsend, Williams Yet Again – Court Bows Deeply to Government Claims of Expansive Discretion for FBAR Willful Penalty 

 

 

nra-blue-eagleThe current diversionary panic about corporate inversions has reached its illogical conclusion, reports J.D. Tucille at Reason.com: With Loyalty Oath Demand, Crusade Against Corporate Inversion Gets Even Creepier.

Leave it to Jonathan Alter to jump the already laughably overblown “problem” of corporations seeking friendlier tax jurisdictions elsewhere right past parody. Forget any discussion of why businesses are relocating. At the Daily Beast, Alter wants potential “corporate deserters” to take…wait, I have to check this again…yep…loyalty oaths

The post quotes Mr. Alter’s argument:

For those companies less able to act as Americans or recognize their real interests, there are two ways to make this work. The president should issue an executive order that says any company that wants to keep its federal contracts must sign a new-fangled [non-desertion agreement]…

But other companies with few or no federal contracts might be tempted to desert anyway.

That’s where the rest of us come in. Under my scheme, companies that sign non-desertion agreements would embed a tiny American flag or some other Good Housekeeping-type seal in their corporate insignia for all to see, just as companies during the Great Depression that agreed to Franklin Roosevelt’s recovery plan hung an emblem of a blue eagle in their windows with the legend, “We Do Our Part.”

Mr. Tucille observes:

To make it clear where this all goes, the National Recovery Administration once boasted, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.” Its head, Hugh Johnson, noted about the adoption or rejection of the blue eagle symbol and its code, “Those who are not with us are against us.”

There’s a good book about this sort of thing.

Corporations have entirely legitimate purposes other than funneling cash to the IRS.  They have to make payroll, supply desired and needed goods to customers, and provide a return to their owners.  They have no more obligation to pay un-owed taxes than you, me, or Mr. Alter.  Unless Mr. Alter declines to itemize and forgoes his personal exemption in the name of economic patriotism, no blue eagle for him either.

 

20140805-1Kyle Pomerleau, Everything You Need to Know About Corporate Inversions (Tax Policy Blog). “The most obvious benefit is that most countries do not have a worldwide corporate income tax system. The United States taxes income earned by U.S. corporations no matter where they earn that income, domestically or abroad.”

Martin Sullivan, Don’t Count on Tax Reform to Stop Inversions (Tax Analysts Blog)

Rebecca Wilkins, Wall Street a Major Player in Current Wave of Corporate Inversions (Tax Justice Blog).  Maybe because investors like companies that don’t incur unnecessary expenses.

 

Renu Zaretsky, Online Taxes: Searches, Storage, and Sales.  The daily TaxVox headline roundup covers, among other things, an insane attempt to tax websites that link to Spanish newspaper association stories.  “Note to Spanish tax authorities: buena suerte.”

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 7/11/14: Wilderness edition. And: the hazards of doing it yourself.

Friday, July 11th, 2014 by Joe Kristan
Photo courtesy Philmontscoutranch.org

Photo courtesy Philmontscoutranch.org

Programming note.  The Tax Update goes untended for the next two weeks, as I head to Philmont Scout Ranch with my younger son and others for a 10-day backpacking odyssey.  It’s my first visit to New Mexico and my first extended backpacking trip.  Horses, carabiners, and black powder rifles will be encountered.  Whatever remains of me will be back here July 28.  The lovely and talented folks in the blogroll to the right will keep the tax world under control in the meantime.

 

Accounting Today visitors: if you followed the newsletter link here, you probably are looking for this: July 5, 1944.

 

Does the tax law cause people to do work on rental properties that they really should hire out?   That’s one conclusion you could draw from a Tax Court case yesterday, where a landlord says she chose do herself work that, based on the time she says she spent, should have gone to a contractor.

The tax law says real estate losses are normally “passive,” and when adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000, they are only deductible to the extent of other passive income.  A special rule lets “materially participating real estate professionals” out of the “per-se passive” rules; these taxpayers test whether their real estate activity is passive under the rules that apply to other business activities, based on time spent.

There’s a serious catch.  To qualify as a real estate pro, you have to work at least 750 hours in real estate, and more hours than in anything else you do.  If you have a full-time day job, this doesn’t work.

20140325-1But taxpayers attempting to get to 750 hours might be tempted to do work they would otherwise outsource.  That would be the generous interpretation of these facts in the Tax Court (my emphasis):

Petitioner claimed to have spent a total of 772 hours working on her rental properties in 2009. In support of her assertion, petitioner provided activity logs purporting to document the time she spent on her rental activities. Some of the activities included painting, cleaning apartments, shoveling snow, communicating with tenants on various issues, placing rental ads in the local newspaper, picking up mail, and paying bills. Although some log entries reference a specific apartment or property, many log activities do not specifically identify a particular rental unit. In addition, the number of hours noted on petitioner’s logs appears to be significantly inflated. For example, in one instance petitioner claims to have spent 8 to 12 hours per day for 10 days staining the “deck and siding” of what appears to be one apartment at the Pulaski property.

Some people just are perfectionists.

The log also indicates that [petitioner's husband] helped stain the deck and siding on those dates. In that instance, petitioners together spent between 160 to 240 hours staining the deck and siding of one apartment. There are several other instances in 2009 where petitioner claims to have spent many hours staining and painting decks and front porches of the rental properties. Petitioner’s log for July 2009 indicates that she spent approximately 77 hours over an eight-day period to paint a back porch. Petitioner’s log for November 2009 indicates that she spent more than 105 hours over a 12-day period on the flooring for one apartment and that on one specific day she worked 16 hours.

While a misguided attempt to reach 750 hourse might have motivated this sort of effort, the judge decided that something else was going on:

 Although petitioner claims she acted reasonably and in good faith with respect to her position that she was a real estate professional in the years in issue, we have concluded that petitioner’s records are not accurate or reliable and likely inflated the hours she spent in real estate activities. We have also concluded that the logs relating to her activity as an employee and her self-employment were not accurate.

If you want to document time for showing an activity is non-passive, it is wise to track it in a daily contemporaneous calendar.  It is also wise to not push the limits of believability.

Cite: Materano, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-64

Material participation hours tests can be found here.

 

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 428.  It features  from the Wall Street Journal U.S. Judge Orders IRS to Explain How it Lost Lerner’s Emails:

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to explain how it lost two years’ worth of a former official’s emails, and tapped a magistrate judge to find out whether the documents can be obtained from other sources.

At a hearing in a conservative group’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the IRS until Aug. 10 to provide a sworn declaration explaining how the email loss occurred. The IRS previously has said that the emails were lost because the top agency official’s computer crashed in 2011, and backup tapes were routinely reused after six months.

These practices violated federal recordkeeping procedures and, likely, federal law.  In spite of Ms. Lerner’s evident concern about the possibility of  her emails being found, Commissioner Koskinen says it’s silly to think anything more suspicious than a remarkable rash of hard-drive failures is to blame.

 

A new study by the Mercatus Institute says state taxes matter.  A summary says “The study finds that higher state taxes correlate with lower economic performance, even when controlling for various factors.”  It says that higher taxes lower economic growth, affect migration patterns, and reduce business startups. (hat tip: Maria Koklanaris, State Tax Notes ($link‘))

 

Carl O’Donnell, How The $1 Billion Kennedy Family Fortune Defies Death And Taxes.  Most politicians who vote for higher taxes do so assuming they won’t have to pay them. (via the TaxProf)

 

Kyle Pomerleau, Bill to be Introduced that Seeks to Reduce EITC Payment Error (Tax Policy Blog).  Unfortunately, fraud and error are baked into this cake.  You might as well try to take the chocolate out of toll house cookies.

 

20140513-1Jim Maule continues his Tax Myth series with Tips Aren’t Taxed Because They Are Gifts.  “Most people who collect tips are paid very little, rely on the tips to make a living, and are unhappy to learn that tips are included in gross income.”

Jason Dinesen, Glossary of Tax Terms: Head of Household   

It’s Friday, it’s Buzz Day at Robert D. Flach’s place.

Keith Fogg, Revoking the Release of the Federal Tax Lien and Appointing a Receiver (Procedurally Taxing)

 

TaxGrrrl, Who Should Pay For Schools? Answer Remains Unclear As Cigarette Tax Boost On Hold   Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.  For the children!

Renu Zaretsky,  Games, Spins, Ignorance and Patience.  Today’s TaxVox headline roundup covers, among other things,  Highway Trust Fund games, corporate inversions.

Steve Warnhoff, House Poised to Throw $276 Billion “Bonus” at Businesses.  (Tax Justice Blog).  He’d rather throw it at the government.

Kay Bell, LeBron ‘King’ James’ return to Cleveland could be a win-win for fans and the so-called Win Tax

 

20140711-2

 

A new Cavalcade of Risk is up!  R.J. Weiss hosts this edition of the blog world’s venerable roundup of insurance and risk management posts, including Hank Stern on Kidnap & Ransom Insurance.

I’ll bet he does.  Beanie Babies creator defends sentence of probation, no prison time, for tax evasion (Brandon Sun)

News from the Profession.  Just How Many CPA Roommates Can You Fit In a Single Apartment? (Leona May, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 6/25/14: Check your mailbox edition. And: the Commissioner’s real goal.

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2Ignore them and they will come anyway.  A Chicagoan tried to avoid IRS pursuit by the simple expedient of not picking up his mail.  The Tax Court told him yesterday that doesn’t work:

 On several occasions the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service) attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to deliver the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency to petitioner at the address of his Columbus Drive apartment. On at least two occasions the Postal Service left notices of attempted delivery of certified mail at that address. In those notices, the Postal Service informed petitioner that it had certified mail to deliver to him and that he had to sign a receipt for that mail before the Postal Service would deliver it to him.

The taxpayer never got around to doing so. Yet he still wanted to fight the deficiencies in Tax Court:

It is petitioner’s position that he is entitled under section 6330(c)(2)(B) to contest the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006. In support of that position, petitioner contends that although respondent mailed to him by certified mail, return receipt requested, the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency that was addressed to his Columbus Drive apartment, he did not receive that notice within the 90-day period during which he could have filed a petition with the Court with respect to that notice. In support of that contention, petitioner relies on his testimony at the partial trial in these cases. 

There’s a 90-day deadline to file with the Tax Court, starting with the receipt of the Notice of Deficiency.  The Tax Court enforces the deadline pretty strictly.  And you can’t extend the deadline just by ignoring your mail:

On the record before us, we hold that petitioner may not decline to retrieve his Postal Service mail, when he was reasonably able and had multiple opportunities to do so, and thereafter successfully contend that he did not receive for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B) the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency. On that record, we reject petitioner’s contention that he is entitled under that section to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006.

Nice try.

Cite: Onyango, 142 T.C. No. 24.

 

Paul Neiffer, Is Low Section 179 Causing Low Equipment Sales?

 

Mixed message.   From Tax Analysts ($link): “Taxpayers considering the IRS’s new streamlined filing compliance program need to think carefully about whether their actions were truly non-willful, because a certification that proves untrue could expose them to more charges from the Justice Department, Kathryn Keneally, former assistant attorney general for the DOJ Tax Division, said June 24.”

The Treasury just can’t quite get the hang of this.  What taxpayers need is bright-line guidance that lets them come into compliance, at least below a relatively-generous dollar threshold.  Instead they have to come in with their hands up, while the IRS reserves the right to open fire — to second guess their state of mind.  That’s not necessarily very comforting.

 

 

Rose Mary Woods checks her e-mail in the Nixon administration.

Rose Mary Woods checks her e-mail in the Nixon administration.

Howard GleckmanThe Real IRS Flap Is About Dark Money, Not Emails (TaxVox):

But get past the shouting and two very important issues remain on the table: The first is the IRS has been terribly managed for years and needs to be fixed. It’s easy to forget, but that’s why Koskinen is there.

The second is that the commissioner appears undeterred in his efforts to rewrite the rules for 501(c)(4) non-profits that are engaged in political activities. That seemingly obscure effort will have an enormous impact on future U.S. elections and the balance of political power in the U.S.

This is chilling.  And Mr. Gleckman seems to think it’s just an effort by a disintersted public servant to impose order on chaos:

Koskinen is under great pressure from liberal and conservative groups and from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to abandon the effort. Don’t for a minute think that the House’s proposed $300 million cut in the IRS budget, its endless requests for IRS documents on multiple subjects, and even the email hearings themselves are not in part an effort to sink—or at least slow–these regulations.

Yet, Koskinen has refused to blink.

If you think Koskinen isn’t a partisan operative at the IRS, you haven’t been paying attention.   All of the pressure to “reform” the (c)(4)s has come from the left.  And it’s clear from the Tea Party targeting that the IRS can’t be trusted to regulate political actors evenhandedly.  If Mr. Gleckman is right, Koskinen’s mission is not to help the IRS to recover from its scandalous practices, but to institutionalize them.

 

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 412.  About 40 links today, primarily on Commissioner Koskinen’s appearance before Congressional investigators and related missing e-mail developments.  It’s hard to imagine how this Commissioner could do a worse job at coming clean and improving IRS relationships with GOP congressional appropriators.

Jonathan Adler, IRS agrees to pay non-profit group $50,000 for unauthorized release of tax return.  But nobody will lose their job, and the $50,000 won’t come out of any individual perpetrator’s pocket.  In fact, the leaker gets to maintain his/her anonymity, and presumably employment too.  And even though it was an illegal, and presumably partisan, disclosure of taxpayer information, the Justice Department isn’t going to investigate.

TaxGrrrl, Lois Lerner And The Case Of The Missing Emails.  “Yes, that’s right: the IRS used the same backup strategy for its important data that I used to record my soap operas in college.”

Russ FoxKoskinen Channels His Inner Nixon. “The IRS continues to look hyper-partisan, and that’s not a good thing for anyone.”

The Hill, Archives official: IRS didn’t follow law on missing emails.   But Commissioner Koskinen says no apologies are in order, so stop bothering him.

 

No Walnut STAccounting Today, AICPA Says IRS Voluntary Tax Preparer Certification Program Is Unlawful:

The AICPA’s letter emphasizes the following points:

• First, no statute authorizes the proposed program;

• Second, the program will inevitably be viewed as an end-run around Loving v. IRS, (a federal court ruling rejecting an earlier IRS attempt to regulate tax return preparers);

• Third, the IRS has evidently concluded, in developing the proposed program, that it need not comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. This is incorrect; and

• Finally, the current proposal is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to address the problems presented by unethical tax return preparers, runs counter to evidence presented to the IRS, and will create market confusion.

Not that being illegal will bother them; see above.

 

Arnold Kling, In Our Hands.  Mr. Kling discusses his idea for replacing all means tested welfare programs like the Earned Income Credit with a universal voucher: “Keep in mind that under current policy, many low-income households face effective marginal tax rates of 100 percent or higher. That is, they are better off with something less than full-time, year-round work.”

 

David Brunori, A Bad Law Addressing a Bad Business Tax (Tax Analysts Blog)

Local option business taxes, whether imposed on income, gross receipts, or personal property, are terrible ways to raise revenue. Only 14 states authorize their use, and they raise a paltry sum compared with the property tax or even local option sales and income taxes. Virtually all the public finance experts who have studied the issue denounce their use.

Of course, Iowa has lots of these.

 

20120606-1Sydni Pierce, Congress, Take Note: More States Are Reforming Antiquated Fuel Taxes This Summer (Tax Justice Blog)

Andrew Lundeen, Obamacare Increases Marginal Tax Rate on Labor by Six Percentage Points (Tax Analysts Blog).   “In the case of the Affordable Care act, Mulligan is talking about implicit marginal tax rates, or ‘the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working.'”

 

Adrienne Gonzalez, Bernie Madoff’s Former Accountant Pleads Guilty But Clueless (Going Concern).  “Prosecutors say that Konigsberg didn’t intend to help defraud Madoff investors, but knowingly used fraudulently backdated trades provided by Mr. Madoff’s firm as he prepared tax returns for some clients’ investment account.”

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/13/14: UPS Ground grounds late filer. And: how “voluntary” would “voluntary” preparer regulation be?

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

UPS 2nd-dayUPS Grounded.  E-filing is the best way to make sure your filing is timely, but sometimes it’s just not available.  If you do an old-fashioned paper filing, you can rely on the “mailbox rule,” which says that a tax filing postmarked by the deadline is considered filed on-time.  The mailbox rule used to only apply to returns sent via the U.S. Postal Service, but the IRS expanded it to private carriers like UPS and Federal Express. The availability of private delivery services for timely last-minute filing has been a boon to procrastinators.  Few post offices stay open late anymore to receive last-minute tax filings, but there are 24-hour FedEx and UPS stores.  Unfortunately, the IRS rules on private delivery services are tricky, and they tripped up one taxpayer in Tax Court yesterday. The IRS lists qualifying private delivery services in Notice 2004-83.  The notice identifies specific services for DHL, UPS and FedEx that qualify for the mailbox rule.  The UPS services that qualify:

UPS Next Day Air, UPS Next Day Air Saver, UPS 2nd Day Air, UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., UPS Worldwide Express Plus, and UPS Worldwide Express.

The taxpayer in yesterday’s case sent his package via UPS Ground, and while sent before the 90-day deadline for Tax Court filings, it arrived after the deadline.  The Tax Court said that didn’t work:

 UPS Ground has not been designated by the Commissioner as a private delivery service. Notice 2004-83, supra. Thus, the timely mailing/timely filing rule of section 7502 does not apply to “UPS Ground” service… In so holding we acknowledge that the result may appear harsh, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner had nearly 90 days to file his petition but waited until the last moment to do so. However, the Court cannot rely on general equitable principles to expand the statutorily prescribed time for filing a petition.

The Moral?  If you use a private delivery service, make sure you use one that qualifies.  If you are filing with an IRS service center, be sure to use the correct street address, as the private delivery services can’t deliver to the service center post-office box addresses.

Cite: Sanders, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-47

 

 

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

TaxProfThe IRS Scandal, Day 369.  This edition links to the TaxProf’s own USA Today piece, The Media Ignore IRS Scandal:

Today’s news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them. Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may.

True all around.   Journalists don’t care to investigate their own team.

 

Leslie BookABA Tax Section Procedural Highlights and Cohen APA Teaser:

Even without legislation, OPR Director Karen Hawkins stated that IRS will take a narrow interpretation of Loving insofar as it relates to its ability to regulate practitioners. As to the policy relating to regulating preparers, Director Hawkins announced that IRS will soon begin a voluntary testing and education plan that will provide some benefits to preparers who opt in to a regulatory regime.

What does it take to teach some people?  You got whipped, IRS.  The courts ruled that you grossly overreached.  How do you find a “narrow interpretation” of that?  It sounds to me like they will make their new program “voluntary” in the same way the national accounting firm I used to work at made United Way contributions “voluntary” —  they always had 100% participation.

 

Russ Fox, Florida Doctor Does Much Wrong on her Way to ClubFed:

She (and allegedly her husband) created nominee accounts at UBS and other foreign banks; of course, that income didn’t find its way to her tax return. Her half of the sale of the medical schools also didn’t find its way to the tax return. Those nominee accounts were at foreign banks; she didn’t file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). And the money was used for conspicuous consumption: an airplane and three homes.

If you cheat on your taxes, it’s not wise to call attention to your wealth.

 

Wikipedia image

Wikipedia image

Jack Townsend, When is Booker Variance Too Much? Per DOJ, Certainly in the Ty Warner Case.  “What I draw from the sentence is that, when the hypothetical client is in the criminal cross-hairs asks the hypothetical reasonably welleducated and experienced criminal tax attorney with good judgement whether he [the client] will be treated as well as Ty Warner, the right answer is likely to be: ‘You’re not rich enough to get that quality of justice.’ “

 

Janet Novack, Prosecutor: Beanie Babies Billionaire Tax Cheat Didn’t Deserve `Get-Out-Of-Jail’ Card 

 

TaxGrrrl: What If Congressional Elections Were Run Like The NFL Draft?.  Well, a large percentage of football players are broke within three years of being drafted.  I’d favor that for congresscritters.

Kay Bell, IRS getting sneakier in tracking tax cheats.  ” If you’re bragging on Facebook about buying a Ferrari but reporting only $30,000 in annual income on your Form 1040, your social media comments will probably prompt the IRS to take an interest in you.”

 

It’s Tuesday Buzz-time!  At the Robert D. Flach emporium.

20140513-1

Lyman Stone, The Facts on Interstate Migration: Part One (Tax Policy Blog):

CBPP’s new report says that “State taxes have a negligible impact on Americans’ interstate moves,” and so falls pretty comfortably in the “taxes don’t affect migration” camp.What we’ve consistently argued at the Tax Foundation is that taxes matter on the margin, but that they’re just one of many factors. After reviewing Mazerov’s main arguments, this theme will be apparent: that his analysis doesn’t address the effect of taxes on the margin.

Any practitioner has dealt with cases where taxes do make a difference where people choose to live.  It’s painfully obvious when you live in a high-rate state with a zero-rate state (South Dakota) next door.  And to assume taxes don’t matter is to assume incentives don’t matter, which is like assuming gravity doesn’t hold things down.

Renu Zaretsky, Pizza, Expats and Drugs.  The TaxVox headline roundup covers today’s expected senate vote on extenders, take and bake pizza, and the high costs of FATCA for foreign companies who hire Americans abroad.

 

That’s clupeida roseus to you, Judge. States’ Failed Tax Policies Have Some Governors Throwing Red Herrings (Tax Justice Blog). 

Career Corner.  Helicopter Parents are Hitting Alumni Groups on LinkedIn to Find Junior a Job Now (Going Concern)

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/8/14: No, Virginian, there is no travel expense Santa Claus. And more!

Thursday, May 8th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120801-2News Flash: Tax Court Judges didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.  That insight might have occurred to a Virginian after yesterday’s Tax Court decision denying $64,775 in 2010  “car and truck expenses” for a “mobile advertising business” that grossed $7,200 in revenue.

The Virginian worked full-time for Verizon while traveling up a storm — 129,550 miles in 2010, by his own account.  Special Trial Judge Dean questioned The Virginian’s work ethic (my emphasis):

The number of hours petitioner worked for Verizon and purportedly drove for his mobile advertising business simply strains credulity. Petitioner’s monthly mileage for 2010 ranged from 7,419 miles to 17,864 miles. Petitioner testified that he drove at approximately 60 miles per hour. If it is possible that he could average 60 miles per hour in the month that he drove 17,864 miles, he spent at least 300 hours on the road that month or almost 10 hours a day. All this while working full time for Verizon.

The judge also has doubts about the business model:

Furthermore, petitioner’s extensive driving does not appear to be ordinary and necessary to his mobile advertising business. Petitioner claims that he drove all over the United States to post fliers and to advertise his own mobile advertising business, even though most of his clients were local clients except one online refinancing company. All the while, petitioner had very little income in relation to the excessive costs he incurred driving to put up flyers. Furthermore, the advertising for his own business appeared to be fruitless, as he never made a profit in any of the six years he engaged in the business, despite incurring great costs traveling to advertise mobile advertising business.

20140508-2But ultimately none of that mattered, because The Virginian failed to cross the initial threshold for deducting any sort of travel expenses — Section 274:

Notwithstanding whether petitioner’s excessive driving was ordinary and necessary for his mobile advertising business, he simply did not satisfy the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d) for claiming car and truck expenses… Petitioner had no backup receipts and no beginning and ending mileage for the automobile he allegedly used. 

Section 274(d) requires taxpayers to document travel expenses “by adequate records or sufficient evidence”

-the amount of expense,

-the time and place of the travel, and

-the business purpose of the trip.

For travel, that means receipts where possible (e.g., hotels), and contemporaneous calendars or logs documenting mileage.  Without that, your work ethic and business model doesn’t even come into play.

Cite: Abelitis, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-44.

 

20130114-1Roger McEowen, IRS Says Agents Acting Under Power of Attorney Subject to FBAR Reporting.  “The agent (along with the principal) is subject to the FBAR filing requirements if the POA gives the agent signature authority over a foreign account that exceeds the dollar threshold.” 

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 364.  Big day tomorrow.

TaxGrrrl, UPDATED: Timeline Of IRS Tax Exempt Organization Scandal.  It started with a planted question to try to blunt the impact of the impending TIGTA report that pointed out the targeting.

Kay Bell,  Lois Lerner held in contempt of Congress, ramping up next phase of midterm election year political posturing.  Yes, posturing is occurring — that’s what politicians do.  But Sam Ervin’s posturing — and he did his share — didn’t make Watergate less a scandal.

 

Cara Griffith, Transparency Versus Disclosure of Taxpayer Information (Tax Analysts Blog)  “…the disclosure of documents that contain taxpayer information, whether required by state law or the result of litigation, does not encourage transparency in tax administration.”  I agree; unfortunately, the IRS hides behind dubious assertions of confidentiality to cover up its own questionable behavior.

 

Jason Dinesen, Hold the Phone on the IRS E-file Outrage Machine.  No, don’t.  It’s still outrageous.

20140508-1Peter Reilly, Nonrecognition On Divorce Transfers Hurts Receiving Spouse .  It did in this case, when the recipient spouse had to pay tax.   Taxpayers receiving property in divorce receive the other spouse’s basis, and the other spouse doesn’t have a taxable sale.  But it’s still good policy.  Property settlements are contentious enough without hitting somebody giving up property with income tax on that dubious privilege.  Also, if the IRS got a cut, there would be less marital property to split in the first place.

Alan Cole, Failing by its Own Standard: What DC’s Insurance Tax Tells Us About its Obamacare Exchange (Tax Policy Blog)

Tax Justice Blog, What’s the Matter with Kansas (and Missouri, and …). “An anti-tax, Republican super majority in the Missouri Legislature claimed victory yesterday in a year-long battle with Gov. Jay Nixon over taxes by voting to override Nixon’s veto of a $620 million income tax cut.”

Do tell.  California Legislative Analyst’s Office Raises Concerns with Film Tax Credits (Lyman Stone, Tax Policy Blog).

Renu Zaretsky rounds up tax headlines for TaxVox with Contempt, Audits, Health Care, and Highways.

Janet Novack, Mansion Tax Kills Some Million Dollar Home Sales, Study Concludes.  Taxes always matter.

Jack Townsend, Another Foreign Account Sentencing.

 

Quotable:

The practice of regularly renewing the extenders package is unfortunate and should be stopped. It distorts the budget process, encourages legislative rent seeking, and invites highly particularistic legislative provisions that are better characterized as windfalls and wasteful government spending rather than well-targeted tax incentives.

Victor Fleischer,  Tax Legislation in the Contemporary U.S. Congress (Via the Taxprof)

News from the Profession: Grant Thornton Tries to Motivate With the Human Centipede, or Something (Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup: April 30, 2014: Force of nature edition. And: Extenders move in U.S. House.

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Iowa 1040s are due today!  If you are 90% paid in, they extend automatically with no filing.  If you need more time and need to pay in something, use IA 1040-V.

 

20130113-3House votes to make permanent six “expiring” provisions.  The House Ways and Means Committee voted to permanently extend six of the perpetually-expiring tax breaks that Congress renews every year or two.  They include:

  • A simplified version of the research credit
  • The five-year built-in gain tax recognition period for S corporations
  • The $500,000 Section 179 deduction limit
  • A provision reducing the net basis reduction for S corporation donations of appreciated property to the basis of the property.

The committee also voted for two international extenders.

The votes were mostly along party lines, which means they are unlikely to be passed in this form by the Democratic-controlled Senate. The Senate Finance Committee has already approved its own temporary extender package, and my guess is the final extenders package will look like the Finance Committee bill.

Tax Analysts reports ($link) that the committee isn’t done with extenders, but it isn’t clear when it will look at Bonus Depreciation.

The “no” votes for the House package objected to the lack of offsets to the revenue “lost” by the package.   I’m less upset.  While I oppose the research credit on principle, these provisions are permanent anyway; the whole “extender” process is a sham, conducted only to pretend that the tax breaks aren’t permanent so they “cost” less under Congressional accounting rules.  It’s the sort of thing that would be a felony in the private sector, but just another day for our leaders.  At least the House bill drops the pretense that these things won’t get passed every time they expire.

 

Additional coverage available at Accounting Today.

Related:

Tax Justice Blog, Rep. Dave Camp’s Latest Tax Gambit Is “Fiscally Irresponsible and Fundamentally Hypocritical”

Clint Stretch, Dreams of Tax Reform (Tax Analysts Blog)

 

 

20130117-1No gas tax boost this year.  Sioux City Journal reports that a last-gasp attempt to boost Iowa gasoline taxes died last night as the General Assembly continues its pre-adjournment frenzy.

 

David Brunori, Sad Pragmatism and Tax Incentives (Tax Analysts Blog).  “If tax incentives are an unavoidable reality, we should make them as transparent and accountable as possible.”  True, but that doesn’t excuse the politicians who take your money and give it to their special friends.

 

The Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation has released its 2014 summer seminar schedule.  It includes a slate of webinars on topics from Ethics to ACA mandates.  There will also be two big out-of-town events, in West Baden Springs, Indiana, and West Yellowstone, Montana.  I’m not able to participate this year, but they are a hoot and a great learning experience.

 

TaxGrrl, Widow Loses House Over $6.30 Tax Bill.  “A Pennsylvania woman has lost her home for little more than the cost of a Starbucks Frappuccino.”  The law in all its majesty.

Kay Bell, File IRS Form 1040X to correct old tax mistakes

Peter Reilly, Graduation Contingency Kills Alimony Deduction.  It’s very easy to screw up an alimony deduction with bells and whistles, as Peter explains.

 

20120531-1Jason Dinesen, Preparer Regulation and Judging Preparers Based on Size of Refund.  “Anyone who’s worked in this business has experienced the irate client who thinks the preparer screwed up because their refund was less than their friend/co-worker/hair dresser, etc.”

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 356

Jack Townsend, U.S. Congressman Indicted for Tax Related Crime

Joseph Thorndike, Airlines Say Ticket Taxes Would Be More Visible if They Were Better Hidden (Tax Analysts Blog)

Alan Cole, What Gift Cards Can Teach Us About Tax Policy (Tax Policy Blog)

Renu Zaretsky, Funding Tax Breaks, the IRS, and Public Pensions, Safety, and Schools.  The TaxVox headline roundup.

 

News from the Profession.  EY Is Tackling the Important Issue of Dudes’ Need for Flexibility (Going Concern)

 

Clear error is a standard used by appellate courts to review some lower court decisions.  A Tax Court case decided by Judge Paris dealing with horse losses yesterday involved purported destruction of records by an old girlfriend.  Here’s where the clear error comes in:

The wrath of a former girlfriend may be a formidable force, but it is not analogous to a hurricane-like natural disaster, and it does not constitute a reasonable cause outside petitioner’s control.

I’ve met Judge Paris, and I strongly suspect she’s never dealt with a bitter former girlfriend. Anyone who has would never have written such a thing.  But as she pointed out that the petitioner provided no evidence that such destruction occurred, so you oughta know that the case probably still is on solid ground.

 

Cite: Roberts, T.C. Memo 2014-74.  Additional coverage from Paul Neiffer, Partial Taxpayer Victory on Horse Farm Case

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 4/24/14: A(m)way to deduct your car? And: shame on you for doing my bidding!

Thursday, April 24th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

logoamwCan an Amway distributorship ever be taxed as a legitimate business?   It must be possible, but I’ve yet to see one win in Tax Court.  A case decided this week illustrates common tax problems seen with “downline” folks involved in Amway and other multi-level marketing ventures.

A doctor and his wife got involved with Amway, an MLM operation that sells household, nutritional and cosmetic products.  In addition to the medical practice income, they reported Amway results on a Schedule C.  We can guess from the results how they attracted IRS notice:

20140424-1

The Tax Court case involved their 2009 tax year.  Here are the expenses that went into their 2009 loss:

 

20140424-2

For some reason the IRS questioned the need for $25,000 in vehicle and travel expenses to sell stuff out of their home.  The tax law’s Section 183 “hobby loss” rules prohibit deductions in excess of income if the business isn’t conducted for profit.  The courts have developed a set of factors to evaluate in determining a taxpayer’s intent.  Tax Court Judge Guy went down the list, including:

Manner in Which Petitioners Carried On the Amway Activity

Although petitioners kept records of their Amway expenses, they did not use those records to analyze their business performance or to prepare profit projections, a break-even analysis, or a formal budget. Despite several years of activity during which they realized cumulative net losses of $192,427, petitioners failed to make any meaningful change in their strategy or tactics in an effort to increase the likelihood of earning a profit. On this record, it is a fair inference that petitioners used their records only to compute the amounts of losses attributable to the Amway activity when preparing their tax returns. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that petitioners did not conduct the Amway activity in a businesslike manner.

And:

Petitioners’ History of Income or Loss

 At the time of trial petitioners had never reported an annual profit in respect of the Amway activity. To the contrary, they reported cumulative net losses of $192,427 from 2005 through 2011. The modest gross receipts that petitioners derived from the activity have been eclipsed by the substantial expenses they incurred over the years. Although petitioners testified that they believe the Amway activity will eventually generate profits, we cannot discern on this record any definitive trend to the upside for petitioners, and there certainly is no indication that they are on their way to the level of profitability that would allow them to recoup the substantial cumulative losses they have incurred to date. In sum, petitioners’ history of consistent and substantial losses is indicative of a lack of profit objective.

I avoid multi-level marketing clients because their “profit” so often comes from putting personal expenses on Schedule C.  It sure seems that way here.

The Tax Court declined to impose penalties, citing taxpayer maintenance of good records and reliance on a CPA to prepare their returns.  Considering that the Tax Court has upheld penalties for taxpayers who are more sympathetic than a doctor deducting his car, it’s somewhat surprising.  It shows that even if you can’t show a profit motive, using  good records and a preparer can at least help avoid penalties.

Cite: Mikhail, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-40

 

For a recent taxpayer victory on a hobby loss case, see Peter Reilly’s Horse Breeder/Lawyer Wins In Tax Court. Was It Worth It? 

 

20120906-1Special favors for special friends. Senate sends governor a bill containing tax break for Knoxville Speedway. (O. Kay Henderson).  Iowa’s long-time sprint-car track gets a special deal to keep sales tax it collects, like the NASCAR track in Iowa.  Meanwhile, everybody else competing for Iowa entertainment dollars has to remit to the state the sales taxes they are required to collect.  Sweet deal, when you have the pull.

 

Iowa WatchdogIowa congressman urged IRS to investigate nonprofits:

Four days after the head of the Internal Revenue Service denied the agency was targeting conservative social welfare organizations applying for tax exempt status, Rep. Bruce Braley signed a letter urging a probe into the political activities of social welfare organizations.

Braley was one of 30 Democratic members of Congress who signed the letter, dated March 26, 2012, to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman urging him to investigate whether “any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity.”

It’s funny how so many folks who urged the IRS to get all political on their opponents now deny it did any such thing.  Mr. Braley takes a different approach:

In May 2013, Braley called the IRS targeting of conservative groups “shameful,” saying “there is no place for politics at the IRS.”

Shame on you for doing what I told you to do!

 

20140401-1Paul Neiffer, Social Security Drops Efforts To Collect Old Debts From Children of Debtors. Maybe.

Kay Bell, Got debts? They could eat into your tax refund

Keith Fogg, Collection of Restitution Payments by the IRS (Procedurally Taxing)

Jason Dinesen, Is it Okay for Clients to Text a Professional Service Provider?   Not if they don’t have your cell phone number!

Jack Townsend, Crossing the Line in Tax Planning:

I report today on a civil case that shows how a civil dispute can involve a situation that perhaps should have been a criminal case… Essentially, the taxpayers created a paperwork façade to give the appearance of qualifying for the [first-time homebuyer] credit, but the facts outside the paperwork showed that they did not qualify.

You see a lot of that with refundable credits.

 

 

Andrew Lundeen, How High Investment Taxes Contribute to Inequality. (Tax Policy Blog)

William Perez, Tax Reform Act of 2014, Part 6, Retirement Plans

Cara Griffith, Solving the ‘Problem’ of Remote Sales (Tax Analysts Blog). “All things being equal, I would rather enforce the use tax than needlessly broaden the sales and use tax nexus standard.”

Tax Justice Blog, Missouri Lawmakers Relentless in Quest for Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.  In Iowa, we prefer to do favors for the well-connected, rich or poor.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 350.  Includes a link to Bruce Braley Urged IRS to Target Groups Before IRS Targeting Scandal Emerged.

Me: HSA Contribution Max for 2015 $3,350 single, $6,650 family.

KSDK.com: Man swallows 12 gold bars to evade taxes.  Sometimes you can actually feel sorry for the tax collector.

Career Corner.  Judge: Talking dirty not reason enough to lose job (Des Moines Register)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 4/21/14: Clearing the wreckage edition. And: Tax Court penalty abuse.

Monday, April 21st, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20140330-2So I took a five-day weekend.  I needed the sleep, and to see something besides the office, my bed, and my commuting route.  So now to clear the debris of the last few weeks from my desk, and my email inbox.

And I come back to see perhaps the dumbest thing ever to come out of the Tax Court.  Janet Novack reports:

“Taxpayers rely on IRS guidance at their own peril,” Judge Joseph W. Nega wrote in an order entered  on April 15th —an order denying a motion that he reconsider his earlier decision to penalize tax lawyer Alvan L. Bobrow for making an IRA rollover move that IRS Publication 590,  Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), says is allowed.

Which is more astounding: he IRS decision to seek penalties against a taxpayer for following IRS guidance, or the Tax Court going along?  A great deal of what we do as professionals, and what taxpayers do, is in reliance on IRS guidance, because often that’s all there is to go on.  If you can get hit with a penalty for following IRS guidance if the IRS changes its mind, we’re all avoiding disaster only as long as the IRS is in a good mood.

This unwittingly goes to the heart of the IRS non-enforcement of the Obamacare employer mandate. The statute provides that the penalty tax on those with 50 or more employees starts this year if they fail to provide specified health insurance.  Nothing in the statute provides otherwise.  The only thing standing between all these employers and massive penalties is IRS guidance — y0u know, the guidance that Judge Nega just said taxpayers rely on “at their own peril.”

The whole Tax Court should reconsider this order.  If they decide that something that stupid really is the law, Congress should reverse with legislation providing that taxpayers relying on written IRS guidance should never be penalized for it.

 

20130419-1Megan McArdle kindly linked to me last week in You Can’t Fight the IRS — specifically, to Tax season tip: when you owe and can’t pay.  She added some thoughtful commentary, including:

 There are basically three types of tax trouble. There is “I was underwithheld at work because my salary changed over the course of the year but didn’t realize it” or “I’m a freelancer or small-business owner, and I forgot to put away enough money for taxes, or I incorrectly estimated what my tax bill would be.” Then there is “I am a small-business owner or otherwise self-employed, and I am on the brink of financial collapse; the money with which I hoped to pay the taxes had to go to keep my creditors (barely) at bay.” And, of course, though I hope this is not you, there is “I have been cheating on my taxes.”

She notes that different troubles require different solutions.

Thanks to her link, and to one from Instapundit to the same post, last week was the busiest around here all year.  My thanks to them, and to everyone who takes the time to link here.  You rock my little world.  If you ever want to link to just a piece of a Tax Roundup, you can do so if it starts in blue bold letters, like the words “Megan McArdle” at the beginning of this segment.

 

While I was too busy to do Tax Roundups at the end of tax season, I missed some excellent Bozo Tax Tips from Russ Fox, including Bozo Tax Tip #1: The Eternal Hobby Loss

 

Greg Mankiw,Transitory Income and the One Percent:

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution….  

-Quoting a NY Times article by Mark Rank

Occupy… yourselves!

 

Jason Dinesen, Another Tax Season Down — 2014 Tax Season Recap 

Paul Neiffer, Another Tax Season Bites the Dust.  “This year was actually much easier on myself and I think most of my compatriots since we did not have Congress passing a tax bill on the last day of the year to mess up the IRS computers (although the computers have other issues to deal with).”

TaxGrrrl, IRS Reports Tax Filing Numbers As Expected, Issues Statement On Refund Delays 

Robert D. Flach, THAT WAS THE TAX SEASON THAT WAS.  “43 down – 7 to go!”  I hope to stop before 43, myself.  Robert is tougher than I am.

In case you missed it, you can see my April 15 interview with local TV station KCCI here.

 

 

Locust Street, Des Moines

Locust Street, Des Moines

Tony Nitti, Tax Geek Tuesday: Tax Planning For Mergers And Acquisitions, Part I.  “…if we spend the time necessary to uncover and understand our clients’ non-tax and tax goals, we will typically find that choosing an ideal transaction structure is largely a process of elimination, and when the dust settles, there will often be only one option that works.”

Peter Reilly, Sawyer Taxi Heirs Midcoast Fortrend Deal – Could Have Been Worse.  It involves a C corporation attempting to have its cake while eating it too, by paying stock-deal tax on an asset sale.

Christopher Bergin, Tax Day – It Just Isn’t Fair (Tax Analysts Blog)  “I suppose the only good news is that in the last several days, there have been dozens of items in the news reporting that the IRS is doing fewer audits.”

Tax Justice Blog, Partners in Crime? New GAO Report Shows that Large Corporate Partnerships Can Operate Without Fear of Audits

Kyle Pomerleau, Why Many People are Wrong about Executive Pay and the Corporate Tax Code.  “A neutral tax code that properly defines business income would place no restriction on how much a business can deduct in compensation.”

Howard Gleckman, If Congress Lets Firms Expense Investments, It Should Take Away Their Interest Deduction.  Fine, if you let them deduct dividends.

 

Going Concern, Utah Man Discovers Liberty Tax Not as Effective as Maury Povich in Determining Paternity.

 

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 4/11/14. Why we extend. And: Tax Doctor, Tax Fairy?

Friday, April 11th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

4868Some folks just don’t like extensions.  Maybe they want their refund NOW.  Maybe they have never extended their return before, and they think it is somehow against the rules.  Some people believe an extension invites the IRS to come in and audit them.  And some people think they are just so special that they can bring in a complex return missing K-1s on April 10th and the preparers should just drop everything and get them filed somehow.

There isn’t much to do for the last category, except perhaps medication, or a thrashing by a crazed sleep-deprived preparer, but for more sensible folks, a basic understanding of extensions might help.

Extensions aren’t against the rules; the rules specifically provide for them.  Even in simpler times, tax administrators knew that it isn’t always possible for a busy person to put together all of the pieces of a tax return by April 15.

You still should pay up.  While extensions give you more time to file your tax return, they don’t give you extra time to pay.  The tax law asks you to estimate your tax liability and penalizes you  if you don’t have at least 90% of your taxes paid in by the April 15 deadline; the penalty is 1/2 percent per month.

Why bother with an extension if I can’t delay payment?    Probably the most important one is that if you are short of cash, the penalty for late payment on a return that you didn’t bother to extend is 5% per month — ten times the penalty for late payment on an extended return.  It forces you to at least take a stab at guessing your liability, helping you identify what pieces you have to gather to complete your extended return.  It also keeps you in compliance, and once you stop filing on time, it can be a hard habit to break.

But won’t it get me audited?  There’s no evidence that an accurate extended return filed during the extension period is any more likely to be audited than it would be filed on April 15.  The IRS selects returns based on what’s on them, now on whether they are extended.

There’s plenty of evidence that returns with errors are more likely to get extra IRS attention.  A return thrown together at the last minute is more likely to have errors than an extended return done during normal working hours by somebody who’s had some sleep.    For what it’s worth, I have extended my own return every year since 1991 with no IRS examination (knock wood).

Efile logoEfile logoe-file logoHow do I extend?  You file Form 4868 either on paper or electronically, along with any necessary payment, by April 15.  The IRS has more details here. It’s common to pay in enough to also cover your first quarter estimated tax payment with the extension.  It gives you some cushion in case you find more 2013 income while completing your return, and you can apply your return overpayment to your  2014 estimated tax when you do file your 2013 1040.

States have their own rules.  Iowa automatically extends your return without the need to file an extension form if you are at least 90% paid-in by the April 30 due date.  If you need to send them some money to get to 90%, you send it with Form IA 1040-V.

Our series of 2014 Filing Season Tips goes right through April 15.  Check back tomorrow for another one!

Russ Fox, Bozo Tax Tip #3: Be Suspicious!

 

tax fairyBelief in the Tax Fairy peaks at tax time.  The Tax Fairy is that magical sprite who will make all of your taxes go away painlessly while your sucker friends still send checks to the tax man.  It’s amazing what Tax Fairy adherents will believe.  Consider a Californian who worked as a software consultant.  He was put in touch with a “Tax Doctor” (my emphasis):

Early in 2006 petitioner’s friends recommended that he talk to the “Tax Doctor Corporation” (Tax Doctor) operated by a person representing himself to be Dr. Lawrence Murray (Murray). Petitioner spoke with Murray and members of Murray’s staff. Petitioner’s discussions with Murray and his staff consisted mostly of “a bit of a sales pitch”. They explained how they would handle his tax return preparation, what the tax savings would be, and the “structure” they would use.

Murray proposed setting up two corporations and preparing petitioner’s individual and corporate Federal income tax returns. Murray explained to petitioner that one corporation would be “operational” and the other would focus on “management”. Petitioner was unsure at trial which corporation was the operations entity and which was the management entity. Under the agreement with Murray petitioner would pay the Tax Doctor, as a fee for setting up the structure, the amount of the tax savings generated by the use of the structure. 

What could go wrong?

His C.P.A. told him that she was willing to incorporate his business activity but she would not do what the Tax Doctor had proposed because it was very aggressive. Petitioner, despite the advice of his C.P.A., decided to accept the proposal of the Tax Doctor.

I don’t need a CPA, I have a Tax Doctor!

Petitioner filed his 2006 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, showing taxable income of zero. Nev Edel, one of the corporations the Tax Doctor formed for petitioner, filed a Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the fiscal year ending (FYE) November 30, 2007. Nev Edel reported gross receipts of $285,785, total income of $291,669, and total deductions of $295,214. The largest single deduction was $237,600 for “contracted services”. Smoge Corp., the other corporation the Tax Doctor formed for petitioner, filed a 2006 Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation. Smoge Corp. reported total income of $186,640 and total deductions of $188,644. The largest single deduction was $172,166 for “contracted services”.

Somehow things went awry.

Murray was prosecuted and convicted in 2010 of Federal crimes associated with the preparation of his own returns and the returns of others.

This presumably led to IRS attention to our consultant’s returns, and a big assessment.  The taxpayer tried to avoid penalties because he relied on the Tax Doctor in good faith.  The Tax Court thought otherwise:

The advice of the C.P.A., who had no financial stake in the outcome of petitioner’s return positions, should have put petitioner on notice that additional scrutiny of Murray’s advice was required.

The moral?  If your tax professional, who does this for a living, says something is bogus, they just might be right.  And there is no Tax Fairy.

Cite: Somogyi, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-33.

 

20140411-1William Perez, Six Things to Do Before April 15th

Kay Bell, What are ordinary & necessary business expenses? It depends

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 337.  More a boatload than a smidgen today.

That’s OK, you can just send me a gift card. Christopher Bergin, The Gift That Is Lois Lerner (Tax Analysts Blog):

Something bad happened here. And however bad her behavior, the problem isn’t Lerner. The problem is a culture that allows what she did to continue and that probably allows behavior that’s much, much worse.

Andrew Lundeen, What Could Americans Buy with the $4.5 Trillion They Pay in Taxes? (Tax Policy Blog).  A nice gift card, perhaps.

TaxGrrrl, House Committee Votes To Hold Lerner In Contempt, Others Push For Criminal Prosecution

Joseph Thorndike, How Dave Camp’s Failure Might Be Michael Graetz’s Victory (Tax Analysts Blog)

Peter Reilly, Clergy Out In Force To Defend Their Housing Tax Break   

Sports Corner: David Cay Johnston vs. Tax Girl on Twitter: PLACE YOUR BETS (Going Concern)

 

Share